Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

Hmmmm. . . I was under the impression that college was a place to get a higher education and in turn a better, higher paying job. That is based on of course your accomplishments that you can prove you are capable of. Why turn away a white kid, despite whether he is 'rich' or not, so you can accept a black kid who hasn't been able to prove anything better than the white kid. Rufio I'm sorry but your argument is based on your biased opinion. If a white kid is pushed and pushed by his parents to do well, and he can succeed, why turn him away? Are you trying to imply that parents shouldn't encourage thier children to try thier absolute best and beyond in school? Also, are you saying that if a black mother pushed her kid to the limit and he did well while living in the ghetto then he wouldn't deserve his 'leg up'? I hope I can get an answer from all of the questions I've asked you Rufio. I could honestly write so many more counterpoints to your argument but frankly, it's late and I have other post to tend to.

Are they deprived of an eduction? The answer is clearly no. Many lesser quality colleges and universities will accept them. If the question is, are they deptrived of the education they deserve? Then yes, some are being deprived of the thing they've been working so hard for. Do you agree with Rufio's statements? It is clear that you both agree that AA needs to exist in order to level the playing field, but do you agree with the points he has made? JL, I respect your opinion highly, and I understand what you mean, but how can the double-standard that is so evident be overlooked so easily? The time to end an upper-hand given to any race or group is now. Equal rights, part of our constitution, means equal opportunities.

I'm going to try and think of a hypothetical situation, I'm not sure how well it will turn out but here it goes. What if a white student was applying to a university, along with a black one, competing for the same spot. Now what do you think would happen if the white student was given extra ponits on everything because he was white. This would disadvantage the black student and there would be an outrageous uproar. I myself would be disgusted by it. As you can imagine I am a white male. What makes this situation any different; considering that both of them come from an equal class background.

If the black and white candidates are of the same economic class affirmative action should not be activated. Many institutions will favor a minority in the interest of diversity. If this were a valid criterion then why not favor immigrants from a wide range of cultures? No, the only valid purpose of AA is to level the field with regard to class inequalities. A talented and motivated child should not be disadvantaged because of the failures of his parents, but this can be complicated by the fact that his parents' economic experience might have been influenced by discrimination due to their ethnic status. If the parents achieved middle class status despite their ethnic disadvantages then their children should not be eligible for AA assistance. This is because they simply do not need it.

Carbon, you don't get what I'm saying. Of course college is a place where you get an education to help you get a better job. In theory. A lot of people go there and wind up with a useless degree or drop out, but that's another story. But it's not a simple relationship of "you do well, you get a good job". You also have to have money, and have to do well enough in high school. I'm sure any of us here could benefit from going to Harvard, but only to upper crust ever gets to. The people who are not accepted into a college because their GPAs were .0001 lower than everyone else's would probably not be any more challenged at that college than the people who got in. High school, frankly, is a rat race for a lot of people, to get to the top so you can beat everyone else out of seats at the college of your choice. Even if you go to a giant state university, you still have to make their requirements. The only purpose of high school, for a lot of people, is to get to college.

If your parents have decided that they don't want to (or can't) pay for college, than it's totally different. Then high school is the end, and that's what's going to get you a job, not your college diploma that you can't afford. So you're not trying to get the best grades in high school, you're just trying to graduate. Obviously, you're going to have lower grades than the people who race through high school in order to get to college. No one hiring someone with a high school education is going to give a **** if you had a 3.8 GPA, so why bother? What make this distinction? Whether your parents have the money to send you to college. It all comes down to money. Make it so that everyone from a poorer background has a real opportunity to get into a college, and you'll see how similar we really all are when we're striving for the same goals.

The people of lower income levels can still still apply to a huge state university without AA, on an EQUAL point scale. They aren't being deprived that right. If someone wants to go to college, than they don't deserve any extra help because of their race or even income level. One thing that is perfectly fine with me is more assistance for people of lower incomes, but not extra points while applying.

Sure. But the thing is, parents decide at the moment their child is born whether or not they're going to college. They set aside bank accounts in preparation for this. They tell their kid that they are going to college (or that they aren't) while they are still going through gradeschool. So whether someone "wants" to go to college or not is determined pretty much by what their parents think they'll be able to afford in 18 years, when the child is born. "Assisitance" will not help that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. My family did not put away a single fund for my college, not a penny. They told me it was up to me if I wanted to attend college. I took out student loans, and I am currently attending the University of Michigan. I worked harder than you'll ever believe to reach that point, and I'll work even harder to pay off my education. My parents never made the desicion for me. Perhaps in your situation it was, but not always, like you imply.

By the way, JL. I am curious to know whether you agree with Rufio's argument.

My point was mainly the other way around. If parents don't think they'll ever be able to pay for college, they will encourage their kids to not go, and won't push them to study. Your parents clearly expected you to go to college, though they wanted you to earn it. For some, it was never even on the radar.

I disagree, many commercials on television encourage going to college, along with teachers at school, mentors, counselors, etc. College is always on the radar. And if college isn't even on the radar then an extra few points won't matter because they wouldn't be applying anyways.

I am arriving here quite late. Read this whole thread fairly fast.
I'll talk fast too, and probably enlarge, massage, discuss, modify my answer as I settle in.

To cut to the chase, I haven't seen anything JL wrote, or Joe from Chicago wrote, or.. Lone Voice I disagree with, though I may have missed things re LV (I agreed about where JL and LV were agreeing). I agree with quite a bit of what Cicerone Imposter said, though not his main pov.

My keenest wish is that we wouldn't have to have this discussion because opportunity would be there for anybody wanting it.

I am a female of a certain age who went to a state university in the early 1960's. It was then and is still one of the better universities in the country, UCLA. When I went there, my first semester tuition was $26.00. (Part of my memory say's $19.00, but I think I'm wrong on that number.) When I graduated, my last semester tuition was $76.00.

I lived at home, a lucky break that my home wasn't very far away. I didn't have a car, and took a bus back and forth.
Buses to my home ran not very often, but as luck would have it, again, I mostly rode from school to work (more buses on that route), as I worked an average of thirty hours a week, and then got a ride from work. I qualified for scholarship scholastically, but not financially the first year, as my dad had earned relatively high money the few months that he had a film editing job.
The remaining years, he was mostly out of work, and I was too dumb and isolated to reapply for a scholarship. No, I didn't have a counselor. The school offered them, but I was busy. The year I was trying to check out med schools, I found out that the previous year, close to no women were admitted in all the schools in the US and Canada mentioned in the MCAT med school admissions catalog. That was 1962.
Things changed shortly after I got out, but by then I was well involved in the med research world, sans a doctorate.

I'm not exactly complaining, as the bias against women as physicians (engineers, lawyers) was being dealt with over time. I am wishing that decent educations were available at low tuition for all who got themselves ready and approached the door.

Which brings up the morass of lower education. (Do you have an hour?) I prefer improving that to our exploring Mars.

On education as a way to a good job, yes, it tends to help, but I don't think that is the primary function of higher learning. It is to provide knowledge and to advance knowledge, for the betterment of the community as a whole.

Since there aren't UCLA equivalents in every city, and even at UCLA there is now a tremendous tuition (thank you, Ron), not to mention cost of books and incidentals like where to sleep and eat, college is very expensive.

No one on this thread has, that I've noticed, separated the matter of scholarships from admission policy. I know they're entwined, but they're not exactly the same thing.

On admissions: I don't know of a school that admits graded people, given board tests and GPAs, in a one fell swooping slice from the top. First of all, there are the legacy admittances. There are the sports related admittances. Maybe, in a state college, out of state admittances, because they arrive with money. Colleges have paid attention to extracurricular activities in a search for wellroundedness instead of straight A's. Over time they have caught on to the advantages for the college community of real diversity, not looking at the advantage as just to the poor so and so. (Well, in theory, anyway. I can see that lawsuits have a motivating power.)

I know a couple of people personally who got into a major university with D averages because of who their fathers were, though I admit that isn't recent info.

I agree as I've intimated that I'd rather see socioeconomic criteria be a consideration than race (so called) by itself.
But surely I'd like to see - given that all are qualified - some room for people who worked through thickets of difficulty to get their B averages - given equal chance with some higher gradepoint folks without clear disadvantage. But as I said, I rather see both get in, and whoever needs financial support get it.

I think race does count in consideration of diversity, under social +/or economic variation. I live in a pretty white community now, after decades of living in vibrant Los Angeles. Mighty strange to me, and it is one of the reasons I was chary of moving here. I won't call it a loss in this area, in that this is a small somewhat isolated northern town, as much as an absence, a void of richness never obtained... yet.

I would add that school should be as tough for everybody once people are admitted, though counselling and tutoring services may need enhancing. (I don't know how they are now.) And I would like to see (thank you very much) lower education and tutoring massively enhanced at all nonprivate schools.

Carbon, my parents had no thought of my higher education, nor did I until my mid-twenties. I could not possibly be admitted to a university because of my egregiously low GPA from high school. I have described my academic autobiography elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here My first ambition was to be a painter and violinist. After some years of study in art and music schools, I earned an AA degree from a community college with a 3.9 GPA and was admitted, on that basis, to UCLA with two scholarships (presidential and university). After graduation, I was admitted to a state university program and earned an MA, then I was admitted to another UC system university doctoral program and completed the program with the help of two more university scholarships and a grant from NIMH--and a work-study job. Eventually I worked until retirement at a reputable university. I was a beneficiary of the community college system, but not of Affirmative Action--I am hispanic. I have seen many qualified but disadvantaged minorities succeed in their college careers in good part because of affirmative action assistance. I might also have needed affirmative action assistance were it not for a number of fortuitious circumstances that we need not recount here.

I agree with Ossobuco's statement: "On education as a way to a good job, yes, it tends to help, but I don't think that is the primary function of higher learning. It is to provide knowledge and to advance knowledge, for the betterment of the community as a whole." I also think that an excellent education--qua personal cultivation, not just job training--makes effective democracy possible and one's life more interesting.

white people deserve to die

aftermath, that was helpful.

I don't agree with Affirmative Action but until someone comes up with a better plan, this is all we have. Unfortunatly, many minorities do suffer discrimination and with AA, many middle class white students suffer discrimination. But there hasn't been any other way to ensure that the distribution of scholorships and educational admissions is equal to all qualified students. The fact is that many people are still sexist and racist. (example and case in point, the statment made by aftermath) The world is still not fair and I don't know that it will ever be. It really chaps my ass that a man would make more money (33% more statistically) than I would doing the same job. But then again, why should I make just as much because I am a woman (and not because I do a better job)? Same goes with schools....perhaps a white kid gets turned down because a minority (any) must be accepted to fill the "quota". But on the flip side, say a minority gets turned down just because they are a minority? Happens both ways too often.

Exactly.....

AA doesn't go far enough to fix what it was meant to.

I certainly hope that aftermath is not an anarchic fugitive from Abuzz.

Kristie, I agree with what you say. But middle class whites do not need to be disadvantaged by the so-called reverse discrimination of AA. If the pie were expanded by greater allocations of national funds to higher education majority group individuals would not suffer any disadvantages from AA. I sometimes get the feeling that intergroup tension is an intended consequence of the artificial zero-sum (fixed pie size) created by AA as it stands now.

I know some people who were almost accepted into a university and missed the cut by a few spaces - because of the AA quota. This was back when they had quotas though. However, anything that counts race as a positive aspect in place of something like grades or scores or well-rounded activities is retarded.