What Happens Without Affirmative Action: The Story Of UCLA

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You clearly did not read my post. That's fine, par for the course in P&R. Admissions, particularly at the more prestigious private institutions in this country, is an art, not a science.

Exactly. In a way, it is a lot like professional sports drafts, where often, 6th round draft picks far exceed many top draft picks because of the various intangibles that contribute to the success or failure of an athlete. Scouts scour through all the statistics in hope of finding the best athletes only to find that some things can't be measured or translated into statistics.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[Peter_Pan 661]

Being "more qualified" academically is not and should not be the only criterion on which a university admits students. Most -- not all -- universities are looking for a balanced student body, while maintaining a baseline of academic achievement below which admission usually will not occur. It benefits a university to have a multiplicity of backgrounds, so that students and faculty have their viewpoints challenged. I went to one of the best universities there is, and believe me, not everyone was the straight-A, perfect SAT scorer that is assumed to be the typical student there. I know I benefitted from being in the classroom with students of all races and ethnicities, from all parts of the country (and world), and from across the economic spectrum. Cross-pollination of ideas from the arts and sciences, between artists and athletes and engineers and writers, was (and remains) actively encouraged there. The university remains devoted to making sure that admission is not limited to kids who do well on tests. There's a good deal of intuition and talent-spotting that goes into the mix.

Admission is one hurdle; the true test is achievement at the university. If a kid with lower scores can excel at a top-tier university, then all of this is distracting BS.

Disagree. Mind and mind alone should be the only criterion for admission.

The smarter you are, the easier it should be for you to see multiple points of view. A white student with a superior IQ can argue a problem from a variety of points of view, whereas a minority student who is less intelligent has only one point of view- his.

Universities are places for studying, not the UN.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

First,

Why are their historically "black" or "African American Colleges?" Well, being that soooo many "White" colleges did not want to let blacks into their colleges and blacks still wanted to get an education, there rose the idea, lets create a college of our own so that students do not have to be humiliated, spit at, gawked at, and ignored by teachers when they are trying to get admitted or sitting in a classroom. However, this does not mean that any non black students will not get admitted into a historically black college. Many non black students would not want to attend a historically black college, although I personally know of some non black students who have attended and who have accepted positions to these types of schools. I personally did not try for one, because I believe in diversity, understanding of other cultures, regardless of race. But as you can see by some of the negative, ignorant comments being made on just this board alone, (really, look at yahoo) others are not so accepting of blacks. Lets face it, there will always be people from many races who are ignorant and judgmental of other races, but do not let it be because the television told you to or because you saw this one black person that meets the stereotypes, let it be because you have actually searched and have met many people of that particular race and have come to that conclusion. Like for instance, black people don't speak foreign languages. Many people were upset over Star Trek because Zoe was speaking a foreign language. I speak Japanese, Sinhalese and English!!

We would not need these types of admission programs as colleges if people would not be discriminated against because of their race and socioeconomic background. It should be a balance of things that are looked at to make a determination on whether or not a student is admitted. And just because someone was admitted because a university needs to meet their diversity quota, does not mean that they picked a person of color whom does not meet any academic quality at all. "Ow heres a good candidate. Made a 12 on the ACT, cant spell or write. Let him into the Law School." I mean really, schools would not be that stupid to do that.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Janelle2002

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Disagree. Mind and mind alone should be the only criterion for admission.

The smarter you are, the easier it should be for you to see multiple points of view. A white student with a superior IQ can argue a problem from a variety of points of view, whereas a minority student who is less intelligent has only one point of view- his.

Universities are places for studying, not the UN.

You'd make a terrible recruiter or human resource manager if that was your only measuring stick. But lets say you want to go the statistical route...

“Like intelligence test scores, achieving good grades and high class position are also poor predictors of future success in life. Consider the study that followed valedictorians and salutatorians from the 1981 graduating classes of Illinois high schools. It was found that, while these students had the attributes to ensure school success, these characteristics did not necessarily translate into real world success. By their late 20s, these superior students had reached only average levels of success in life. Only one in four were achieving at the highest levels in their chosen profession and the rest were doing much less well. Karen Arnold professor of education at Boston University, one of the researchers tracking the valedictorians, explains, “To know that a person is a valedictorian is to only know that he or she is exceedingly good at achievement as measured by grades. It tells you nothing about how they react to the vicissitudes of life.”

In the fascinating book, The Millionaire’s Mind, Thomas J. Stanley and Jon Robbin, a Harvard-trained mathematician, did in-depth statistical research to identify which variables caused people to become super wealthy and successful in business. Their research found that, contrary to popular belief, there was no significant statistical correlation between how successful these individuals were later in life and their grades in school, their class position, or their SAT scores.

http://www.langfordlearning.com/groups/motivation-why-cant-we-get-it/forum/topic/good-grades-no-predictor-of-success/

You see, apparently university admission directors know a little more about this kind of thing than you do.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[Peter_Pan 661]

Yes, for university admissions that is my only measuring stick.

I went to school to learn as much as possible in my chosen field, not to know Ahmed and LiuLiu. I do that if and when I want, in my own time. I expect school to teach me whichever subject I want, I dont see how having minorities in the classroom makes me learn math more efficiently.

BTW, what you quoted makes no sense. Who is discussing later "success" in life here? And if school is not so important, and you can achieve greatness outside of it, be my guest, no one is holding a gun to your head to attend higher education.

Plus, success that translates only into being "very wealthy" is a failure to me. Not all of us are designed to measure our happiness by the car we drive, you know.

[Karee 4,191]

The key thing I took away from that article was that when UCLA was told they could not use race as a factor, they started using things like family income and whether the potential student was the first to go college from the family instead. Of course someone had a problem with that. I don't. The result of that was that more minorities were admitted to UCLA, but they didn't use race as a factor. In my mind that's a win win.

I have a problem when people run around saying they want racial equality, and then want special treatment based on their race. Can't have it both ways.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, for university admissions that is my only measuring stick.

I went to school to learn as much as possible in my chosen field, not to know Ahmed and LiuLiu. I do that if and when I want, in my own time. I expect school to teach me whichever subject I want, I dont see how having minorities in the classroom makes me learn math more efficiently.

BTW, what you quoted makes no sense. Who is discussing later "success" in life here? And if school is not so important, and you can achieve greatness outside of it, be my guest, no one is holding a gun to your head to attend higher education.

Plus, success that translates only into being "very wealthy" is a failure to me. Not all of us are designed to measure our happiness by the car we drive, you know.

If you follow any professional sports (my guess is you don't), you'd know that the top draft picks don't always pan out. The above quote from that article exemplifies that - that measuring sticks are often inaccurate in determining success - whether it's in professional sports, business or even academics. What they can look at statistically, is when teams, companies and universities thrive and they most often thrive from diversity.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[Ban Hammer 13,760]

Look up George W Bush....lol

gwb was a doctor?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

The key thing I took away from that article was that when UCLA was told they could not use race as a factor, they started using things like family income and whether the potential student was the first to go college from the family instead. Of course someone had a problem with that. I don't. The result of that was that more minorities were admitted to UCLA, but they didn't use race as a factor. In my mind that's a win win.

I have a problem when people run around saying they want racial equality, and then want special treatment based on their race. Can't have it both ways.

You are wrong. People do not want to rely on their race to get them ANYTHING. It is sad when the government has to make companies and universities hire or admit people of certain races because if they didn't these people never get into college of get positions, and not because of their academics or they do not have the qualifications, it is because their race.

You can talk what you feel like everyday, go and paint your body brown or black and find out what it is like to walk in those shoe colors my friend, and you will be changing your tune.

[Karee 4,191]

You are wrong. People do not want to rely on their race to get them ANYTHING. It is sad when the government has to make companies and universities hire or admit people of certain races because if they didn't these people never get into college of get positions, and not because of their academics or they do not have the qualifications, it is because their race.

You can talk what you feel like everyday, go and paint your body brown or black and find out what it is like to walk in those shoe colors my friend, and you will be changing your tune.

Prove me wrong. If you think people getting special treatment because of their race is going to foster racial harmony, I think you're living in fantasy land. How about the person that didn't get a job or admission to a university that they were qualified for, because that job was given to a less qualified candidate based on their race? That is the definition of racism.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Prove me wrong. If you think people getting special treatment because of their race is going to foster racial harmony, I think you're living in fantasy land. How about the person that didn't get a job or admission to a university that they were qualified for, because that job was given to a less qualified candidate based on their race? That is the definition of racism.

And you know for sure that the "black" or "brown" person that got the job or admission was less qualified and how? You are making assumptions that these people are less qualified. Well I can turn that same argument around.

Why should people who are black or brown not get admitted while that white person who was less qualified got the admissions or position because they were white?

[Karee 4,191]

And you know for sure that the "black" or "brown" person that got the job or admission was less qualified and how? You are making assumptions that these people are less qualified. Well I can turn that same argument around.

Why should people who are black or brown not get admitted while that white person who was less qualified got the admissions or position because they were white?

They're less qualified because their test scores say they are less qualified. Pay attention. The whole premise is that they lower the admissions requirements to one group of people based on their race. That is Affirmative Action.

Sure, if you're into fairy tales, you can post whatever you like. I'm curious to know where whites are being admitted to schools with lower test scores than minorities based simply on their race. I'm fairly certain that is against the law, or at least it should be.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Karee

[Janelle2002 3,865]

[quote name="Karee" post="6319214" timestamp="1372080148

Being that you are living in a fairytale, why are you the only person entitled to live in it alone, I want to live in one too!!

First of all, as many people know, unless you are living in a fairytale, schools in poorer neighbors do not have proper books to teach students with, they do not receive state of the art equip, they do not get field trips, everybody who does not live in lala land knows that children in poorer areas do not receive top notch education from public schools the way that students receive public education in richer neighborhoods.

How do you really know what the person can do educationally if they are coming from a socioeconomically depressed area that barely has a decent library? You assume the person is automatically dumber because they didn't receive the same equal education? But, I know, many Americans live in this dream everyday. Good luck to you pale.

I am truly sorry you are upset that a system was formed to give others a fighting chance that without it would not have one.

Good night

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They're less qualified because their test scores say they are less qualified. Pay attention. The whole premise is that they lower the admissions requirements to one group of people based on their race. That is Affirmative Action.

Sure, if you're into fairy tales, you can post whatever you like. I'm curious to know where whites are being admitted to schools with lower test scores than minorities based simply on their race. I'm fairly certain that is against the law, or at least it should be.

Pay attention yourself. Read above - test scores, grades, etc. do not always indicate that a student will thrive at university level. You're also making a false assumption that a higher test score somehow makes a potential university student more qualified as potential student. We're not talking about the difference between a 'D' student vs. an 'A' student. The differences in the candidates are often in single digit percentages.

Did you attend a university? If so, what was your GPA?

[Karee 4,191]

Being that you are living in a fairytale, why are you the only person entitled to live in it alone, I want to live in one too!!

First of all, as many people know, unless you are living in a fairytale, schools in poorer neighbors do not have proper books to teach students with, they do not receive state of the art equip, they do not get field trips, everybody who does not live in lala land knows that children in poorer areas do not receive top notch education from public schools the way that students receive public education in richer neighborhoods.

How do you really know what the person can do educationally if they are coming from a socioeconomically depressed area that barely has a decent library? You assume the person is automatically dumber because they didn't receive the same equal education? But, I know, many Americans live in this dream everyday. Good luck to you pale.

I am truly sorry you are upset that a system was formed to give others a fighting chance that without it would not have one.

Good night

Thank you for making my point. UCLA has said that instead basing their decision solely on race, they would rather base it on the background of the applicant. All of those things you brought up about schools in poorer neighborhoods, socioeconomically depressed areas etc. are exactly what UCLA is doing. They are giving disadvantaged students a better shot. They are basing it on the financial backgrounds of the students. Not solely on race.

Pay attention yourself. Read above - test scores, grades, etc. do not always indicate that a student will thrive at university level. You're also making a false assumption that a higher test score somehow makes a potential university student more qualified as potential student. We're not talking about the difference between a 'D' student vs. an 'A' student. The differences in the candidates are often in single digit percentages.

Did you attend a university? If so, what was your GPA?

Get back to me when you can have an intelligent debate. My GPA or whether or not I went to a university is irrelevant.