That would be a good start, but I would argue that an affirmative action policy completely dependent on socioeconomic factors would be even better.
I don’t understand why top schools should feel an obligation to mimic the racial make-up of the United States. We tout capitalism and meritocracy yet try and artificially promote a misconstrued idea of “diversity”. Without race-based AA, there are plenty of exceptional URMs who could still gain admissions to elite schools and there would certainly be a lot less racial tension concerning college admissions.</p>
<p>"Without race-based AA, there are plenty of exceptional URMs who could still gain admissions to elite schools and there would certainly be a lot less racial tension concerning college admissions. "</p>
<p>I can’t help but wonder if “they” would be as likely to go. I don’t know if I would. Thirty years ago I chose an HBCU because at the time, I was more attracted to the novelty of other black people with similar strengths and motivation, than I was to the idea of people who “qualified” for highly ranked schools. </p>
<p>I’m sure many will say it shouldn’t make a difference today, if they are the only person of color, or “good riddance to bad rubbish” if they go elsewhere. </p>
<p>Just adding to the “diversity” of opinion, without arguing it is right or wrong.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, are you saying that the very absence of an affirmative action program discourages applications from “underrepresented” minority students?</p>
<p>^ I think what Shrinkrap was trying to say is that if we were to hypothetically assume that the removal of AA meant a smaller percentage of URMs at elite institutions, the most qualified URMs might then be dissuaded from attended such institutions.</p>
<p>Yes there is a more hardworking race, in fact there are two: whites and asians. By hardworking I mean education related; these two races have the idea instilled in them to do well, and doing well means that they must work hard, yes they still have their share of slackers, but compared to african americans and latin americans those numbers are relatively small. Most, well not most, but a good amount of african americans and latin americans were not instilled with that idea, and so many would turn to other things, drugs, gangs, etc. Although this number has declined over the years, it still is evident that AAs and LAs are not as driven.</p>
<p>The difference between a black person who lives in a slum and a white person who lives in a slum and a black person who lives in a slum is that many blacks were put in the slums through segregation and racism. You might say “that was forty-fifty years ago” but really, its just one or two generations ago.</p>
<p>I actually think many colleges favor students who have overcome adversity and excelled in a bad situation. I’m going to steal this metaphor from a high profile beneficiary of AA, but its like pits and ladders. You spend X amount of years pushing people into pits, and one day you realize “wow, I shouldn’t push people into pits anymore.” It doesn’t make it right to simply look down at the people and say, “well, you’re free to go now.” If you truly want to make it right, you would extend a ladder or a hand to the person to help them out–in this case, the ladder is being offered to youth in an attempt to give them an easier path to College.</p>
<p>Now, expanding that metaphor, there are many people in pits–and all could use a hand. And I think colleges do try to help those who are less fortunate and have shown a chance to excel. But the preference is given to the people who have been forced into the (metaphorical) pits simply because its righting a previous wrong.</p>
<p>Is this perfect? No. A wealthy black student may be given priority over a very poor white student–although both are probably given some sort of an advantage. But I don’t think its intended as a permanent policy, just one that lasts until the wrongs are sufficiently righted. And obviously its not the only benefit a College sees from AA. But I think its reasonably based. I’m neither poor nor URM, so I don’t really think I’m biased in favor, but I definitely see the rationale and think its reasonable as long as its intent is to be temporary.</p>
Okay, I guess need-blind school just accept the same percentage of kids with need every single year. There isnt anything fishy about that…/sarcasm. Also, many colleges that “pretend” to be need blind ask where your parents work on the app. Why would this information be important if they were actually need blind? Furthermore, schools see many predictors of lower socio-economic status by looking at the stats high school x sends to college y. It says(i know, if the school is public), what the average socioeconomic bracket of its students are, how many graduate, how many APs are offered. These things arent hard to guess. Plus, you have the kid using fee waivers.</p>
<p>There isn’t a chance <em>in hell</em> that I wouldnt have gotten into a top 5 program in engineering with 10th percentile SAT Subject Test scores in math AND physics, any other way. The school wasnt hurting THAT BAD for applicants…even if they are of a different race… Schools obviously show a bias based on both income, racial status, and even sex.</p>
<p>
Have you even seen the inside of an admissions office or know people who have worked in an admissions office to be able to make this statement?</p>
<p>Also, let me take a stab in the dark here and say that you are at least middle class. Thats the only way you would have made some of these statements. You dont realize certain perceptions about certain brackets of people unless you are in that bracket. Its like a white man saying that he knows what its like to be black(i mean this as no disrespect to black people.)</p>
<p>My only problem with AA and the concept of URM is that it has been blown to epic proportions in the application process. I’m all for giving people a “ladder” no matter what race, but I feel as if the time of AA is sort of over. Today, currently, at least in the USA (I recognize it still exist greatly in the rest of the world), racism is dying. I know it is far from gone, and probably never will be totally die, but I feel that actually giving a URM status to people actually disgraces them by saying, “Your application is good and your minority z, so we’ll take you over this other applicant with better scores because he is not minority z”. I would be irked if I was only chosen simply based on ethnicity. It’s as if it is not recognized that so many things have changed and minorities are not at such a great disadvantage anymore. I understand that in some places, minorities are still at a disadvantage and there should be something in place to help them get into great schools. People who succeed over adversity should be rewarded, but I think AA needs to change with the times. PLEASE don’t think I’m trying to insult anyone. I understand that this is a very touchy subject.</p>
<p>I’m not saying 14% Hispanic and 10% African American should be a requirement. But it would be illogical if race/ethnicity was removed as a factor altogether because you’d most likely have student bodies that are overwhelmingly (90% or more) White and Asian, which is simply wrong. All ethnicities need fair representation at top universities, especially Hispanics and Africans Americans. In addition, I am NOT advocating benefits for wealthy, non-cultured URMs. That is unfair. But lower-to-middle class Hispanics like me, who are fluent in Spanish and have ties to Hispanic culture, should be cut a little slack. The $100K barrier is plenty enough to separate wealthy URMs from the underprivileged ones.</p>
<p>We are a nation that is 1/4 Hispanic and African American. It is completely unfair for there to be less than 15% Hispanic and African Americans at top universities. That’s an unfair representation of our nation, and it continues to feed the notion to low-class Latinos and African Americans that they are not needed, not wanted at top universities.</p>
<p>But, finally, I would like to say: the URM recruitment system at top universities DOES need significant alterations. Like I said earlier, wealthy URMs should be given no benefits whatsoever. But middle class and lower-class URMs ought to be given a better chance than middle class Whites and Asians at these colleges because, frankly, so few of them get the chance to go to college that when the very few who do rise to the occasion, the Hispanic and African American communities need to see that their most hardworking youth were able to compete with the elite and the privileged.</p>
They don’t, unless you have data that shows otherwise.
The colleges don’t ask for your parents’ working status, the Common App does.
I’m not sure what your point is. I didn’t claim that many elite colleges have no knowledge of an applicant’s socioeconomic status, only that they don’t factor it into admissions. This is explicitly stated on their websites and by their admissions officers, so I’m inclined to believe it is true.
<p>Fabrizio knows what I mean. And I know what HE means. He means to get me to say that I think a school that does away with affirmative action would have a SIGNIFICANT impact on the number of URM’s admitted there. And I usually respond with something like “you worry about what YOU want to worry about, and I’ll worry about what I want to worry about. I don’t think the absolute number of kids benefiting “significantly” from affirmative action is something I need to worry about. I will worry about the millions of others.”</p>
Schools have financial aid budgets and limited endowment, do they not?</p>
<p>
Alright, let me walk you though this one, its not hard! Alright, say you are running a fine academic institution. Your institution is split between 2 applicants with exactly the same stats. However, your school just cut some funding this year for various programs, due to the recession. One kid appears to come from a wealthy family- his zip code is residing in a wealthy address, the school graduates many kids that make it to tier 1 colleges, and the parents both appear to have jobs. Applicant 2 used a fee waiver, and one of his parents is unemployed. Who would you choose, if you were going to make a <em>smart</em> business decision.</p>
<p>Schools arent need blind. Youd have to be a schmuck to believe that they wouldnt “peek” at those statistics, especially if hurting financially. This is evidenced by the fact that many schools are taking more full-pay applicants due to the recession. Keep living in your little bubble.</p>
<p>
Alright, these are the same guys that script tours and instruct the people that tour to dodge certain questions.</p>
<p>
Absolutely, I do know people that see the process first hand.</p>
Right, colleges find themselves in that situation all the time.</p>
<p>Anyways, we’re talking about top schools as in Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. These schools don’t have financial problems that would lead them to accept wealthier students. You’re thinking of state schools looking for OOS tuition. There are some statistics that show many students at top universities are receiving financial aid. If schools weren’t truly need blind this wouldn’t be the case.</p>
<p>^It’s not about political correctness. That is just pure ignorance at it’s best. sstewart, you completely fail at attempting to simplify phenomena that are very complex and rooted in history. Your generalizations that Asians and whites are by nature more hard working than other races is absolutely offensive. If anything, I would say that it is Latinos and blacks who are the harder workers - whites and Asians get to sit in their doctor’s office or penthouse apartments or suburb mansion or CEO office or on Capitol Hill and tell other people what to do. Meanwhile, blacks and Latinos are out there cleaning up the streets, taking care of your garbage, babysitting their kids, cleaning their homes, and growing your food.</p>
<p>I am obviously grossly generalizing. But I figured that since that’s what we are all doing, I might as well.</p>
<p>What bar is being lowered? Everyone is so caught up with the numbers in people’s applications, but there IS SO MUCH MORE TO AN APPLICATION! Congratulations for achieving a 6.0 and a 2500 on your SATs. That does not by itself make you intelligent, nor does it mean you deserve to be accepted to Yale or any school for that matter. Everyone accepted to a school has every right to be there.</p>
<p>That’s really reasonable and AA should change with the times. But its important to keep in mind that even where discrimination and segregation no longer occur, people are still hurt by it. For example, a student whose father or grandfather may have been forced into a poor neighborhood due to segregation or discrimination may not be discriminated against directly, but may be at a disadvantage due to what happened to their older relatives. Keep in mind, we’re barely a generation away from the Civil Rights Act.</p>