<p>Miffy seems to be owning this thread. :)</p>
<p>I generally stand against AA, and I haven’t read through all of this thread, but I feel obliged to mention that Yale, among many other private institutions, has all the rights to admit whomever for whatever reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have continuously tried to claim that your views are not racist because URMs agree with them. While I do not think that your statements themselves are racist, just because a URM agrees with you does not give them validity. For one, URMs CAN be racists against their own groups and can be white supremacists as well (not that I’m calling LuciaB or Dbate one). Furthermore, they do not speak for an entire race. So, simply because someone says they agree with something does not mean an entire race agrees with them too.</p>
<p>I think I’m going to start removing myself from this discussion. But, just to leave some of my 2 cents:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Race and ethnicity has a direct impact on our experiences, perspectives, and what we actively pursue. How we are treated or how we are perceived by society is influenced by the colors of our skin and our culture. You cannot deny this. You might not have this experience because of your individual race, but you cannot make the blanket claim that race does not impact our experiences.</p>
<p>Example: me. I went to a predominantly white, wealthy school. I am neither white nor wealthy. While at school, I could not get along with many people (read: could not enjoy the company of, not had altercations with) because we came from two VERY distinct places. My culture, language, history, experiences, way of thinking was dictated by where I came from, racially and ethnically, as was theirs. Does this mean I hated them? No, just that my experiences were different than theirs and because of that there were certain things that we both couldn’t enjoy. Now, because of this distinct experience, which was the result of our different cultures, I had different perspectives and experiences and thus chose to actively pursue activities different than most of the student body: cultural interests. (It is not a coincidence that in this environment, ALL of the students of color at my school hung out together and together chose to pursue the same interest.)</p>
<p>Why did I get into Yale? I think that part of it was that I had succeeded in a private school in a place and situation where VERY FEW people like me succeeded. Most of all was that I was very prominent in cultural groups, activities, and discussions at my school. In fact, most students of color who got into good schools (mostly Ivies), I would argue, was for this reason. However, everyone blamed it on AA. Was it AA’s “fault?” Maybe. But you could also, using your reasoning, “blame” it on the fact that we pursued different activities and excelled in it.</p>
<p>This might be too specific of an example…</p>
<p>OH SWEET LORD.
I find this thread hilarious. everyone says “ok this is my last comment” but they all inevitably return the next day for some more brawlin’ :)</p>
<p>^ Haha, this is very true. I try to stay away buy can’t… Guilty pleasure :/</p>
<p>But, no, honestly, I will try to make this like my second-ish to last, lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then what do your call your statement that immediately succeeded that claim:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one on this thread has stated this. If you differ, please quote someone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they are; but they aren’t affirmative action.</p>
<p>oh and I love the petname Miffy. I’mma call mifune that from now on!! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure whether your reference to racism was hypothetical. I want to clarify: I am not racist.</p>
<p>I am not ideologically supportive of athletic recruiting and legacy status advantages, but these are very different issues from affirmative action; I recognize their logistical near-necessity. They don’t have the same general societal implications as affirmative action does.</p>
<p>Oh, quick question that I just realized.</p>
<p>How are we defining “Affirmative Action?” Because it seems many of us have been treating it differently and I think it would serve the discussion well if we just clarify this up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The denigration of minorities is not an intentional facet of anyone’s argument here; but it is inherently implicit in the discussion. Minorities perform worse on objective tools used to gauge applicant’s fitness for top colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From Merriam-Webster:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the only definition they give, so that’s the only one I’m using.</p>
<p>^ Okay. Well, at least that gives us a framework to work from. I will then call “Affirmative Action” what I have been reluctant to call, since it seems to fit this definition.</p>
<p>NearL is trying to press on this issue of Asian academic superiority. I don’t see how it’s directly relevant to anything.</p>
<p>In an effort to rein in some of the tangential discussions, I propose that everyone explicitly state his or her position for reform or continuation of affirmative action practices and then state why.</p>
<p>Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the annual World School Debating Championship. The topic for this debate is: This house supports Affirmative Action in college admissions in the United States.</p>
<p>I maintain that the process of affirmative action no longer works the way everyone is implying it is. I think that the reason affirmative action exists is because institutions a) realize the importance of all kinds of diversity (racial, ethnic, religion, gender, etc.) and b) wish that their school reflect this diversity however minimally (let us remember that whites are the still the predominant majority in most universities). They are no longer (or did they ever?) blindly following some mandate because they have to.</p>
<p>My position on reform or its continuation? In terms of continuation, I think that schools should continue doing what they do. I do not think that the people that are accepted to top tiers schools (“low performing” minorities and non-minorities, like legacies and athletes) are not qualified for the school. Sure, maybe they don’t have 2400s or 4.0s but I do not think that that is the definition of qualified. I think everyone who is at a top tier school is deserving. And I also think that diversity is something we should all strive for and appreciate the efforts of universities.</p>
<p>In terms of reform (which I do think is necessary): I think that reform should not come from the university but from society. I understand this is a very grandiose statement, but I truly believe that the only way we can truly have admissions policies based on merit is if we ALL start off on the same footing and with the same opportunities. Even then, however, I do not see us having a “meritocracy.” Why? Because I think schools will still have a certain kind of class in mind and they will shape their admissions process accordingly. I think this is the real prerogative of every school, which is one of the major reasons I am not as ardently against AA as everyone else is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They are admitted for reasons other than academic merit. You think that’s OK, but Affirmative Action isn’t?</p>
<p>Nice racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps you missed my comment on the last page:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did, however, go on to say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that, I meant to convey that I am opposed to the practices but that I recognize their inevitability. </p>
<p>Moreover, I haven’t definately stated my complete opposition to affirmative action, though you make it seem as though I have. I’m still considering my position.</p>
<p>You also keep leveling this labeling that I’m racist. Please quote any racist comment I’ve made.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I support affirmative action practices for now. In the future, I wish we will not need it any more but I do not know when we will not need it. Why? It is just because I am practical and therefore I am only interested in the fact rather than many “deep” reasons that were being discussed here. (I secretly envy the passion that many of you have here though. But sorry, I myself just do not have it any more.)</p>
<p>Guys, if you think it is “unfair” in the college admission cycle, wait till you are applying to professional schools. The “soft factors” other than the “academic merit” carry even more weight there. (One long-time, well-respected CC member who really knows what he is talking about once wrote that just being in a certain ethnic group may be worth almost 10 points out of 45 points on MCAT – most MCAT test takers are very happy when they manage to increase their MCAT scores by 2 points.) So, get used to it. Look at the big picture here. Those few URMs really do not take away too many of the slots. The fact is that most of those URMs have a much worse life than you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the logistical near-necessity of legacy admission? Berkeley, one of the best universities in the world, does not consider legacy status and it does fine. And what makes athletic recruitment necessary? Neither Oxford nor Caltech have it and both are fine.</p>
<p>Please, explain the ‘logistical near-necessity’ of legacy status and athletic recruitment.</p>