Support NeoGAF

[not psycho]

Absolutely, and that's a damn shame and something we can work to change at a root level. Obviously life isn't fair but this bit of controversy, if legitimate, is something that could be addressed and changed to provide a more equal ground to ignore something like race. Life being unfair in some areas isn't a good excuse for discrimination, which is exactly what being denied admission based on your race would be.

So income and race should not be considered. By the same argument, wealth should not be considered, parental education should not be considered, which schools the kid has attended should not be considered.

But if we're really going to eliminate everything the kid can't control, we can't stop there, right? A kid can't control the resources available at the schools they attend, so we should eliminate everything that is not available at every school (including extracurricular activities). They can't control their race, or the way society is set up to treat people of that race, so we must eliminate every characteristic which is affected by race, in addition to eliminating race itself.

Your argument seems fair, but falls apart on closer inspection. Of course we all want kids not to be discriminated against for things they can't control. Sounds great. But once you start seriously eliminating all the things they can't control there isn't much left.

 

[guek]

Do you just want me to nod my head and agree with you?

No, but you could try and be civil instead of trying to twist what I'm trying to say.

And yet they're quick to claim it's quotas and blame it on the blacks and hispanics.

They're blaming the institution, not blacks and hispanics.

Even assuming that quotas are at lay, these Asian kids are STILL almost twice as likely to get in as a black kid. And 2/3rds as likely as a white kid. That's still much better than odds than a black person has at simply GETTING A JOB vs an equally qualified white person.

So? That issue doesn't come down solely to race, even if it plays a large part in societal disenfranchisement. People born into poverty are less likely to go to college, avoid drug abuse, have jobs, etc. Does this mean Harvard should have a substantial quota pulling from jobless, impoverished drug addicts? You keep arguing quotas are a good thing but how is it not a racial prejudice against other qualified applicants? Racial disadvantages in one part of society doesn't justify racial discrimination in others.

And those disadvantages remain through your entire life. Just because if you work twice as hard as someone without those disadvantages you can have almost as much as them doesn't mean you've changed anything!

What, of course you've changed something. You've changed your life! How is that even possible to argue against? Are you accusing me of saying a single person overcoming their impoverished background changes all of society? Because I'm not arguing that at all. Everyone has varying degrees of disadvantages and advantages that don't change throughout life. We can try to change that as much as we can but imposing unnecessary disadvantages on a group of people based on race in order to compensate isn't a great way to go about it.

All black people in the US ae born into a system that requires them to be BETTER than any given white person in order to be allowed to achieve AS MUCH.

All? You know there are rich black people and poor white people too, right? I'm pretty sure poor white people need help too. If you really believe though that Barack Obama's kids have to work harder than a white kid born to two crack head parents in order to succeed in life, I don't know how to proceed in this conversation.

 

[Log4Girlz]

So Harvard is one of the few institutions not throwing out the applications of African Americans? Damn give African Americans a break.

 

[guek]

So income and race should not be considered. By the same argument, wealth should not be considered, parental education should not be considered, which schools the kid has attended should not be considered.

But if we're really going to eliminate everything the kid can't control, we can't stop there, right? A kid can't control the resources available at the schools they attend, so we should eliminate everything that is not available at every school (including extracurricular activities). They can't control their race, or the way society is set up to treat people of that race, so we must eliminate every characteristic which is affected by race, in addition to eliminating race itself.

Your argument seems fair, but falls apart on closer inspection. Of course we all want kids not to be discriminated against for things they can't control. Sounds great. But once you start seriously eliminating all the things they can't control there isn't much left.

How does any of that justify discriminating based on race? You're avoiding the central issue by confounding it with unrelated factors.

 

[ShutEye]

The Ivies are oversubscribed and have no interest in expanding much. The fair thing to do would be to have a series of hurdles (academic & nonacademic) for applicants and then randomize admissions for anyone who beats all the hurdles.

But then you'd kill the Golden goose since one reason for these institutions is so Bush kids can play in the Elite class despite being subpar in the brains department.

 

[The Adder]

All? You know there are rich black people and poor white people too, right? I'm pretty sure poor white people need help too. If you really believe though that Barack Obama's kids have to work harder than a white kid born to two crack head parents in order to succeed in life, I don't know how to proceed in this conversation.

A white kid born to two crack head parents is going to have an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two crack head parents. And most likely an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two sober parents that are almost as poor as those crack heads.

Obama's kids START OFF in a better position than that theoretical white kid, but I guarantee you they have to work harder than Chelsea Clinton does to achieve as much. Or any comparably rich white kid who isn't the child of the President.

The fact that you have to create so wide a gulf indicates how flimsy your argument is.

If you read:

"All black people in the US are born into a system that requires them to be BETTER than any given white person in order to be allowed to achieve AS MUCH."

as

"All black people in the US have to work harder than any white person no matter what"

you're not worth talking to.

 

[guek]

From my perspective, I don't see how the central issue would change if Harvard say imposed quotas that marginalized minorities. People would be outraged. If you want to argue Harvard has a right to construct whatever kind of student profile they want, would it be an issue if their quotas drew heavily based on drawing from predominantly rich, caucasian demographics? Does Harvard have a right to draw up quotas in such a way that marginalized minorities? I'd argue absolutely not.I have nothing against schools trying to build a diverse campus to the best of their ability but I don't think quotas that draw exclusively from specific racial exclusion is the best way to go about it.

 

[guek]

A white kid born to two crack head parents is going to have an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two crack head parents. And most likely an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two sober parents that are almost as poor as those crack heads.

Obama's kids START OFF in a better position than that theoretical white kid, but I gurantee you they have to work harder than Chelsea Clinton does to achieve as much. Or any comparably rich white kid who isn't the child of the President.

The fact that you have to create so wide a gulf indicates how flimsy your argument is.

If you read:

"All black people in the US are born into a system that requires them to be BETTER than any given white person in order to be allowed to achieve AS MUCH."

as

"All black people in the US have to work harder than any white person no matter what"

you're not worth talking to.

Except you didn't specify people starting from the exact same place. The onus is on you to clarify, which you didn't. You actually said any given white person, any meaning ALL. Don't get upset at me for your words.

 

[not psycho]

How does any of that justify discriminating based on race? You're avoiding the central issue by confounding it with unrelated factors.

I thought your argument was that race should not be a factor "because kids can't control it, so it's unfair." So I asked if parental income should be a factor, and you once again said no, because kids can't control it. I then concluded that your argument was flawed because almost every factor can be eliminated by it. Are you arguing that every factor should be eliminated, but, well, we really ought to start off by eliminating race?

If that is not your argument, then why do you think race should not be a factor in admissions?

 

[The Adder]

From my perspective, I don't see how the central issue would change if Harvard say imposed quotas that marginalized minorities.

The fact that Asian students aren't being marginalized by these theoretical quotas, as indicated by the fact that they are the 2nd largest Ethnic group in the student body and almost double the next largest.

 

[guek]

I thought your argument was that race should not be a factor "because kids can't control it, so it's unfair." So I asked if parental income should be a factor, and you once again said no, because kids can't control it. I then concluded that your argument was flawed because almost every factor can be eliminated by it. Are you arguing that every factor should be eliminated, but, well, we really ought to start off by eliminating race?

If that is not your argument, then why do you think race should not be a factor in admissions?

Having race not be a factor does not automatically mean nothing should be a factor. That's not a cogent argument. Race should not be a factor because discrimination based on race is clearly racism. How is that up for debate? How is it not racism? Please answer the question directly, why should admissions staff discriminate based solely on race?

The fact that Asian students aren't being marginalized by these theoretical quotas, as indicated by the fact that they are the 2nd largest Ethnic group in the student body and almost double the next largest.

The students that are potentially rejected solely based on race ARE being marginalized.

 

[The Adder]

Except you didn't specify people starting from the exact same place. The onus is on you to clarify, which you didn't. You actually said any given white person, any meaning ALL. Don't get upset at me for your words.

I said:

All black people in the US are born into a system that requires them to be BETTER than any given white person in order to be allowed to achieve AS MUCH.

I would think a several million dollar head start would obviously count in that category, given that success is being measured in financial security, but clearly I expected too much of your ability to parse a sentence.

The students that are potentially rejected solely based on race ARE being marginalized.

Assuming there are quotas, no one is being rejected based on race, other people are being accepted based on a lack of representation in the student body.

 

[jmood88]

One day they'll realize that they're being used to push a racist system that doesn't give a fuck about them.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

I guess this is related to the Indian dude who pretended to be African American to get into whatever university?

 

[guek]

I said:



I would think a several million dollar head start would obviously count in that category, given that success is being measured in financial security, but clearly I expected too much of your ability to parse a sentence.

It's funny, you're trying to insult me when you don't even understand the basic meaning of your own sentence. Now it's becoming an argument about what you said rather than what you meant which is sad but I'll continue to indulge you. You said ALL black people and ANY given white person which makes no reference to strictly equivalent social starting points, freeing up the comparison between privileged blacks and impoverished whites.

 

[OceanBlue]

One day they'll realize that they're being used to push a racist system that doesn't give a fuck about them.

You say that as if Asians can't be a part of the racist system. I guess there isn't the same amount of history in the US between Asians and the disenfranchised black population though.

 

[not psycho]

Race should not be a factor because discrimination based on race is clearly racism.

Now we're back to square one, and I must ask you again: should parental income be a factor in admissions?

 

[Kieli]

Assuming there are quotas, no one is being rejected based on race, other people are being accepted based on a lack of representation in the student body.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Person A is more qualified than Person B. Person A is least qualified in Ethnicity #1.

Based on quota, Persona B will be accepted but Person A will have their admission rejected/declined.

Edit: I'm fine with guaranteeing spots for under-representated ethnicities. I'm not OK with artificially limiting any particular ethnicity beyond merits both academic or extracurricular.

 

[guek]

To be clear, I understand what you were trying to say now and don't disagree but it hardly refutes the reality that some black kids are more privileged than some white kids. Ignoring those white kids because they're white and not black is some pretty blatant racism.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Assuming there are quotas, no one is being rejected based on race, other people are being accepted based on a lack of representation in the student body.

Hear, hear. Yeah, it's not a bad thing that a university is diversifying and filling in those empty slots. Maybe asian representation is heavy in Harvard, that they start accepting other ethnic applicants over them, which is alright and well, it's how it should be, diversity like you've said is a good thing. I can see why the Asian groups filed the complaint, but I disagree with it.

In a nutshell for people that don't understand...let's say registration is something like 'Take in 25% White, 25% black, 25% other, 25% Asian', basically once the Asian quota is filled up, you start diversifying who you accept and start passing on Asian applicants. This is what is causing the complaint-

They are calling for an investigation and say these schools should stop using racial quotas or racial balancing in admission.

And you know what....racial balancing is important. Because America is a huge place, and you meet all sorts of people. And College, or University, is the perfect time to pretty much experience that. So...yeah. I've read everything you said Adder, and I fully agree.

 

[Pterion]

Cry me a river.

Signed, fellow HSPH classmate.

 

[guek]

Now we're back to square one, and I must ask you again: should parental income be a factor in admissions?

It's such an irrelevant question though. In what way are you saying? Should colleges take into account a the income of parents when comparing the qualifications of potential candidates? No, they shouldn't, and they don't. They don't ask for your parent's income over the past 18 years of your life. They don't take any of that into consideration. How could they even possibly do that? I don't even understand what you're trying to suggest here. All you're doing is deflecting.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

There was a wonderful editorial cartoon for this, wish i could find it.

Pfft found

What is wrong with being out of state?

 

[Slayven]

What is wrong with being out of state?

I assume because out of state students pay more

 

[MHWilliams]

Having race not be a factor does not automatically mean nothing should be a factor. That's not a cogent argument. Race should not be a factor because discrimination based on race is clearly racism. How is that up for debate? How is it not racism? Please answer the question directly, why should admissions staff discriminate based solely on race?

It is discrimination, but it's there to correct systemic imbalance. Do you have another method to do so, because in any correction, some student will be harmed, due to limited spots.

Anyways, if Harvard is using quotas, they'll probably switch to the system upheld by previous courts, in that race and other factors are a "plus" counting in favor of a student, instead of students being removed due to race.

To be clear, I understand what you were trying to say now and don't disagree but it hardly refutes the reality that some black kids are more privileged than some white kids. Ignoring those white kids because they're white and not black is some pretty blatant racism.

Some, but you and I know that's statistically not true on average. The aim is the larger, systematic picture.

 

[The Adder]

Hear, hear. Yeah, it's not a bad thing that a university is diversifying and filling in those empty slots. Maybe asian representation is heavy in Harvard, that they start accepting other ethnic applicants over them, which is alright and well, it's how it should be, diversity like you've said is a good thing. I can see why the Asian groups filed the complaint, but I disagree with it.

In a nutshell for people that don't understand...let's say registration is something like 'Take in 25% White, 25% black, 25% other, 25% Asian', basically once the Asian quota is filled up, you start diversifying who you accept and start passing on Asian applicants. This is what is causing the complaint-


And you know what....racial balancing is important. Because America is a huge place, and you meet all sorts of people. And College, or University, is the perfect time to pretty much experience that. So...yeah. I've read everything you said Adder, and I fully agree.

And honestly, I don't even think it comes to that. More likely I expect it come down to a combination of an over abundance of Asian applicants in particular fields (every Asian applicant isn't going to be better than every single black or hispanic applicant in the same field and if the majority of Asian applicants are applying to a small range of programs, eventually there isn't going to be room for more). I can almost guarantee you that there are Asian students in some programs at Harvard with comparable records and lower scores than some Asian applicants that didn't make it in because they applied to a program that wasn't full up.


And the aforementioned glut of legacies, rich kids, etc.

 

[guek]

It is racism, but it's there to correct systemic imbalance. Do you have another method to do so, because in any correct, some student will be harmed, due to limited spots.

Anyways, if Harvard is using quotas, they'll probably switch to the system upheld by previous courts, in that race and other factors are a "plus" counting in favor of a student, instead of students being removed due to race.

I agree, it's unavoidable to a certain degree. It would be VASTLY preferable and less blatantly racist though if race played some sort of factor in the name of diversity but not the only factor. That's all I'm arguing against, the existence of hard, inflexible quotas based on race.

 

[Kieli]

And honestly, I don't even think it comes to that. More likely I expect it come down to a combination of an over abundance of Asian applicants in particular fields (every Asian applicant isn't going to be better than every single black or hispanic applicant in the same field and if the majority of Asian applicants are applying to a small range of programs, eventually there isn't going to be room for more) and the aforementioned glut of legacies, rich kids, etc.

Oh, good point. This hadn't actually crossed my mind.

 

[guek]

Some, but you and I know that's statistically not true on average. The aim is the larger, systematic picture.

Yes, but I was arguing against the absurd notion that all black people have to work harder than any given white person and therefore systemic racism in their favor is OK.

 

[block tower]

Oh give me a break. There's a gross amount of entitlement in this complaint.

 

[MHWilliams]

I agree, it's unavoidable to a certain degree. It would be VASTLY preferable and less blatantly racist though if race played some sort of factor in the name of diversity but not the only factor. That's all I'm arguing against, the existence of hard, inflexible quotas based on race.

Ah. Yeah, many of those are going away, in favor of the plus system.

Even in this case, I'm not seeing quotas being mentioned in the article except for once.

It also documented that Harvard admitted Asian-Americans at a proportionally lower rate than white applicants even though the Asian-Americans had slightly stronger SAT scores and grades. The agency concluded in 1990 that Harvard didn’t violate civil rights laws because preferences for alumni children and recruited athletes, rather than racial discrimination, accounted for the gap. The new complaint also says Asian-Americans suffer in admissions from stereotyping, such as a belief they lack creativity.

The latter couldn't definitely be a problem, but again, the issue is Harvard's focus on the rich and alumni, not quotas.

The coalition cited research from a 2009 book co-authored by Thomas Espenshade, an economist and senior scholar at the office of Population Research at Princeton University.

If all other credentials are equal, Asian-Americans need to score 140 points more than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points above African-Americans out of a maximum 1,600 on the math and reading SAT to have the same chance of admission to a private college, the book found.

In an interview, Espenshade said more evidence is needed to prove that Asian-Americans are facing discrimination because the schools evaluate “soft information” such as essays and teacher recommendations. Still, the mounting complaints from Asian-Americans represent a “sea change.”

Essentially, like others said, the parents feel that other information outside of score is taken into consideration, which negatively affects their children.

Yes, but I was arguing against the absurd notion that all black people have to work harder than any given white person and therefore systemic racism in their favor is OK.

Perhaps, but as I listed above, that's wasn't found to be the problem above. Those attempting to correct these issues aren't looking at any given student, they are looking at them in aggregate.

On average, certain races have to work harder in college education to obtain the same benefits as those from other races. Affirmative action policies are meant to correct that issue and as such, aren't concerned with "any given".

 

[guek]

Ah. Yeah, many of those are going away, in favor of the plus system.

Even in this case, I'm not seeing quotas being mentioned in the article except for once.



The latter couldn't definitely be a problem, but again, the issue is Harvard's focus on the rich and alumni, not quotas.



Essentially, like others said, the parents feel that other information outside of score is taken into consideration, which negatively affects their children.

Yeah, if %quotas aren't even a real factor then the whole topic of discussion has nothing to stand on and it becomes a different conversation altogether

 

[not psycho]

It's such an irrelevant question though. In what way are you saying? Should colleges take into account a the income of parents when comparing the qualifications of potential candidates? No, they shouldn't, and they don't. They don't ask for your parent's income over the past 18 years of your life. They don't take any of that into consideration. How could they even possibly do that? I don't even understand what you're trying to suggest here. All you're doing is deflecting.

Did you read the article?

"We are seeking equal treatment regardless of race," said Chunyan Li, a professor and civil rights activist, who said they'd rather universities use income rather than race in affirmative action policies.

The people who filed the complaint say they would rather universities use income instead of race for affirmative action.


My response to them is that, while there is an argument to be made that it would be better to use a complex combination of wealth, family history, income, location, schools, etc, rather than considering race itself, it would be near impossible to do it. I wouldn't argue against you if you said we should try.

But income alone is a wholly inadequate proxy for the complex issues that racial affirmative action is intended to address.


I don't know how to respond to you because I can't pin down your argument. If you are ok with an income based "plus" system, I respond to you as above.

If you are not ok with a system that takes into account race, or any potential proxy like wealth, location, income, etc, then I need to ask you why. Keep in mind that the factors you do like are often proxies themselves. The availability of extra curricular activities and test prep courses are proxies for other advantages. Also keep in mind that Harvard argues that diversity (not just scores) is an essential part of the mission of universities.

It sounds like you think an entirely score based system, ignoring context, is the way to go. But why do you think that?

 

[guek]

Did you read the article?




The people who filed the complaint say they would rather universities use income instead of race for affirmative action.


My response to them is that, while there is an argument to be made that it would be better to use a complex combination of wealth, family history, income, location, schools, etc, rather than considering race itself, it would be near impossible to do it. I wouldn't argue against you if you said we should try.

But income alone is a wholly inadequate proxy for the complex issues that racial affirmative action is intended to address.


I don't know how to respond to you because I can't pin down your argument. If you are ok with an income based "plus" system, I respond to you as above.

If you are not ok with a system that takes into account race, or any potential proxy like wealth, location, income, etc, then I need to ask you why. Keep in mind that the factors you do like are often proxies themselves. The availability of extra curricular activities and test prep courses are proxies for other advantages. Also keep in mind that Harvard argues that diversity (not just scores) is an essential part of the mission of universities.

It sounds like you think an entirely score based system, ignoring context, is the way to go. But why do you think that?

My argument, which I've reiterated several times, is that race should not be a sole defining reason determining acceptance. I never said I wasn't ok with a system that takes race into account for the sake of diversity. Rather, that racial diversity can be taken into account through other non-binary means. An asian student can't help that they're asian, and if they're rejected in favor of an equivalent black candidate because the school wants to provide a more diverse campus, that can't be avoided. I don't think prioritizing diversity is racist. However, if a hard number cap based on strict % based diversity causes one candidate to be passed up in favor of a less qualified candidate because of their race, that's pure racial discrimination. I'm not accusing Harvard of the latter but the groups in the article are.

More than 60 Chinese, Indian, Korean and Pakistani groups came together for the complaint, which was filed with the civil rights offices at the Justice and Education departments. They are calling for an investigation and say these schools should stop using racial quotas or racial balancing in admission.

The Harvard lawsuit also contends that the Ivy League university specifically limits the number of Asian-Americans it admits each year.

 

[jmood88]

You say that as if Asians can't be a part of the racist system. I guess there isn't the same amount of history in the US between Asians and the disenfranchised black population though.

Asians have been treated like shit in this country for years but since they're the flavor of the month right now, they don't see how they're helping to perpetuate the same bullshit that was used to deny them rights, which is a shame.

 

[freeofgreed]

My argument, which I've reiterated several times, is that race should not be a sole defining reason determining acceptance. I never said I wasn't ok with a system that takes race into account for the sake of diversity. Rather, that racial diversity can be taken into account through other non-binary means. An asian student can't help that they're asian, and if they're rejected in favor of an equivalent black candidate because the school wants to provide a more diverse campus, that can't be avoided. I don't think prioritizing diversity is racist. However, if a hard number cap based on strict % based diversity causes one candidate to be passed up in favor of a less qualified candidate because of their race, that's pure racial discrimination. I'm not accusing Harvard of the latter but the groups in the article are.

No offense but why are you arguing that? Even back when schools did have racial quotas, most of the schools still weren't admitting unqualified students. Also we have no idea what Harvard's admission practices are, but even still I doubt that they're using race as the sole basis of entry.

 

[guek]

No offense but why are you arguing that? Even back when schools did have racial quotas, most of the schools still weren't admitting unqualified students. Also we have no idea what Harvard's admission practices are, but even still I doubt that they're using race as the sole basis of entry.

Well qualification is relative in college compared to your peers. I'm merely addressing the accusations levied by the people in the OP article in which they believe they were passed over solely due to their race.

 

[jmood88]

No offense but why are you arguing that? Even back when schools did have racial quotas, most of the schools still weren't admitting unqualified students. Also we have no idea what Harvard's admission practices are, but even still I doubt that they're using race as the sole basis of entry.

There are people out here who actually think that a black student with a 2.0 can get into Harvard simply because they're black.

 

[Kite]

One day they'll realize that they're being used to push a racist system that doesn't give a fuck about them.

And black people care about asians.. lol? Everyone is out for themselves, if us asians are being held back and getting screwed then why should we stay quiet?

 

[WARCOCK]

They should just get really rich instead of complaining about quotas. There are sufficient one percenters(or kids of) that the average of the entire student body would be as if you would pick anyone from the 2% at random. This retarded cry for meritocracy to be able to participate in a school that is known to have little to do with merit is kind of silly.

 

[Onemic]

It's always the black persons fault. Always getting that silver spoon.

 

[hipbabboom]

There are people out here who actually think that a black student with a 2.0 can get into Harvard simply because they're black.

Yeah. This always bugged me. Somehow there's not enough black students with insanely high GPAs to make it into Harvard while all white and Asian applicants have 1000 of 4 GPAs.

 

[entremet]

As some who worked with university admission, grades and scores alone don't just get you into competitive schools.

 

[freeofgreed]

And black people care about asians.. lol? Everyone is out for themselves, if us asians are being held back and getting screwed then why should we stay quiet?

This is the sense of entitlement someone was talking about earlier. Some people are assuming that just because they had a perfect GPA/SAT that they didn't get into an ivy league because of their race, when in actuality it was because there were a million other students who applied who had the exact same thing.

 

[Infinite]

And black people care about asians.. lol? Everyone is out for themselves, if us asians are being held back and getting screwed then why should we stay quiet?

Yeah man the "fuck you cause I got mine" mentality is working out well for us

 

[hipbabboom]

And black people care about asians.. lol? Everyone is out for themselves, if us asians are being held back and getting screwed then why should we stay quiet?

Who the fuck is holding you back? In fact, what minority group has worked the hardest to give minorities a voice in this damned country? I dont mean to imply your ethnicity owes anyone shit but don't for a second think that this country if it didn't start righting itself from the past of slavery would have seen you as a human.

 

[guek]

This is the sense of entitlement someone was talking about earlier. Some people are assuming that just because they had a perfect GPA/SAT that they didn't get into an ivy league because of their race, when in actuality it was because there were a million other students who applied who had the exact same thing.

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. No one is saying the people who got in weren't qualified, just that they, being just as qualified, were not considered due to their race.

Yeah man the "fuck you cause I got mine" mentality is working out well for us

Why is it somehow assumed they're attacking blacks here? They're clearly attacking the administration.

 

[freeofgreed]

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. No one is saying the people who got in weren't qualified, just that they, being just as qualified, were not considered due to their race.

The poster I replied to was pretty much implying just that. Also if two equally qualified students are both applying to the same school, I don't see what's wrong with the school choosing to go with the student that has the lesser representation as the tie breaker.

Why is it somehow assumed they're attacking blacks here? They're clearly attacking the administration.

The hell? Did you even read what the guy he was responding to said? Also why are you assuming infinite is talking about blacks? He said nothing about race in the post you quoted.

 

[Lamel]

I used to think this, but after going to a top 20 public school (top 50 overall, I think) for undergrad and an Ivy for grad school, it really isn't the same at all. Those very top schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, etc.) really do offer opportunities that you just don't get elsewhere, especially for employment after. Sure, it's not "the end of the world" if you don't go to Harvard in particular, but the very top schools really do offer a LOT that you just can't get elsewhere. To be clear, even though I went to grad school, not undergrad, at the Ivy league school, I'm talking about the undergrad experiences.

Spoiler

I really don't have anything to do about the issue in the OP though.

I have to agree with this as well. I went to a decent state school and my friends who went to Duke generally had companies knocking down their door to hire them. Its a very different culture.

Not to say that I'm complaining about this or anything. They were extremely smart, worked way harder than I did in high school and paid a lot more money than me. They definitely deserve it.

I agree recruitment is more developed at the top schools, which makes it easier. However its not impossible from other schools. I've experienced both calibers as well.

Another thing is that a lot of students are pissed that they didn't get into Harvard and had to SETTLE for Penn,or Cornell, or Hopkins etc .

 

[Valhelm]

They should just get really rich instead of complaining about quotas. There are sufficient one percenters(or kids of) that the average of the entire student body would be as if you would pick anyone from the 2% at random. This retarded cry for meritocracy to be able to participate in a school that is known to have little to do with merit is kind of silly.

The 1% is huge, though. That's over three million Americans, and a couple hundred thousand must be college-aged.