Why do they ask if I am a minority?

[antipacifist]

<p>

it’s obvious you were rejected somewhere and are blaming it on AA because another less qualified individual from your school got accepted instead of you.

</p>

<p>1) no, I got into my top choice school
2) so, if someone by your own admission less qualified than myself gets admitted somewhere and I don’t, I’m just supposed to grin and bear it? </p>

<p>I’m not here to fight, I’m just expressing my opinion because I don’t think the system is fair.</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>

source? Or is this just an ad hominem?

</p>

<p>I don’t think you know what ad hominem means, but I’ll answer your retort anyhow. Consider UC Berkeley, which practices race-blind admissions. Since most of the students (88%) are California residents, I’ll use California’s demographic information for the sake of comparison. </p>

<p>Non-Hispanic White
California: 40.1%
Berkeley: 32%</p>

<p>Asian/Pacific Islander
California: 12.8%
Berkeley: 43%</p>

<p>Hispanic/Latino
California: 37.6%
Berkeley: 13%</p>

<p>Black/African American
California: 5.8%
Berkeley: 4%</p>

<p>As you can tell, compared to California’s population Asians are grossly overrepresented and Hispanics are severely underrepresented at Berkeley. Granted, this is but one example, but it helps to illustrate that the demographics of top universities would be grotesquely skewed in the absence of AA.</p>

<p><a href=“http://opa.berkeley.edu/InstitutionalData/Berkeley%20Template.pdf[/url]”>http://opa.berkeley.edu/InstitutionalData/Berkeley%20Template.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
[Demographics</a> of California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California]Demographics”>Demographics of California - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

don’t you wonder why that is? Surely it’s not just something that’s happened?

</p>

<p>I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here. </p>

<p>

it’s discriminatory and unfair. The negative effects of the absence of a policy that attempts in vain to “level the playing field” are preferable to the negative effects of the institution of a policy that is unfair, discriminatory, demeaning and racist.

</p>

<p>This sounds like the tired diatribe of a bitter high school senior who blames AA for not getting into a good college (not that you are one). The same arguments can be made for affirmative action. If a school consists of only 13% Hispanics in a population that contains over 35% Hispanics, one could argue that the university’s admissions practices are “unfair, discriminatory, demeaning, and racist” toward the minority in question. </p>

<p>

This sentence does not make sense.

</p>

<p>Sure it does, if you would but take the time to consider it. AA’s intention is to offer opportunities to students who would otherwise have none, and the most needy cases tend to be lower-class minorities at poor inner-city public schools. Promising students there may not have the resources necessary to ace the SAT, or the opportunities to take AP classes, so AA gives these disadvantaged students a well-needed boost. </p>

<p>Where AA becomes a problem, I believe, is where middle and upper-class minorities are given preferential treatment over their ORM counterparts, even though they have the same opportunities afforded to them. This is where the socioeconomic attributes I mentioned earlier would be useful: if both race and economic status are considered, AA would be more efficient at accomplishing its goal.</p>

<p>

They’re marginalized by bigots and racists who think these students have gained unfairly the spots of who they perceive to be members of the more deserving over-represented majority.

</p>

<p>This is far less common than you make it seem, and the opinions of “bigots and racists” make a poor argument against AA.</p>

<p>

They perform poorly in college and might not even earn a degree, which affects their personal self-esteem AND their future employment prospects.

</p>

<p>This is a bold generalization to make: “minority students are held to lower standards, so they’re more likely to be unsuccessful”. Care to substantiate it with something more valid than your personal opinion?</p>

<p>

And the effect of AA on the institution itself is to lower prestige and to have to face problems caused by tension between the two extremes of students.

</p>

<p>This is laughably misguided and ignorant. You make it seem like universities are split into warring factions between minorities and ORM’s, which is rarely, if ever, the case. And I have yet to see evidence of a university that suffered from “lower prestige” for practicing AA. </p>

<p>

Finally, in the case of professional degrees such as those earned in med schools and law schools, future clients of these ersatz degree holders suffer from substandard on-the-job performance.

</p>

<p>This comment too falls under the category of unsubstantiated generalization. It’s rather bigoted to assume that Dr. Gonzales’ performance would be “substandard” simply because it was slightly easier for him to get into Princeton than it was for Dr. Chang.</p>

<p>

so, if someone by your own admission less qualified than myself gets admitted somewhere and I don’t, I’m just supposed to grin and bear it?

</p>

<p>Unless you’re basing qualification comparisons on SAT scores or GPAs (which would be silly), the terms “less qualified” or “more qualified” are entirely subjective. </p>

<p>

Try harder.

</p>

<p>This is unnecessary. You would do well to follow your own advice here.</p>

[woeishe]

<p>AA is be socioeconomic. That is all.</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>It certainly needs to incorporate more socioeconomic attributes, I agree.</p>