Ivy League Affirmative Action from the inside

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

I think the point was that racial preference in admissions will result in "mismatch' of academics and less on-time graduation for the favored racial group.

And yet the facts don't bear that out. There are many more people capable of doing well at Harvard than get into Harvard.

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

•Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

•Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

•About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

•Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

•Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Wow....all this talk about a racial group that is less than 10% of the student population at most PWI's. Out of a class of 1000 people, we are talking about less than 100 people. Seems to me that some of y'all's focus in on the wrong group. Maybe some of you should worry about why your kid can't secure one of the other 900 spots. Your competition is other Whites and Asians, not Latinos and Blacks.

Then why don't colleges just come out and say "there's a big boy table" and "there's a kiddy table" and you are competing at the table we place you at.

Everyone knows (or I thought they did ) that URM's are placed in a different bucket, just like legacies and athletes. If you are not URM, you are not competing with an URM for a specific spot. What people are objecting to is the POLICY" that a "certain number" of spots have to be URM. They want to have more spots that they can compete for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

I think the point was that racial preference in admissions will result in "mismatch' of academics and less on-time graduation for the favored racial group.

And yet the facts don't bear that out. There are many more people capable of doing well at Harvard than get into Harvard.

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

•Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

•Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

•About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

•Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

•Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Wow....all this talk about a racial group that is less than 10% of the student population at most PWI's. Out of a class of 1000 people, we are talking about less than 100 people. Seems to me that some of y'all's focus in on the wrong group. Maybe some of you should worry about why your kid can't secure one of the other 900 spots. Your competition is other Whites and Asians, not Latinos and Blacks.

Then why don't colleges just come out and say "there's a big boy table" and "there's a kiddy table" and you are competing at the table we place you at.

Everyone knows (or I thought they did ) that URM's are placed in a different bucket, just like legacies and athletes. If you are not URM, you are not competing with an URM for a specific spot. What people are objecting to is the POLICY" that a "certain number" of spots have to be URM. They want to have more spots that they can compete for.

But explicit quotas (which you state that 'everyone knows') are actually not what universities are saying when they hide behind 'holistic admissions'.

SCOTUS stated an effective quota format is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

I think the point was that racial preference in admissions will result in "mismatch' of academics and less on-time graduation for the favored racial group.

And yet the facts don't bear that out. There are many more people capable of doing well at Harvard than get into Harvard.

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

•Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

•Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

•About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

•Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

•Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Wow....all this talk about a racial group that is less than 10% of the student population at most PWI's. Out of a class of 1000 people, we are talking about less than 100 people. Seems to me that some of y'all's focus in on the wrong group. Maybe some of you should worry about why your kid can't secure one of the other 900 spots. Your competition is other Whites and Asians, not Latinos and Blacks.

I think you're missing the point; letting in kids who are less qualified is actually hurting them. When they go to schools where they matched up better with their classmates in terms of ability the outcomes are better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

I think the point was that racial preference in admissions will result in "mismatch' of academics and less on-time graduation for the favored racial group.

And yet the facts don't bear that out. There are many more people capable of doing well at Harvard than get into Harvard.

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

•Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

•Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

•About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

•Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

•Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Wow....all this talk about a racial group that is less than 10% of the student population at most PWI's. Out of a class of 1000 people, we are talking about less than 100 people. Seems to me that some of y'all's focus in on the wrong group. Maybe some of you should worry about why your kid can't secure one of the other 900 spots. Your competition is other Whites and Asians, not Latinos and Blacks.

Then why don't colleges just come out and say "there's a big boy table" and "there's a kiddy table" and you are competing at the table we place you at.

Everyone knows (or I thought they did ) that URM's are placed in a different bucket, just like legacies and athletes. If you are not URM, you are not competing with an URM for a specific spot. What people are objecting to is the POLICY" that a "certain number" of spots have to be URM. They want to have more spots that they can compete for.

I'm confused: so URMs are only competing against each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

Actually, Asians are targeted more than blacks on here.

Racist whites fear competition.

I think that "mediocre" Whites fear competition. Those are the ones who fight againt Affirmative Action in any environment. They fight for their right to be "average" while still getting the benefits of White privilege.

It is rich, elitist, legacy whites too, who dump on other whites. The rich guy's kid never has a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that Stanford occupies a higher moral ground than Berkeley because the percentage of blacks in the freshman class is higher than that of Berkeley is just downright vile, evil and revolting . Stanford enrolls blacks out of pure self interest and not love for any altruistic reason and certainly not because they love blacks. Private schools like Stanford are nothing but businesses just like Mcdonald's or Starbucks around the corner hence their primary interest is their financial and economic survival hence their widespread practice of legacy preferences and certainly not to spread justice and fairness in this world.

That garbage " Critical Mass Theory " claims that the more blacks there are in a university, the happier blacks will be , the more likely to graduate and way well into the road of happiness and fulfillment in life. What a bunch of crock. Prop 200 in the State of Washington banned race preferences in the year 2000 more than a decade ago. Blacks make up 2.4% of the undergraduates in the University of Washington- Seattle. In the state of Indiana , at the University Indiana Blooimington, blacks made up about 5.6 % of the undergraduates. For the 2005 freshman class of U of Washington-Seattle, the gap in the 6 year graduation rates was 13%. For Indiana Bloomington and its 2005 freshmen class the gap in the 6 year graduation rates between whites and blacks was a staggering 28%, 7 points higher than that of Berkeley.

You would think that since there are more blacks both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers at Indiana Bloomington compared to U of Washington Seattle, the gap in 6 year graduation rates between blacks and whites would be smaller than 13 %, instead what happened was the complete opposite . That is what race preferences does for you. The more a public school practices race preferences, the greater the gap in 6 year graduation rates of blacks and whites will be. That pattern is repeated in every public university in the nation. In states where they have banned race preferences like Georgia or Florida, the 6 year graduation rates of blacks in its public universities are close to, equal to or HIGHER than that of whites in its public universities.

Geez...why do so many of folks on here come for Blacks? Based on your own numbers, Blacks would take up 24 out of a class of 1000 at UW and 56 out of a class of 1000 at IU. That is the magnitude of the impact that folks are arguing about. Instead of worrying about how your kids can get one of those 900+ spots, you guys are focused on the relatively few spots that the Blacks get. My goodness, it is not like half the class is Black.

I think the point was that racial preference in admissions will result in "mismatch' of academics and less on-time graduation for the favored racial group.

And yet the facts don't bear that out. There are many more people capable of doing well at Harvard than get into Harvard.

From the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

•Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

•Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

•About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

•Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

•Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Wow....all this talk about a racial group that is less than 10% of the student population at most PWI's. Out of a class of 1000 people, we are talking about less than 100 people. Seems to me that some of y'all's focus in on the wrong group. Maybe some of you should worry about why your kid can't secure one of the other 900 spots. Your competition is other Whites and Asians, not Latinos and Blacks.

Then why don't colleges just come out and say "there's a big boy table" and "there's a kiddy table" and you are competing at the table we place you at.

Everyone knows (or I thought they did ) that URM's are placed in a different bucket, just like legacies and athletes. If you are not URM, you are not competing with an URM for a specific spot. What people are objecting to is the POLICY" that a "certain number" of spots have to be URM. They want to have more spots that they can compete for.

While private college admissions consultants might tell you this, if you asked any public school guidance counselor, they would be reticent to tell you this truth.

Therefore 'everyone' does not know and the lie perpetuates.

[Anonymous]

The article seems to touch on a major problem with Affirmative Action -- that it primarily benefits middle-class and wealthier blacks, not the poor ones who were raised by uneducated, single parents in the hood.

[Anonymous]

The schools need to admit minorities who will be successful there so I doubt they want to take risks admitting URMs like poor ones raised by single, uneducated parents from the 'hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to tell a lot of you this, but most minorities do not give a rat's ass how we got the opportunity or what you call it, or even waht you think about it - we just want the opportunity. The shame and stigma that some assign to Affirmative Action is a White person's thing.

Further, the data that I have seen (I used to work in a university setting) shows that the level of academic attrition among White, Black and Latinos is very similar - and much lower for Asian students. So...it is not like these kids are getting into these schools and flunking out at a higher rate.

I don't know. A number of AA studnents in my law school class were really pissed off that white students assumed that they go in on affirmative action admits rather than on pure merit. There were some hard feelings about it.

On the other hand, I learned rather quickly not to assume that any AA student was an affirmative action admit. If you are looking for them on the left side of the bell curve, they are going to clock you from the right .

[Anonymous]

The OP's post rings very true. Schools can extend a preference to the well-off children of black or Latino professionals, which allows them to meet a superficial "diversity" quota. (But where is the diversity?). It's a very safe bet for the admission office. These kids have done well and have a strong support network. And their parents probably will pay full freight. But why should these kids get any advantage at all over similarly situated applicants who are Asian or white?

[Anonymous]

Everyone needs to start referring to themselves as "mixed race." From a DNA standpoint, most of us are. And who's to dispute it? If everyone checked the mixed race box, it would cause affirmative action schemes to collapse within 5 years.

[Anonymous]

After a year of people asking rude, intrusive and downright racist questions to me and my AA son, I have the following to say

1. To assume that all AA candidates are underperforming and no other group has underperforming candidates is truly crazy and flies in the face of common sense. Most successful urm candidates to the top colleges have a set of stats that will allow them to succeed. Even if the are not perfect stats. I'm not witnessing among my friends a plethora of AA kids getting into ivy leagues schools with or without high stats. The ones that are have Very Strong grades and test scores.

2. A previous poster about law school said it right. I used my intellect and hard work to succeed and used others expectations of me to my advantage. I have learned to never underestimate others aNd to not judge a book by its cover.

3. Why do all of these discussions devolve into criticizing AA students, as opposed to International students, development cases, legacy and athletic admissions, which all dwarf AA admissions numbers. Racial animous, bias and hostility is what I believe to be a cause. Especially at this time of the year where college acceptances have been sent out. There has to be someone to blame for your child not getting in. So guess who is to blame? That black kid whom YOU KNOW is not as well qualified as your child.

4. About mr. French's child, again, as the previous poster said, talk to him in 15 years. My middle class son has been stopped by the police, on his way to his fancy private school. People make assumptions about his intellect that confuse him and he does not understand why he has to fight for placement into the top classes in a way that his classmates with similar grades don't have to fight.

5. This year my child is a senior. In order to keep sane and civil, I have had to walk away from (or give a benign responses to) parents and their offspring suggesting my child has it easy because he is black and that colleges were probably rolling out the welcome mat and throwing money at us. In fact, the college process was probably the same for him as I expect it is for many of you--infuriating, disappointing, baffling, arduous, but ultimately, fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to tell a lot of you this, but most minorities do not give a rat's ass how we got the opportunity or what you call it, or even waht you think about it - we just want the opportunity. The shame and stigma that some assign to Affirmative Action is a White person's thing.

Further, the data that I have seen (I used to work in a university setting) shows that the level of academic attrition among White, Black and Latinos is very similar - and much lower for Asian students. So...it is not like these kids are getting into these schools and flunking out at a higher rate.

I don't know. A number of AA studnents in my law school class were really pissed off that white students assumed that they go in on affirmative action admits rather than on pure merit. There were some hard feelings about it.

On the other hand, I learned rather quickly not to assume that any AA student was an affirmative action admit. If you are looking for them on the left side of the bell curve, they are going to clock you from the right .

at t14's 50% of the blacks are in the bottom 10% of the class and 8% are in the top half.

It isn't an assumption, TLS and other law stat databases and forums make it pretty clear and obvious the benefit.

If you are a black student applying to law school, I would suggest Yale or Fail - no grades at YLS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After a year of people asking rude, intrusive and downright racist questions to me and my AA son, I have the following to say

1. To assume that all AA candidates are underperforming and no other group has underperforming candidates is truly crazy and flies in the face of common sense. Most successful urm candidates to the top colleges have a set of stats that will allow them to succeed. Even if the are not perfect stats. I'm not witnessing among my friends a plethora of AA kids getting into ivy leagues schools with or without high stats. The ones that are have Very Strong grades and test scores.

2. A previous poster about law school said it right. I used my intellect and hard work to succeed and used others expectations of me to my advantage. I have learned to never underestimate others aNd to not judge a book by its cover.

3. Why do all of these discussions devolve into criticizing AA students, as opposed to International students, development cases, legacy and athletic admissions, which all dwarf AA admissions numbers. Racial animous, bias and hostility is what I believe to be a cause. Especially at this time of the year where college acceptances have been sent out. There has to be someone to blame for your child not getting in. So guess who is to blame? That black kid whom YOU KNOW is not as well qualified as your child.

4. About mr. French's child, again, as the previous poster said, talk to him in 15 years. My middle class son has been stopped by the police, on his way to his fancy private school. People make assumptions about his intellect that confuse him and he does not understand why he has to fight for placement into the top classes in a way that his classmates with similar grades don't have to fight.

5. This year my child is a senior. In order to keep sane and civil, I have had to walk away from (or give a benign responses to) parents and their offspring suggesting my child has it easy because he is black and that colleges were probably rolling out the welcome mat and throwing money at us. In fact, the college process was probably the same for him as I expect it is for many of you--infuriating, disappointing, baffling, arduous, but ultimately, fine.

Development cases DO NOT dwarf URM affirmative action.

I agree with you on legacy - which is why UC system banned the use of legacy as well.

I agree with you on athletic hooks as well.

Simple question - do you agree or disagree with Cal or UCLA's system (true they do recruit athletes due to d1 sports, but that does help blacks).

Do you disagree with the empircal evidence that suggests URM's are allowed in with lower stats than Asians?

[Anonymous]

If you don't think moneyed applicants, development cases don't take up many slots, bothe traceable and untraceable.....