Quadruplets Admitted to Yale

[NearL]

<p>

In a system without AA, Native Americans would need to compete at the same level (exceed the bare standard required for admission) as their white and Asian counterparts.

</p>

<p>Native Americans already exceed the bare standard required for admissions. I’m pretty sure for every Native American student at Yale, you can find a white student that’s neither a legacy nor an athlete that has WORSE stats.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>Actually since you mentioned it NearL athelitic recruitment is essentially affirmative action for whites, as the sports Yale most recruits for such as: sailing, crew, golf, tennis, and fencing, are all largely white sports that are cultivated at East Coast Prep schools.</p>

<p>Another anedote, one of my other good friends is a fence recruit and was only in the top 30% of his class. </p>

<p>If Asian students were ever to actually see the qualifications of the atheletes who get admitted and the high proportion of atheletes at top schools like HYP, then they might find out the real reasons they weren’t admitted.</p>

<p>And another issue that is never talked about is the nepotism that exists toward private high school. For example out of the 13 from Houston admitted to Yale in my year, 5 of them all came from the same prep school. There is no real fairness in college admissions except in people’s imagination.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

“In a system without AA, Native Americans would need to compete at the same level (exceed the bare standard required for admission) as their white and Asian counterparts.”

</p>

<p>Actually you are being non-sensical, at schools like Yale there is a threshold and above that threshold everyone has the same qualifications. Any admission officer will tell you that beyond 2200 or 33 it doesn’t matter what score someone has, because then they view them as being acceptable. So if you look at the lowest white person, then that would be the bare standard for acceptance to the university based on merit. So if a native american or minority where beyond that standard then they would be just as qualified as their white or asian counterparts.</p>

[NearL]

<p>

Nobody knows the answer to this question save the admission’s committe at said university, which differs in its admission’s practices from those of another college.

</p>

<p>Then who are you to say whether or not the students were qualified enough? It seems as though whatever standard a minority student might meet, you find lacking unless said student was simply perfect. It seems like you’d deny a minority student legitimacy unless they were perfect - which you do not require for white students. That is racist.</p>

<p>The correct answer is ‘whatever the admissions commitee admits’. The fact that adcoms admit that they cannot admit every qualified student is proof that qualified is a binary concept. You’re either qualified or your not. </p>

<p>

blacks receive admission into at 2-1 rate in comparison to whites and Asians, despite an average SAT that is lower by 345 points (and invariably correlates to lower objective statistics in other categories).

</p>

<p>How does that “invariably correlate to lower objective statistics in other categories”? The only other “objective statistic” is GPA, and black students could have GPA’s just as good as their white counterparts but come from weaker schools. That preparation might lead to lower SAT.</p>

<p>Your obvious racial bias is clouding your reason. You desperately want to believe that black students are inferior so you make brash assumptions. You won’t be able to do that in college, kiddo!</p>

<p>

In light of statistics that substantiate such discriminatory practices, you always maintain complete silence regarding them and instead revert to arguments that personally attack.

</p>

<p>Quote me saying that Affirmative Action didn’t exist or that minorities don’t recieve preferences. I’m now arguing for their justification.</p>

<p>

Your legitimacy as a debater is already absent by expounding ad hominem arguments

</p>

<p>You clearly do not know what an ad hominem argument is. I’m not arguing against mifune (though I did take two shots at your prose). I’m simply reasoning away your psuedo-logical arguments for supporting white supremacy. I want to strip you of your rhetoric and expose your racism. If you would allow yourself to be given to reason for just a moment and work with me, I’m sure you’d find that you are, in fact, making racist, self-serving arguments.</p>

<p>

attack arguments not the individual.

</p>

<p>Shall I quote your attacks on me?</p>

<p>

You say my arguments are torn apart when they are not. They are rooted in moral, ethical, and statistical verification

</p>

<p>You don’t argue for a policy like this with morality because your moral values may differ from that of others. If your argumen tis rooted in morality, then your argument is rooted in
something other than cold rationality.</p>

<p>Sorry about your arguments, bro! You can refuse to respond. I’ll just continue to shred your arguments and others will continue to read and agree with me!</p>

[mifune]

<p>

If minorities wanted vengeance they would call for the extermination of whites, not Affirmative Action. But more importantly, Affirmative Action isn’t vengeance because minorities didn’t start Affirmative Action initiatives (which aren’t law, by the way). They don’t force it on employeers or educational institutions. They don’t hold them hostage with claims of racism or threats to riot. The institutions chose to operate under Affirmative Action, which is to say that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, color, religion, etc. That manifests itself as initiatives to prove their claim by seeking out minorities.

</p>

<p>AA is for all intents and purposes vengeance since it replaces old wrongs with new wrongs by slanting admission policies. Yes, AA is not law, but employers and educational institutions utilize it to set racial quotas. That cannot be disputed since practicing colleges institute the policy to admit a specific amount of race-based admits in order to falsely claim that they are, “diversifying their talents.” I believe that we can all agree that no causal force is evident by virtue of the specific level of melanin in one’s skin. Your second-to-last sentence in the above quote is one of the most prominent incongruities I have ever come across.</p>

<p>

They deserve some help as a result. Why do you deny/ignore this inconvient but obvious fact?

</p>

<p>Current social policy promotes the equal treatment regardless of ethnicity since our political rights are equivalent. AA seeks to undermine the characteristic work ethic of our nation. Why must whites and Asians need to garner more points on their college applications than minority applicants? </p>

<p>

Only 200 universities and colleges are anything close to competitive. Maybe 50 are legimiately competitive. The other 2000 colleges are literally open admissions. Thus your claim that affirmative action has come to ‘dominate American college admissions’ is highly fallacious.

</p>

<p>This entire thread has concerned colleges that use AA as an admission policy. For universities that use race-blind admission policies, you will see that minority admits are significantly lower than those of whites and Asians, who were solely based on their academic accomplishments, subjective successes, and personal qualities and promise that can positively contribute to a college atmosphere. (See link provided in a previous post). The blatant dissimilarity regarding admission’s at America’s top private universities substantiate the claims of discrimination committed at these institutions.</p>

<p>You again failed to address my concern that you do not heed statistics or provide those of your own that suggest some imaginary equality between the rate of admissions between those representing minority and majority ethnic groups.</p>

[mifune]

<p>I will inevitably be back tomorrow.</p>

[NearL]

<p>

Actually since you mentioned it NearL athelitic recruitment is essentially affirmative action for whites, as the sports Yale most recruits for such as: sailing, crew, golf, tennis, and fencing, are all largely white sports that are cultivated at East Coast Prep schools.

</p>

<p>Yes. It’s also worth noting that no one actually watches these sports. They don’t bring in revenue or really help Yale’s repuation. They exist to admit New England WASP that wouldn’t be admissable otherwise. That’s the majority of athletic recruitment, for you!</p>

<p>

Another anedote, one of my other good friends is a fence recruit and was only in the top 30% of his class.

</p>

<p>I know some students that are actually worse off than that. By a lot.</p>

<p>

If Asian students were ever to actually see the qualifications of the atheletes who get admitted and the high proportion of atheletes at top schools like HYP, then they might find out the real reasons they weren’t admitted.

</p>

<p>I’m very familiar with what’s going on and that’s why I’m arguing against these racist anti-AA sentiments: Because they aren’t grounded in merit or fairness or equality. They’re just a way to continue to subjugate and exclude minorities.</p>

<p>

And another issue that is never talked about is the nepotism that exists toward private high school. For example out of the 13 from Houston admitted to Yale in my year, 5 of them all came from the same prep school. There is no real fairness in college admissions except in people’s imagination.

</p>

<p>There are schools that send half of their students to top universities. There are schools that don’t even rank! Competing against the top public and especially top prep schools is almost impossible! The kids that go to those schools have a wealth of advantages that everyone likes to conveniently ignore. But when a black kid might get Affirmative Action, people freak out.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

AA is for all intents and purposes vengeance since it replaces old wrongs with new wrongs by slanting admission policies.

</p>

<p>I’m sorry but this is blatantly wrong. White people created affirmative action, not black people. So there was no “vengeance” involved. The reason white people created affirmative action is that they recognized that minoriites of today are at a disadvantage due to the wrongs of the past.</p>

<p>Moreover your rhetoric employing vengeance makes it seem as if you see affirmative action as some type of antagonistic policy that minorities created to seek retribution upon whites. This view is chilling not only in its ignorance, but also because of the acrimonious manner in which you craft race relations.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

“There are schools that send half of their students to top universities. There are schools that don’t even rank! Competing against the top public and especially top prep schools is almost impossible! The kids that go to those schools have a wealth of advantages that everyone likes to conveniently ignore. But when a black kid might get Affirmative Action, people freak out.”

</p>

<p>That is the truth. One of my friends here went to Thomas Jefferson in Viriginia and in his year 30 kids were admitted to Princeton from his school. That is ridiculous!!!</p>

[NearL]

<p>

AA is for all intents and purposes vengeance since it replaces old wrongs with new wrongs by slanting admission policies.

</p>

<p>A long time ago, your father shot Jills father and got away with it. I know this. Jill and your son are both applying for a job. Jill’s family never quite recovered from the death of their father financially.</p>

<p>I decided to give the job to Jill.</p>

<p>Is that vengeance? If so, your moral intuition is just broken. Or you don’t understand vengeance.</p>

<p>

Yes, AA is not law, but employers and educational institutions utilize it to set racial quotas.

</p>

<p>If employers and education institutions set racial quotas, why does minority enrollment fluctuate year to year?</p>

<p>

That cannot be disputed since practicing colleges institute the policy to admit a specific amount of race-based admits in order to falsely claim that they are, “diversifying their talents.”

</p>

<p>If that’s true, give me the specific number of Latino students that any of the top five colleges admits every year for three years. It should be easy if what you’re saying can’t be disputed.</p>

<p>

Why must whites and Asians need to garner more points on their college applications than minority applicants?

</p>

<p>I dunno. Why must whites continue to enjoy a wealth built on genocide, slavery and racism? Give all that up and then we’ll talk.</p>

<p>

For universities that use race-blind admission policies, you will see that minority admits are significantly lower than those of whites and Asians

</p>

<p>Fail. Actually, the majority of colleges are open-admission and thus effectively race-blind. The ones that have significant minority populations in the area have large black populations.</p>

[NearL]

<p>

That is the truth. One of my friends here went to Thomas Jefferson in Viriginia and in his year 30 kids were admitted to Princeton from his school. That is ridiculous!!!

</p>

<p>Sounds reasonable. TJ is an <strong>amazing</strong> competitive school. It’s legimitately the best high school in the country. The average SAT score is a around 2200. I know a few students from TJ personally. They are all insanely intelligent - even for Yaies.</p>

<p>That being said, going to TJ is a significant advantage. It takes talented students and ensures that they become top students.</p>

[amciw]

<p>Although I generally disagree with NearL and Dbate’s viewpoints on race-based affirmative action (and find it rather curious someone who is negatively benefited by it is arguing in favor of it), I will note that I wholeheartedly concur with their assessment of the majority of athletic recruiting. It is quite clearly a way to help richer, less intelligent whites get in from traditional feeder schools in the Northeast, and by virtue of these qualities, really adds an insufficient layer to the campus atmosphere to justify the specialized admissions. Note this is only for the traditionally rich, white sports such as squash and crew - I still think those that are true audience draws (the big four sports) can justify dropping admissions standards in order to ensure a certain level of team quality and competitiveness.</p>

<p>Also, to establish clarity, I would like to further note I don’t like the preference given to students at certain top private and public schools. Like much of the athletics recruiting noted above, it is clearly a vestige of the past that needs to be phased out in favor of a modern evaluation of our nation’s graduating seniors. While I recognize that these schools are overly competitive and generally have outstanding applicants, it seems to me that prospective students from these schools inordinately take precedence over those from lesser known educational institutions, to the detriment of geographic and intellectual diversity. I like Yale, and am glad I attend, but I will never spend a day there under the illusion that it is perfect.</p>

[lmpw]

<p>Dbate,again you’re so locked into this numbers game. The fact that you are aware of the different recruitment and standards for athletes should tell you something. Even if the person wasn’t at the top of their class, they AREN’T going to flunk out. They obviously can do the work. This is what all of you people who keep taking about ranks, test scores, etc. don’t get. In the end, these admissions officers are aware of who will make it and who will not. Read the book by Derek Bok and William Bowen on the Shape of the River that tracks Black students who went to elite colleges. Despite their admissions with lower test scores, these students graduated , continued on to graduate and professional school in large numbers and are doing EXTREMELY well. Again, Sonia Sotomeyer was admitted to Princeton with scores lower then the average but she graduate summa cum laude. I’ve heard Michelle Obama talk about how when she got to Princeton (where she also did extremely well), she was told she didn’t deserve to be there by many people like the ones on this board. She said when she graduated from Princeton and applied to Harvard Law School, she was again told she bymany whites that she probably wouldn’t get accepted. Then, when she WAS accepted, she was told she probably would flunk out. Of course, the expectations for students of color are always lower than for other students. If we listen and believe these statements, they become a self-fulfilling prophecy. i recall her telling a group of Black students to NEVER listen to people like the ones of on this board. I’ve been in elite higher education for more than 30 years and have seen what students can do, test scores notwithstanding. That is just one part of a larger equation. Some school no longer even require test scores. We in higher education can access candidates holistically. Read the book, Crafting a Class. Many of us on this thread have tried to educate you teenagers who think you know so much about how the system works. Dbate, to say that some other “abstract” applicant got rejected because of Michelle Obama or Sonia Sotomeyer is ridiculous. They were accepted because they helped make up the class that Princeton wanted for that year - plain and simple. Our society is better off (not JUST minorities) because they were admitted.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>Damn you all. I can never stay away from an affirmative action debate!</p>

<p>

That is the truth. One of my friends here went to Thomas Jefferson in Viriginia and in his year 30 kids were admitted to Princeton from his school. That is ridiculous!!!

Is it really? TJ is such a cut-throat school that if you have like a 3.5 GPA (which, given its rigor, is probably no easy accomplishment) and a 2100 SAT you’re probably looking at schools like Virginia Tech. If you have a gripe, I’d hold it more with the top private schools, not the TJs and Stuys that cherry pick top students (though top privates also do, to a lesser extent). This, though, is tangential to the discussion (which itself is tangential to the original topic of this thread).</p>

<p>

So there was no “vengeance” involved. The reason white people created affirmative action is that they recognized that minoriites of today are at a disadvantage due to the wrongs of the past.

You’re right to some extent. Earlier forms of affirmative action were used for “negative” discrimination, a la keeping Jews out of top schools. But whatever the reason, affirmative action certainly seems to fit. What I will say about what I just quoted though is this: Gandhi said it, MLK said it, and I say it now; an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

“Is it really? TJ is such a cut-throat school that if you have like a 3.5 GPA (which, given its rigor, is probably no easy accomplishment) and a 2100 SAT you’re probably looking at schools like Virginia Tech. If you have a gripe, I’d hold it more with the top private schools, not the TJs and Stuys that cherry pick top students (though top privates also do, to a lesser extent). This, though, is tangential to the discussion (which itself is tangential to the original topic of this thread).”

</p>

<p>Unless classes at Thomas Jefferson are harder than classes at Yale I see no reason why kids who attend TJ should get a boost in the admission process. I say that specifically because the classes that I take now at Yale are on par (or are easier) than the classes I had in high school, and I only went to a random public high school.</p>

[drbigboyjoe9505]

<p>I got to this discussion late, and like monstor cannot stay away from affirmative action debates. I actually sat here reading through all 20 pages, which is slightly embarrassing to admit. But, these discussions tend to get VERY repetitive and I wanted to make sure that I didn’t just repeat what someone else has already said 20 times. I doubt, however, that I can keep my argument wholly original.</p>

<p>I will say one thing, though, before I start. The topic of race relations and our nation’s history with race is TOO long and complex to attempt to use in order to argue for or against affirmative action. Undeniably, it is an indispensable part of the need for (and in fact the argument against) AA. However, without a thorough review of the history, simple mentions of it lend to weak arguments and easy counter arguments. So, I will keep my argument as basic as I can in order to avoid a weak argument.</p>

<p>Reading through most of this thread, I think most arguments against AA have been cited. And many counter arguments. But I think the most important is the realization that we have absolutely no idea how Ad Comms actually review applicants. We can cite the ancient practices of the University of Michigan, but the only thing we can conclude about admissions policies from this case is that the University of Michigan, and ONLY the University of Michigan, practiced the point system (and they no longer do). Private institutions, as far as we know, do not do this; so, any argument based on this logic is incorrect.</p>

<p>What we do know, because colleges say this, is that their purpose is to create a diverse class where they try and represent as many people as possible. And HERE lies the debate we should all be having. Why? Because AA, as we know it, does not exist in private elite universities. Only practices which enhance the diversity of an incoming class does. Now, we can call them AA for simplicity sakes, but it is not the same thing and it is important to realize this. AA, historically, was a mandate that university officials and employers pursue “immediate and affirmative action” (I believe the quote is) to diversify their student bodies and employees. To ensure this, quotas had to be instituted. But, private institutions are exempt from quotas (to a certain extent) but most of them consider a diverse student body to be a desirable trait in their school. So, they do not institute a maximum for underprivileged students, but rather seek to admit as many as possible.</p>

<p>So, if you realize that a school wants a diverse student body, then OBVIOUSLY they need to consider your race. In fact, they need to consider MANY other things: gender (which I’m surprised no one has mentioned since obviously there are disparities in this as well), socioeconomic class (the application asks you whether or not you are applying for financial aid; and they also make assumptions by where you live and the school you attended), geographic location, activities, religion, ability, etc.</p>

<p>Also important to realize is this misconception of qualification. Everyone is defining “qualified” to their own opinions. But this is completely invalid, since the only definition that matters is the one the school employs. In terms of stats, qualified means anything above a certain GPA and standardized test score. For you that might be the highest attained, a 2200, a 2300, a 2100, or a 1800. But, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The only thing the school cares about is that you performed well enough in high school to have a chance at succeeding at a competitive institution, like Yale. Once you pass that threshold, you then need to show the Ad. Comm. that you possess some unique quality that is desirable for their student body. (Yes, THEIR student body because in the end the only thing the Ad. Comm. is looking to do is to mold a class that THEY think would work best for the university.) So, they look for people who are into politics for the YPU, and for actors for the YDC and the Dramat, and for debaters for the Debate team, and for accomplished musicians for their symphonies, and for people interested in race for their cultural centers, and for researchers for their science departments, and the list continues. Then, within each category, they also try to get the most diversity as possible: so they try to get liberals and conservatives, opera singers and regular actors, wealthy and poor, physicists biologists and chemists, etc. That is all they care about.</p>

<p>Do people who fit the above “criteria” still get rejected/deferred? Yes. Why? Because there were probably (and it is bound to happen) numerous people whose resumes STILL look very similar - as unique and specific as they might seem; it is bound to happen in an applicant pool of almost 30,000. So why does one get in over another? I have recently been convinced that part of it is your personal essays, specifically how you write. I have met people at other institutions who are bright but whose writing is definitely not up to par with people at Yale. And I think this plays a big role in admissions. But also, recommendations and how your essays come off to the individual admissions person.</p>

<p>Does this seem too biased? Probably. But, university admissions has never been about who is “most qualified by numbers” nor has it ever been “fair” in the way that many people qualify fair here. Nor do I think that any institution actually ever pretends it is.</p>

<p>Finally, AA (the real AA, with quotas) will one day cease to exist. AA is not a permanent solution to our race problem. It was a step take to try and ameliorate it. I believe that 50 years is not enough time to solve a problem that has plagued our nation since before its inception. We have definitely made strides but we have not attained what we hope to attain. I believe we will at some point, and then AA will no longer be needed.</p>

[drbigboyjoe9505]

<p>

An HYPS (and other private universities that do use race as a considered quality for admission, of course) admit for a black/Hispanic/Native American student is not the equivalent of an HYPS admit for a white/Asian student because their admission policies are notorious for race-based admits. Thus even when minority students are as qualified and hold the other intangible qualities that yield an acceptance to said university, in society and by fellow students they seen as the individual who would have been accepted without an admission boost. This is by far the most venomous quality of affirmative action for minorities.

</p>

<p>This is not a venomous quality of affirmative action, but a venomous quality of our society and of people like you who believe it. You had at some point asked whether minorities in said institutions ever feel as if they did not deserve to be there because of AA, and, answering for myself, I can assure you that I have never felt as if I did not deserve what I’ve gotten. (Okay, maybe I have doubted certain grades I have received on assignments because I could not see how I could do so well on something I put so little effort in.) But, I NEVER thought that I did not deserve to get into Yale or anything else I have applied to because of my race. I know how hard I’ve worked and the obstacles I’ve had to overcome in order to attain what I have attained. And I think this is what makes me, and many other applicants that come from underprivileged backgrounds, so desirable. Did my “race” help me get in? Not in the way that you have attempted to misconstrue it. It helped me get into Yale insofar as Yale wanted a Latino male like me at Yale.</p>

<p>

Skin color may in essence correlate to unique social experiences but it is not something that is a direct causation. In fact if you argue in favor of race molding social experiences they are undeniably positive circumstances given our nation’s current degree of overliberality towards minorities and illegal immigrants.

</p>

<p>Skin color, like everything else that characterizes a person, DOES directly cause different social experiences. It directly causes everything. Who you are uniquely combines to give you a unique perspective on life and on many issues. How you are treated because of your skin color, or how you have been brought up because of your skin color (or ethnicity, culture, gender, ability, eye color, hair color, size of your nose, the shape of your eyes, etc.) gives you a unique perspective.</p>

<p>I would agree with what you have said at times that this thread has gotten a little childish and combative following some comments made by people on this thread. I will try to not partake in that and to restrain myself as much as possible from personal attacks. </p>

<p>However, I do need to say that your comment that race-based social experiences are undeniably positive is extremely offensive. You cannot ascribe other people’s social experiences, especially not that of minority groups with which you do not identify. Your comment is hurtful to anyone whose social experiences have not been positive, as undeniably many have.</p>

[amciw]

<p>

@drbigboyjoe9505

I have recently been convinced that part of it is your personal essays, specifically how you write. I have met people at other institutions who are bright but whose writing is definitely not up to par with people at Yale.

</p>

<p>Incidentally, I’ve read the writing of a lot of people at Yale (of all races) that I didn’t think was up to par for Yale.</p>

<p>

Skin color, like everything else that characterizes a person, DOES directly cause different social experiences. It directly causes everything. Who you are uniquely combines to give you a unique perspective on life and on many issues. How you are treated because of your skin color, or how you have been brought up because of your skin color (or ethnicity, culture, gender, ability, eye color, hair color, size of your nose, the shape of your eyes, etc.) gives you a unique perspective.

</p>

<p>It seems to me the issue is not that this is considered, but that the admissions office inaccurately assumes the degree to which skin color has affected an applicant’s social experiences is relatively constant across all members of the that race.</p>

[drbigboyjoe9505]

<p>

Incidentally, I’ve read the writing of a lot of people at Yale (of all races) that I didn’t think was up to par for Yale.

</p>

<p>Haha, can’t say much for that. All I can say is that some people have done well on assignments whose writing would most definitely not get them a satisfactory grade at Yale. I’m sure there are people at Yale whose writing isn’t as good as it can be, but I do think some things get overlooked in admissions. And admissions essays are also not the best way to critique someone’s writing…</p>

<p>

It seems to me the issue is not that this is considered, but that the admissions office inaccurately assumes the degree to which skin color has affected an applicant’s social experiences is relatively constant across all members of the that race.

</p>

<p>That’s part of my point. It doesn’t and I don’t think they do. How someone’s race (or anything for that matter) impacts them is unique to that individual (or relatively unique because I think that race does impact a lot of people similarly), which is why each individual’s perspective is unique. A white person cannot view the world the same way as a black person (and vice versa) nor can a black person necessarily view the world the same way as another black person. Point is, the black person brings a different perspective than the white person, which is what that Ad. Comm. would be after.</p>

[Dash753]

<p><a href=“http://www.carryabigsticker.com/images/peace_sign_rainbow_300.gif[/url]”>http://www.carryabigsticker.com/images/peace_sign_rainbow_300.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Chill out, duuudes</p>