Exactly, if you want to do whatever you want, pay all the taxes, and not a single dime should go to the institution at local, state, or federal government level. |
Check with Berkeley. Anyways what I wish for is fair admission without racial discrimination |
Yet there are limited spots. Everyone believes this check box works magic, but even if an applicant can check the box (name your definition) there are far, far more applicants than seats. If the box disappears it won't make way for all the applicants who's parents are here whining. There will be just as many DCUM many rejections as ever. There are something like 300 black students in the Harvard freshman class. It doesn't matter what your kid has done, there are definitely 300 AA kids in the country who are smarter and more accomplished, that is not controversial. Still, if those students are somehow pushed aside, there are still thousands of applicants better than yours. Not gonna happen. |
Great, then you'll be ok if there are more URMs admitted using socioeconomic methods? Awesome. |
Because race matters more than socioeconomic hardships in AOs/colleges. It's why a very rich and privileged hispanic or AA student is considered more preferential than a poor white kid. They tried to capture it with FirstGEn, but a lot of these households have a parent that attended some form of college, e.g., not first Gen. So the hispanic or AA kids that attend a ritzy private school and have doctors for parents are looked more preferentially than the kid coming out of a low-class white background with one working mother that has a degree. |
My guess is that they mostly put Hispanic. I thought Hispanic % was said to be pretty high at some of the colleges. |
DP. Why does the discussion get to be about 'society' from your perspective and 'my kid' from my perspective? All we want is fairness. Does anyone deny the historic injustice to Blacks and Native Americans? Absolutely not! Should we expect Institutions to set aside a certain portion of their seats/opportunities for those groups? Absolutely! Let's legalize that and establish a percentage. Let's also define when that will stop (maybe after one generation goes to college? maybe after a generation hits an income threshold?). What bothers us is this nebulous, 'universities know best' attitude, especially when I'm subsidizing their existence through tax breaks. Sure, my kid may not smart enough to get into Harvard (he actually is not smart enough), but that's not the point. How do I, the subsidizer of those institutions, get to be sure that the kid who did get in IS indeed more deserving of that opportunity, based on my terms (since, you know, I subsidize their existence)? |
Did you click on the link, you lazy ass! ![]() 34% of the White kids lie about race, 48% of the liars claim to be Native American and 70% of those liars got into the colleges they applied to. Good for them! More should do it! |
We are talking about elite schools that have always serviced the elite. That's what the suburban magnet parents don't seem to understand. Wealthy, private school educated minorites, get a leg up just like wealthy whites doing the same. Filling out a class with Kushners is better than more CS/engineering students who will one day earn a comfortable wage at Northrup. If AA goes away, this won't change. But, how is this unexpected? |
Make that 77% |
Just do away with all non-profit status then. The extent to which you are subsidizing a given college is minimal, and nothing compared to some of the other loons like churches who behave badly while getting a tax write-off. |
Tons of scholarships where you have to be a certain race to apply. |
churches at least don't discriminate and have fair admission policy |
DP: look at the study/research--not very credible. Even if it was true, if 34% white applicants are lying and almost 50% are claiming native American heritage-- the number of native Americans at college campuses should be large, which it's not. The average campus has not more than 2%. Think first before you post. |