Jimmy Higgins

Its bad! It shouldn't be used for college admissions! I'm against it.

Well, wasn't he for it in the debates? Or was it that if that is what he explained he was believing in? What a moron!

But here is the hypocrisy. Can someone explain how else Rice and Powell got their positions under this administration? In fact, they are using their race to show how open to other cultures (other than caucasian ones) they are. Yet, from the other side of the mouth they discredit affirmative action, when that's what they used to put Rice and Powell into the positions of NSA and Secretary of State, respectively. WTF?

mshah2k

Bush had straight C's through college, yet he got into Harvard Business School for MBA because of his class. Admission by class is ok, but race is not?

Derec

There is a big difference between private and public schools. Please compare apples to apples. Most public schools have abolished legacy by now and yes, I think public universities should use neither legacy nor race as an admission criterion.

That race is weighed as a much bigger factor than SAT scores is a scandal to express it mildly.

UMoC

beyelzu

incidentally, harvard has heavy race based admissions. an american indian, hispanic or black need only make about 900 on the sat and a 2.8 gpa to get into harvard. look at uc berkley that requires asians to make about 1400 or more on the sat and a 4.0 gpa and allows blacks in with less than 1000. i agree with bush's stand on affirmative actioin in college's.

Godbert

I also think affirmative action is way overdone.
If two students are exactly equally qualified then, yes, take the black or hispanic over a white one. But if they are not on the same level then it should only be about who is the better one - everything else is just unfair.
Of course it sounds a little stupid when someone like Bush talks about it, who went to Yale? despite being to stupid to operate a pretzel, but in principle he is right. (of course only in this matter)

Koiyotnik

I'll admit straight up: this is a very tangled situation, with a solution difficult to see.

With that said, I'd like to ask, why would the "black or hispanic" student be chosen over the caucasian student? I don't understand the logic here. I'm not saying accept the caucasian student over the others, but I don't understand why that said student is automatically disqualified because of his ethnicity.

Of course, I think a situation where there are two ethnically different students who, when all factors are weighed and considered, are completely equal is highly improbable. Since this is not very likely to happen, then it really shouldn't be an issue, right? But somehow, it still is.

-Koiy.

(Edited for clarity's sake)

beyelzu

i would imagine that in a university with 30k plus students it is possible for exactly this sort of thing to occur. so in the case of comletely equal grades, i tink that i would be ok with the admission of the american indian, black or hispanic over an asian or caucasion. but i doubt that is intrinsically fair position to take. but at least it wouldnt be one set of standards for one ethnic group and a different set of standards for a different ethnic groupl

slept2long

I thought he got in because his daddy went there, i.e. legacy, not because he was a little rich bastard. And I think legacy and affirmitive action are bullshit.

cheetah

While I don't usually agree with affirmative action, I can't help but be reminded that unless everyone has an equal upbringing, it is hard to expect them to compete equally. So, it is not the black or native american's fault that s/he grew up in a family that is extremely poor/ did not have access to private prep schools (for whatever reason. Maybe their parents are really lazy and not trying to help their kid, or maybe, like my parents, they are less poor than THEIR parents, and working hard, but still not rich enough to afford prep school, SAT courses, etc. for me), but we are expecting them to perform as well as a (whatever race person, but most likely white or even asian as those make up more of the upper class) upper class child who had tutors and prep school and all kinds of extra boosts. We are sure expecting a HELL of a lot of natural ability then, out of those lower class kids.

So, you decide. Is that fine, to make kids compete EQUALLY for things that they did NOT have equal opportunity to prepare for? Well, that's why people get rich right? To have things for themself and their children that other people might not be able to afford. That's the American Way. The question is, should we accept that that will be the case? Myself, I am torn. I prefer competition based purely on merit. BUt, I can't help knowing that in mnay cases, the competitors start out on very unequal footing. Foorting so unequal that it might not be able to be overcome for them. I certainly don't think our current system is the best (let someone in with lower scores), because then you don't know how an EQUAL competition would have fared. I think, personally, that we need to do something to provide all the potential competitors with equal access to prepare themselves for the competition. Whether they choose to or not, or use it to the best fo their ability or not, will show and that's what will get them in.

For myself, I didn't get into Harvard or Stanford, even though I was valedictorian of my school. Maybe I could have if I had had an opportunity at prep schools or something. But, the UC system has a policy where the top 10% of any California High school, I think, WILL get into one of the 9 UC campuses. I got into one of the best: UCSD and graduated magna cum laude, phi beta kappa, etc. I am now on my way to being one of those affluent people myself. But, it took a couple of generations. From my grandmother, who had 9 children because she didn't have access to birth control or abortions, to my mom, who when she was young, in the 50s, didn't have indoor plumbing, to me. I know no matter how hard my grandmother tried (and FYI, she is white, so I don't want to make this exclusively race-based), she would never have gotten into a good college. Heck, I did try my best and I only got into public schools.

Until there's equal access, there really can't be FAIR equal judging. But, maybe it should be based on socioeconomic status instead....I don't know...

Sakpo

Class discrimination/Legacy are the same thing (or rather, Legacy is an aspect of class discrimination). Legacy is one of the methods by which the elites ensure they will replicate themselves. Regardless of talent or motivation Legacy ensures the rich little twerps (like GWB) will have access to the elite institutions (where they get prestige/bragging rights, make lifelong contacts with other elites, etc) and combined with inherited wealth this makes sure the children of the elites also join the ruling class in America. For the students who get in but are not legacy students (though probably still rich little twerps) they still are immersed in the elite world and then Legacy gives them incentive to send their kids off, etc...and essentially the people are encouraged to become new members of the elite, thus preserving it while appearing to accept new people.

For anyone who doesn't know, "Legacy" is when a school sets aside a percentage of its acceptance letters for the children of graduates, as long as the parents have been paying up over the years. It is not uncommon in the ivy leagues for 30-40 percent of the spots for incoming students to be set aside in this manner.