Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you ever worked in admissions and were privy to the close proximity of qualifications between one applicant and another for which affirmative action or just campus diversity played a part in their admission you wouldn't be asking such questions... The academic different is negligible.. There are many criterion used for admission... At the high ranking University I attended there were interviews.. Mine lasted 2-3 hours .. It was w/ a fellow alumni .. Beyond the academic record, they wanted diversity and they wanted people w/ drive and passion ...The alumni feedback played a heavy part in admissions... So, beyond your grades and goofy SAT score, a lot of other things mattered... This creates for a diverse and amazing campus experience. If you aren't capable, you typical wont make it past freshman year... At least from what I could tell from the University i attended... I saw black, white, japanese, korean, Cambodian, chinese, indian people all flunk out the same..
Credible as an anecdote but still just an anecdote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy
People are acting like they are letting minorities w/ F's into the top Universities whereas its maybe two students w/ all the same stats and the preference is given to the minority... Or.. something like same grades/drive/etc .. sat score .. 1370/1600 (minority) .. 1500/1600 (non-minority) .. preference to minority...
You attack a strawman scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy
You might think 1370 vs. 1500 is going to make a difference but trust me it doesn't.. I've seen eggheads w/ 1600's flunk out of their major (disqualified due to GPA) by end of freshman year. Let the people who know what they're doing do what they do... One of the reasons I am glad I attended a private school.. They didn't have to deal w/ half the garbage these public schools get railed for.
You just tripped over the central issue. The people at at the public schools "who know what they're doing" have their own agenda which is based on their opinions about how society should be and not everyone agrees with their opinions. A lot of students aren't being admitted b/c, in the opinion of the admissions staff, simply don't have the right race/culture/religion and so they are discriminated against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy
P.S - I dont agree w/ user_id at all on a lot of things but he's making strong points backed by reason/facts/data on this thread.
Where did he state facts or data?
He's has made bold claims and almost only polemically.
I don't understand why there are disagreements. Affirmative Action isn't some new theory where there are different opinions on its eventual outcome. It has been field tested for over 40 years. The results should speak for themselves.
Shouldn't the discussion be how well it has worked?
He's has made bold claims and almost only polemically.
There is nothing "bold" about what I've stated, almost anybody involved in higher education admissions will say something similar. Race sensitive, socioeconomic sensitive, etc admission policies are today almost universally accepted within the halls of higher education.
Shouldn't the discussion be how well it has worked?
Of course, and if you use pretty much any metric (minorities in professional careers, SAT score gaps, etc) there has been significant improvement over the last 20~30 years since race sensitive admissions policies have been taken seriously.
I'm late to the discussion, but I thought it was interesting when I attended one of the two "public university Top 25 ranked law schools" in CA, an internal "study" showed the average income/wealth of parents of anglo students was 4x the national average and the average income/wealth of minority students (who were at the time admitted based on "affirmative action" policies) was 3.5x the national average. In other words, virtually all anglo AND minority students who made it that far in the academic game came from far-above-average socio-econiomic backgrounds.
That fact certainly made me question the utility of affirmative action applied without regard to family wealth. Should a minority from a wealthy family be preferred over a high-achieving anglo of modest family income/wealth? I suppose the answer is "yes," but it does seem odd. It was also a bit shocking that the year "affirmative action" was dropped, the number of minorities admitted to that particular school went from @35 to @5. Not a great result either. Tricky issue here.
There is nothing "bold" about what I've stated, almost anybody involved in higher education admissions will say something similar. Race sensitive, socioeconomic sensitive, etc admission policies are today almost universally accepted within the halls of higher education.
Pretty much .. and backed by #'s and studies.... It works.
As for all those claiming where are the facts .. Here .. Let me help you out : Let me google that for you action
Pretty much .. and backed by #'s and studies.... It works.
As for all those claiming where are the facts .. Here .. Let me help you out : Let me google that for you action
How is that link a "fact", your constant dodging and unwillingness to provide proper citation is intellectually dishonest. You support a claim, it's up to you or whoever made the claim to provide proof of those claims. It's called a fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.
Even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that universities can continue to consider race in admissions in the interest of diversity, admissions officers deny they’re screening out Asian-Americans. However, in researching their 2009 book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans.
Quote:
Although Asian-Americans represent less than 5 percent of the US population (and slightly more than 5 percent in Massachusetts), they make up as much as 20 percent of students at many highly selective private research universities – the kind of schools that make it into top 50 national rankings. But, critics charge, Asian-American students would constitute an even larger share if many weren’t being filtered out during the admissions process. Since the University of California system moved to a race-blind system 14 years ago, the percentage of Asian-American students in some competitive schools there has reached 40, even 50 percent. On these campuses, the so-called “model minority” is becoming the majority.
Yes let's continue to lower educational standards for a select race/ethnicity and discriminate another race because the former are lazy?
And you work in admissions, so you know whose qualified or not....
And you actually did research so you know what the studies show ...
No, you are making an ignorant comment .. Borderline racist comment that a group of people are not 'qualified'...
Lets cover some definitions so we have a clear understanding :
Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs.
qualified - past participle, past tense of qual·i·fy (Verb)
1. Be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition: "we qualify for compensation".
No one gets in who isn't qualified .... Qualification doesn't mean that you have better merits than another person. Qualification means (for college admissions) that you maintain a certain level of qualities that make you eligible for admission.. That you demonstrate a certain level of aptitude to achieve.
So, the people are quite qualified .. And AA attempts to counter the effects of a history of discrimination that factually/scientifically could account for such disparities between one applicant and another by giving a certain individual access to opportunity that the other individual has been given... It still depends on the individual's achievement to fully capitalize on this opportunity.
In general, people aren't long term thinkers and have no historical understanding. Many people live in the ignorant present and its reflected in their myopic views. They see a built society and they think not of who built it and how to maintain it.. They think in the selfish now on how to best utilize it to their advantage. Its one of the reasons this country is on the trajectory it is.
And you work in admissions, so you know whose qualified or not....
And you actually did research so you know what the studies show ...
No, you are making an ignorant comment .. Borderline racist comment that a group of people are not 'qualified'...
Lets cover some definitions so we have a clear understanding :
Affirmative action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs.
qualified - past participle, past tense of qual·i·fy (Verb)
1. Be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition: "we qualify for compensation".
No one gets in who isn't qualified .... Qualification doesn't mean that you have better merits than another person. Qualification means (for college admissions) that you maintain a certain level of qualities that make you eligible for admission.. That you demonstrate a certain level of aptitude to achieve.
So, the people are quite qualified .. And AA attempts to counter the effects of a history of discrimination that factually/scientifically could account for such disparities between one applicant and another by giving a certain individual access to opportunity that the other individual has been given... It still depends on the individual's achievement to fully capitalize on this opportunity.
In general, people aren't long term thinkers and have no historical understanding. Many people live in the ignorant present and its reflected in their myopic views. They see a built society and they think not of who built it and how to maintain it.. They think in the selfish now on how to best utilize it to their advantage. Its one of the reasons this country is on the trajectory it is.
Ah, put a sock in it. You're 20 something years old. The playing field was a lot more level in the 80's, but you keep shifting the goalposts.
How is that link a "fact", your constant dodging and unwillingness to provide proper citation is intellectually dishonest. You support a claim, it's up to you or whoever made the claim to provide proof of those claims. It's called a fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.
Yes let's continue to lower educational standards for a select race/ethnicity and discriminate another race because the former are lazy?
To highlight a particular group ...
African American kids due to some 400 years of slavery have had their culture/identity erased. Up until the 1960's they weren't seen as equals and their parents were disadvantaged due to not having equal rights. My parents were alive during this time....
Generations past weren't given land, reparations.. Programs weren't designed to systematically give back the culture/identity that was systematically destroyed over 400 years.
There was no payment for the generations that endured unequal treatment or opportunity.. And thus a program like Affirmative action comes along to try to right some of the wrongs (Pennies on the dollar) :
Affirmative action is an attempt to promote equal opportunity. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The justification for affirmative action is to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[3] and to address existing discrimination.[4] The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the United States, is justified by disparate impact.
and you want to rant about opportunity?
Qualification = A
Asian kid's qualifications are : A+1
African American kid's qualifications are : A
Both are qualified.. Maybe just maybe AA is preferences the African american kid w/ just enough weighting to get him in over the Asian kid...
Question : Was your culture/identity systemically destroyed? No .. Which is one of the reasons Asian people succeed over others .. Because of their strong knowledge of self/history/culture...
Question : Were your people enslaved for over 400 years in America in the quantities that African Americans were (w/o compensation)in order to build the modern day America you now have immigrated to and are taking advantage of w/ you strong cultural identity? No
Question : Did Asian people march down roads? Get arrested ? Get lynched? Get hosed down .. Get debased in order to obtain Civil Rights and freedom for all races/colors/creeds in the 1960s? No
So when a little program comes along (cost : pennies on the dollar) and tries to right some of the HUGE wrongs in this country's history .. A program that has been in existence for little over a generation .. Don't come posting some sorry link to the achievement of a group of people taking full advantage of the opportunities NOW available.
Things are the way they are for a reason. If you're not ignorant, when you come across a disparity, you will try to figure out why it exists.. In the quest for answers you will find information and obtain understanding. Leaders of this country, given the 400-500 years of disadvantages and hell served to a group of people, clearly understand they need programs to help rebuild what they destroyed......
You go into a country and bomb it to the ground .. You have the duty to rebuild it.. As citizens of this country, you pay for it ... When a country has bombed a people to the ground for over 400-500 years and profited from it .. you have a duty and responsibility to build it up.. Yeah, you didn't do it .. but this country did and as a citizen of it .. you pay.
Let me know which part of this you aren't following...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.. and backed by #'s and studies.... It works. 
