pz

You'll also see similar percentages for medical schools. The best and most sure way to get into the med school of your choice is to arrange to have a parent who is an alumnus.

I've seen it several times. In a cohort of premeds, the class dufus who got marginal MCAT scores and struggled to keep a 3.3 average by tactical withdrawals and a heavy courseload in basketweaving sails into med school because his daddy is a doctor; meanwhile, the better students are all in a near-terminal panic because they get rejection letter after rejection letter, and eventually end up going to school on some tiny island in the Caribbean.

It is true so far that most of the top notch students, no matter what their ancestry, manage to get in to a good med school, eventually. It is also true that any one med school class might contain a few of the best and the brightest, but it's also leavened with a goodly number of mediocre clunkers...who are subsequently motivated to maintain and expand the legacy system.

Godbert

Well, unequal opportunity is not that strongly correllated with race. There are poor white students too - probably more than poor minorities. Being sick, being ugly, being short probably all have about the same correlation with unsuccessfulness than being black and don't get affirmative action.

The worst thing about affirmative action is that it waters down the quality of education for the students who are there based on their qualification. And the resulting grudge from them plus the ones who were not admitted because of affirmative action will not really help racial integration. Same with the fact that if you use this system minority students will always be the least qualified students at their respective universities - which is just asking for stereotypes to develop.

But again my main problem is that you not only give to the minorities but also take away from the student who are deservedly at the same institution by watering down their education.

cheetah

I agree with the problems you've presented, Godbert. So, what's the solution?

I strongly disagree, however, with your statement that race is not correlated with being poor or unequal preparation ro whatever. Even in this day and age, the avg black person IS poorer than the average white person. no one is arguing there are no poor white people, and if you remember, my post was specifically about my own family's experiences as poor white people. But, I couldn't let your statement pass anyway. A disproportionate amount of poor people are black (i.e. if Black's make about 12-15% of the population, more than 12-15% of the poverty level people are black). That's why this is partially a race thing, but, as I said in my post, I think it is more appropriately a socioeconomic thing.

And the solution, I think, must be proactive. Like you say, you can't just let people in because they didn't have the opportunity, then water down the education for others. It would be ideal to help the lower socioeconomic status children have an equal opportunity at preparation for college.

beyelzu

cheetah,

you argue as if these affirmative action students cant get into other schools. is it fair to lower the standards for african americans, native americans, and hispanics and raise the standards for asian americans and white students regardless of socioeconomic realities.

also studies show that asians do better in school because they work harder than their white counterparts, not because of socioeconomic reasons.

there are plenty of schools that a person can get into when they make 800-900 on the sat. i just dont think that the ivy league and top tier schools should be that place.

i could have gone to almost any school 1500 sat and 3.5 gpa, and i do come from a background that is econimically disadvantaged. and as such, i do realize that there are plenty of grants and loans available to poorer students. so if the government is already helping to pay for the education, why should we also lower the standards.

the sat and high school gpa are also pretty good standards to judge academic success in college. which means that people who do poorly in those two areas and get admitted anyway are unlikely to do well in that college.


students who get admitted into colleges based on affirmative action drop out at a much higher rate than minorities who were admitted into colleges not based on affirmative action.

cheetah

ERRR, so frustrating, when people put words in my mouth. I am NOT arguing for affirmative action, I am arguing for better preparation for socioeconomically disadvantaged children. You say you came from that, so maybe you are one, like I said in my first post, that was able to show it purely from natural talent. But, you seem to think it is fair that certain colleges be reserved for people of certain wealth and that it is fair that socioeconomically disadvantaged children hvae to rely on natural ability ONLY because they do not have as much opportunity to learn through prep schools. Fine. You answered my question, which, in my first post, was: is it fine for richer people's children to have better access to better education ebacsue that's the whole reason their parents got rich (to get better stuff).

I still disagree because I still know that there are children out there that, if they had a better chance to prepare, could get into and do much better at, an Ivy League or toherwise competitive school. I also know that our current system neither properly prepares people equally nor does it base the admissions decisions on VALID criteria (i.e. the race part. Two people getting low test scores and are balck could be doing so for different reasons. One because they didn't have a chance to prepare anymore, but COULD have done well if they had and the other who just would never do better, whether it be motivation or etc. OUr current system does not distinguish between the two, and it should, preferably by giving EVERYONE an opportunity beforehand, on equal footing, to show what they can do, if given resources.

Basically, I am saying the whole premise is shot to hell. No one would have to do affirmative action if every child had access to the same resources as others. Then you would KNOW who had the potential to do well in college and who didn't: it would be the ones who had done SOMETHING good with the resources they were given! You guys cannot honestly ignore the fact that there are many children out there that have potential that is not fully developed because they didn't have access to prep schools and SAT courses. Do you honestly believe this doesn't exist? Without affirmative action, these kids don't get into a good school. With it, "bad" kids get in. The whole system sucks.

I know personal accounts are not evidence, but I just would liek to share that this DOES happen. I went to a crappy school and was very economically disadvantaged and got a mediocre SAT score of 1250. However, after four years at a great public school that has a policy against discriminating based on socioeconomic statuys, I got over 2300 (out of 2400) on the GRE, including a perfect score on the analytical section and near perfect on the other two (math and verbal). So, I can attest to the fact that with greater resources, people can really blossom in ways that they were unable to with only mediocre resources.

I don't like affirmative action, but I also don't like the idea that we will make it even harder for those children who ARE trying to do well, coming from a poor family, to achieve that. Whatever. At least for Californians there is still the UC system...

elwoodblues

The male/female ratio in college is about 40/60. This is prompting some universities to consider affirmative action, in favor of men. This is how ridiculous the system has become.

link

Sakpo

Yep, it's pretty bad with med schools. My grandfather actually managed to get into Stanford med several decades ago (he was the first person in the family to go to an actual university, as opposed to technical training or a fundie training center). He managed to graduate in the top 3% of his class, but if he is to be believed (and I see no reason to doubt him) he had to be constantly worried about discrimination and such (that is he had to be careful because he was at risk of being graded lower so some idiot with a family history at the place could have his grade inflated). He never fails to tell people that there are lots of idiots who get into med school and graduate.

And no, if anybody is curious, I don't get any legacy points at Stanford.

godlessmath

I agree with Cheetah. Bush should take a cold shower to soften the boner he has for dropping bombs, stop licking the boots of the corporate big wigs, stop giving money to the military so that they can buy stealth bombers, and start doing something about the public education system. And no, trying to do the voucher thing does not count.

But seriously, with what authority does Bush declare something unconstitutional? You mean, unconstitutional like the Faith-Based Initiative? Like the "detainees" in Guantanamo Bay, racial profiling of middle eastern people, and the National Day of Prayer? Give us a break Dubya.

Oh, and by the way, UCSD Class of 2002!!! Marshall!!!

elwoodblues

I see. It only 'counts' if you think it should be done. If he honestly thinks it's a good way to improve the education kids get, that doesn't matter. Great.

godlessmath

It only counts if the idea for fixing the public schools is actually an idea for fixing public schools. Vouchers are not. They are meant to appease the Religious Right for votes, so that Fundamentalist parents can cash in on being able to send their kids to a religious school where they won't hear about evilution.