<p>However, her situation has contextual effects since socioeconomic status is a direct causation of her lower performance although I do agree that any justifiable burden that provides a rightful admission enhancement will lead to suspicions. However, an individual who receives socioeconomic consideration in a system that purely includes background factors that may have been detrimental to one’s personal success will largely be freed from the glass ceiling currently instituted for minority students since one cannot immediately label a student as destitute and deprived from direct external observations.</p>
<p>^^^^ That is true, and it was a similar line of thinking that prevented me from being too down after hearing those comments. I know there are borderline kids who get boosted in to Penn based on their legacy connection, and I’ll admit that, but I also knew that I wasn’t one of those kids. You’re probably facing a similar situation, with the added problem of people knowing your URM status at first glance and possibly judging your qualifications based on it. But you seem capable of outperforming all of those people anyway, so best of luck to you. And with that I stop arguing on this thread, lol.</p>
<p>Post #201 demonstrates that white and Asian (“unhooked”) applicants do enter college with significantly better qualifications as a collective body. Thus, concerns regarding the prevalence and extremities that racially-based AA cause are not unfounded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regarding your first sentence, again please reference Post #201. As for your latter point, that is true, but it must be qualified in recognition of overt admission statistics.</p>
<p>This was very much the case. The few students who questioned my acceptance all had lower grades, test scores, or ECs than I did and all ended up attending easy schools to get into.</p>
<p>The sheer irony of the whole process, though, is that minorities get to go to Ivy League schools and the detractors all go to schools no one cares about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep the plus side of all of this is that I am smart, and my 4 As and 1 B aren’t too shabby either, not that I am bragging. I am just really pleased with my first semester grades and wanted to share :)</p>
<p>Emphasis on “as a collective body”. Many black students attend lower-tier schools with below average stats. Most of the black students that apply to Yale are qualified to attend Yale. Also, I couldn’t find any sources for the SAT scores, so I have no idea whether those are supposed to apply to just Ivy applicants or not. I feel it’s worth reiterating the point that people are too fixated on SAT scores. As long as you have pretty strong scores, your SAT score will not decide whether or not you will get in. The rest of the application will.</p>
<p>And if everyone is going to get riled up about AA by ethnicity while neglecting to mention the benefits handed to athletes, they are going to appear to be racist. If someone is quick to point out the SAT disparities between races but decline to rally against the SAT disparities between athletes (the majority of whom are white) and non-athletes, that’s the way they will be perceived. I’m not saying that people who oppose AA are racist, I’m just pointing out a fact. There is a considerably lesser amount of attention paid to the advantages given to athletes. People focus their anger and frustrations unfairly on minority students.</p>
<p>I would very much doubt that many of those better informed would be as socially uncouth to question your merit personally. Those who did support your acceptance were likely those who were initiated in your academic, cocurriular, and personal talent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly; because the admission standards for different ethnicities happen to be different and slanted to favor one race over the other.</p>
<p>Yes, we had this discussion back on page twenty-something, I believe. I will search for my post and reference that to provide you with my ideological position regarding athletic and legacy recruits.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure those SAT scores are taking into account all students, including under-performing Black students, of which there are many (Detroit’s school system, Richmond’s, etc.). A smaller amount of Black students have SAT scores high enough to go to Yale, and because the Black population is smaller than the white population, the under-performing students would have a drastic effect on the average.There aren’t as many under-performing white and Asian students, so their SAT scores are higher.</p>
<p>Plus, I thought I saw somewhere that those statistics are pretty old.</p>
<p>@Amerindian: Since you had concerns regarding racially-based AA without mention of athletic and legacy recruitment, my position on athletic and legacy recruiting can be found in Post #452, page 31.</p>
<p>The arguments being made about the extent of the advantage afforded to minorities as a result of affirmative action are not relevant to the main issue about whether race-based affirmative action should take place.</p>
<p>I do not believe that the emotion can be properly labeled as jealousy. One cannot fault individuals for recognizing that “diversity” admits continue particularly when those from more objectively underprivileged background receive nothing under “need-blind” policies and that a background characterized by destitution may actually hinder one’s admission chances when “need-based” considerations are part of an institution’s practices. It may be more suitably defined as “indignant.”</p>
oh of course. I’m just pointing out that 1) you are likely to succeed if you are talented and driven, no matter what university you attend 2) going to HYP doesnt guarantee you success in the real world, especially if you got in on some AA or legacy bonus</p>
<p>Perhaps I am oversimplifying the issue, but I don’t see how those who understand mifune’s basic point can reasonably disagree with him. I’ll try again to convey my and, incidentally, his point in the most concise and cogent manner possible:
[ul]
[<em>]College applicants should be judged equitably; that is, no one should receive an inherent advantage because of his or her gender, race, or level of family income, for example.
[</em>]In order to achieve this ultimate equality, considerations should be made for circumstances that make success unusually difficult.
[<em>]Typical obstacles to success: racial prejudices and their damaging manifestations, impoverishment and the associated negative stigmas, high schools with limited opportunities, deaths of family members, etc…<br>
[</em>]Holistcally reviewing colleges account for variations in the qualities of high schools and for the deaths of family members.<br>
[<em>]Affirmative action in its current form attemps to address racial prejudices’ effects. It is preferable to an alternative of inaction and disregard for this hurdle but is subjective and indiscriminately blanket (not all minorities are equally held back by their race).
[</em>]Racially based affirmative action does not account for the obstacles associated with impoverishment. Because a disproportionate number of those afflicted by poverty are members of under-represented minority groups, affirmative action for those with low income families may be a better method of approaching equitable admissions.<br>
[/ul]Does anyone disagree?</p>
<p>People who get into Yale with even a mild amount of help from AA are just as likely to succeed as whites and Asians. They’re obviously driven. They’re going to Yale. I think it was overkill for you to include AA.</p>
<p>I agree, as would any reasonable person, with both points. This doesn’t render debates on affirmative action less important or relevant, though.</p>
<p>I think Stupefy’s intended point was that people assume the qualities that allow one to be admitted to top colleges don’t necessarily equate, in themselves, to success after college. Because these factors, however, do indicate to some extent that one may succeed, those who get in merely because of factors other than merit that is on the same level as many of one’s fellow acceptees (i.e., beneficiaries of affirmative action) are guaranteed success to an even lesser extent (thus the “especially”).</p>
<p>I used “merely” with respect to situations in which the candidate would not have been accepted had he or she not been an under-represented minority.</p>