'Affirmative Action', where do you stand?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

What do you feel about affirmative action?

  • It's great, it makes up for what happened to underrepresented minorities in the past!

    Votes: 14 8.5%
  • It's necessary short-term and fulfills pressing needs in underserved communities.

    Votes: 31 18.8%
  • Indifferent, I'm just tired of this discussion.

    Votes: 20 12.1%
  • We gave it a shot but doesn't work, achievement gap still there after 40yrs and won't go away.

    Votes: 16 9.7%
  • Against it as you can't correct a past wrong with another wrong, discrimination is discrimination.

    Votes: 84 50.9%

  • Total voters
    165
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

lnsip9reg

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
I'm curious as to people's aggregate opinions on affirmative action. I hope this thread doesn't get taken down, and if we're lucky it'll remain civil.

I ask that people occasionally comment to keep this poll towards the top, but keep it to a minimum as I think the numbers will speak for themselves. It is an anonymous poll.
 
Edit: Sorry for responding, next time I'll read the entire post.
 
In the other forums on this topic, it's hard to get a sense of where most people stand. It seems like the more passionate outspoken people get more of the attention, drowning out the rest with quieter stances.

I hope with the five options I provided, it provided enough of a spectrum of opinion, however coarse the breakdown, to let people have their say.
 
BUMP - 6 more days
 
i think you need to define what you mean by affirmative action.

my understanding is that it is NOT what people usually think it is, i.e. it is NOT giving a job or position to a minority who is less qualified than a non-minority, simply because they are a minority. As someone mentioned in the other thread, that sort of thing is illegal in California, at the very least.

Affirmative Action as I believe it is meant to be understood is that each company (or school) has a specific percentage of minorities that is meant to be a goal to shoot for, not a hard and fast line drawn in the sand. In other words, let's say UCLA has been given a number like 25% minorities. That number represents something they should aim for, not something they are required to have. So, what it means, or should mean, is that underqualified minorities wouldn't get the spot instead of a qualified "majority", but the school will do its best to at least examine applications from more minority students which should increase the chances of qualified minorities to be accepted.

Basically, the idea is to get qualified people into the spots with enough attention paid to the pool of minority applicants, not fill seats with minorities who aren't up to snuff.
 
Heya, first your profile pic is awesome, I'm a big fan of Cosmo!

I feel that by keeping affirmative action undefined, I was able to make sure that people's responses were closer to what their gut reaction views are, without the question biasing them to a particular choice. I feel that the five options presented provide a fair enough space for a decent spectrum to be represented.

By keeping this anonymous (even though people are already anonymous behind their SDN usernames), the main goal was to give people a general feel of where everyone else stood. I think the final result will be informative to us all.
 
The problem with a pole like this is that if people dont really know what affirmative action is they make an uninformed vote. If aa is seen as reverse discrimination of course ethically it is wrong because discrimination is fundamentally wrong, regardless of to whom it is done. Yet the social problems in this country have placed blacks, hispanics, native americans and women at an economic disadvantage and left the largest group of people (white men) at an overwhelming advantage. It is not the fault of white men, rather a consequence of our country's past. Unfortunately in this country there is not enough opportunity to go around and those with money have more opportunity (we are a capitalist society). SO until people understand and come up with a way to make opportunity equal for all affirmative action might be the only way to at least give those URM who are qualified a chance to compete.

I don't understand why people are not talking about eliminating the disparity and unequal distribution of wealth in this country. That is truely the only way to address the lack of opportunity.
 
For people who agree with you, they can answer choice 2. For those who believe it is reverse-discrimination, choice 5.

As I said before, I did not want to construct a poll with built-in bias. If constructed your way, then you would've left out choice 5, which is in fact a legitimate opinion.

From the numbers you can see the majority does view it as reverse-discrimination, though the pro-AA crowd has finally made up some ground. <shrug> That's what I wanted to determine with this poll. Thanks for voting!

And in answer to your last question, you don't mean the complete elimination of the disparity and unequal distribution, right? Hah, that sounds like communism to me.. I guess there's always Venezuela? Pretty interesting stuff going on there right now!
 
But who are the majority? Those who would benefit from aa or those who feel threatened by it?
 
Neither of those options hopefully. On a simple level, the majority in this case means choice 5, which has the largest number of votes.

That being said, that group most likely consists mainly of Whites and Asians, as they make up the predominant users of SDN. And there probably is some self-interest involved. Though the pro-AA crowd probably has their fair share of Whites and Asians as well.

I would hope that the people who voted for choice 5 are doing so on stricly moral grounds, and not because of identity-politics, trying to "get what's yours" for the group (i.e., tit-for-tat). I feel that part of the anti-AA crowd's strength in their argument is that they can successfully argue the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument.

Choice 4 on the other hand, what I voted for, is for those who were open to AA previously. But the way it is now, does it work? I agree with you in that deeper changes need to be made. AA can't fix 13yrs of bad schooling!
 
The problem with a pole like this is that if people dont really know what affirmative action is they make an uninformed vote. If aa is seen as reverse discrimination of course ethically it is wrong because discrimination is fundamentally wrong, regardless of to whom it is done. Yet the social problems in this country have placed blacks, hispanics, native americans and women at an economic disadvantage and left the largest group of people (white men) at an overwhelming advantage. It is not the fault of white men, rather a consequence of our country's past. Unfortunately in this country there is not enough opportunity to go around and those with money have more opportunity (we are a capitalist society). SO until people understand and come up with a way to make opportunity equal for all affirmative action might be the only way to at least give those URM who are qualified a chance to compete.

I don't understand why people are not talking about eliminating the disparity and unequal distribution of wealth in this country. That is truely the only way to address the lack of opportunity.


Where did you get your stats that say white men are the largest group of people in this country? Also, if we "eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth" in the U.S., that will do nothing except bring the whole system crashing down. Or, it will eventually settle back into the way it is today as the entrepreneurs continue creating business and the consumer keeps spending while not creating wealth for himself. What is the point of a free market system if the individual is not rewarded for the success of his enterprise? People will not produce goods and services efficiently if they cannot see the gain in doing so- this is what keeps quality up and prices down- competition. And Fee for Service is the only way to keep the system fair and the quality of care high. Would you pay your dentist the same amount you pay the kid mowing your lawn? Hardly.

Opportunity is there for everyone- why else would we have such a high level of immigration to the U.S.?

If you ask me, the U.S. does not run on economic equality. The haves need the have-nots, and vice versa. Education is the only way to improve your chances, starting at kindergarten. If you want to talk about changing society, let's start there, with the children. Giving jobs or giving money to those who have not earned it (simply to spread the wealth) will not help one bit.

(My opinion, with all due respect)
 
Where did you get your stats that say white men are the largest group of people in this country? Also, if we "eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth" in the U.S., that will do nothing except bring the whole system crashing down. Or, it will eventually settle back into the way it is today as the entrepreneurs continue creating business and the consumer keeps spending while not creating wealth for himself. What is the point of a free market system if the individual is not rewarded for the success of his enterprise? People will not produce goods and services efficiently if they cannot see the gain in doing so- this is what keeps quality up and prices down- competition. And Fee for Service is the only way to keep the system fair and the quality of care high. Would you pay your dentist the same amount you pay the kid mowing your lawn? Hardly.

Opportunity is there for everyone- why else would we have such a high level of immigration to the U.S.?

If you ask me, the U.S. does not run on economic equality. The haves need the have-nots, and vice versa. Education is the only way to improve your chances, starting at kindergarten. If you want to talk about changing society, let's start there, with the children. Giving jobs or giving money to those who have not earned it (simply to spread the wealth) will not help one bit.

(My opinion, with all due respect)
You are entitled to your opinion.

I agree that we need to start educating people equally in order for all to have equal opportunity. This should start in pre K. But it does not. Our country is still very much racially and socially segregated. And the children of the "have nots" are at economic and social disadvantage. "The haves", have more money, better schools, less crime in their neiborhoods, more access to healthcare and on and on and on...............

Affirmative action however is not about giving jobs to the unqualified. It is about giving under represented persons who are qualified opportunity. Opportunity that might not be available to due to cultural and social barriers that exist within this historically racist and sexist country. The aa policies are not to put unqualified people in jobs over the more qualified. This is a very racist stance. It assumes that when an URM gets a position over a white person, the URM is unqualified.

By the way the 2000 US census tells us that white females actually by a several thousand outnumber white males. So I was wrong white males are the second largest group in the country. .

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t08/phc-t-08.pdf

Yet if we take a realistic look at the distribution of wealth, they are favored again due to this country's history. This is not to say that they did not work hard. They were just rewarded far better than their minority counter parts.

And opportunity is not equal in this country. If it were, the percentage of poor would not disproportionately favor any group of people over another.
 
You are entitled to your opinion.

I agree that we need to start educating people equally in order for all to have equal opportunity. This should start in pre K. But it does not. Our country is still very much racially and socially segregated. And the children of the “have nots” are at economic and social disadvantage. "The haves", have more money, better schools, less crime in their neiborhoods, more access to healthcare and on and on and on...............

Affirmative action however is not about giving jobs to the unqualified. It is about giving under represented persons who are qualified opportunity. Opportunity that might not be available to due to cultural and social barriers that exist within this historically racist and sexist country. The aa policies are not to put unqualified people in jobs over the more qualified. This is a very racist stance. It assumes that when an URM gets a position over a white person, the URM is unqualified.

By the way the 2000 US census tells us that white females actually by a several thousand outnumber white males. So I was wrong white males are the second largest group in the country. .

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t08/phc-t-08.pdf

Yet if we take a realistic look at the distribution of wealth, they are favored again due to this country’s history. This is not to say that they did not work hard. They were just rewarded far better than their minority counter parts.

And opportunity is not equal in this country. If it were, the percentage of poor would not disproportionately favor any group of people over another.

When I said that giving jobs or money to people who have not earned it will not solve anything, I wasn't referring to AA. I am not a racist at all; I wasn't saying AA gives positions to those who don't deserve them. I was referring to "spreading the wealth" simply for its own sake (which does sound like communism to me). I was trying to defend the fact that our system rewards those with education, and public education, starting in kindergarten, should be equal for all students, which I admit probably is not the case. I agree with you completely on the AA side; I just don't agree that ending the unequal distribution of wealth will help give more people (URMs) more opportunity. Show me a society where everyone is equal, and I'll show you a society where everyone is repressed.

The "haves" typically have one thing in common over the "have-nots": better education, more education after high school; which I feel leads to "more money, better schools, less crime in their neiborhoods, more access to healthcare and on and on and on..."

I guess I just believe more in the power of the individual to become whatever they want to be. And I don't think our government should be involved in the economic system simply to "spread the wealth".
 
When I said that giving jobs or money to people who have not earned it will not solve anything, I wasn't referring to AA. I am not a racist at all; I wasn't saying AA gives positions to those who don't deserve them. I was referring to "spreading the wealth" simply for its own sake (which does sound like communism to me). I was trying to defend the fact that our system rewards those with education, and public education, starting in kindergarten, should be equal for all students, which I admit probably is not the case. I agree with you completely on the AA side; I just don't agree that ending the unequal distribution of wealth will help give more people (URMs) more opportunity. Show me a society where everyone is equal, and I'll show you a society where everyone is repressed.

The "haves" typically have one thing in common over the "have-nots": better education, more education after high school; which I feel leads to "more money, better schools, less crime in their neiborhoods, more access to healthcare and on and on and on..."

I guess I just believe more in the power of the individual to become whatever they want to be. And I don't think our government should be involved in the economic system simply to "spread the wealth".
I hear ya!
 
What I find funny is the amount of people that checked the last option, that basically said "it's not good to fix a wrong by committing a wrong." These same people are probably the ones that agree/agreed with Bush's invasion of Iraq. Little do they realize, that makes them a hypocrit. Sure, I'm jumping to conclusions -- but I can do that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with affirmative action. First of all, if you look at the statistics, white women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. So all those hating it don't really know what they're hating. Second, like lemoncurry said, it is about TRYING to give an opportunity to qualified applicants. That means, there's nothing written in stone saying anyone MUST do x and y. How is that committing a wrong? Third, as it pertains to dental school... correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't whites still the #1 race in dental school? Cheer up! Life with affirmative action is a good thing.
 
I think affirmative action in regards to women has actually fulfilled its original short-term mission. When it comes to college and graduate school admissions, women are often the majority at many institutions, and that is due to their oftentimes higher GPA and standardized test scores. And now women don't need that extra "bump" as it's unnecessary.

I believe that affirmative action in our present day dialog is specifically in reference to underrepresented minorities, in particular African-Americans and Latino-Americans, which combined make up over a quarter of our country's population.
 
I think affirmative action in regards to women has actually fulfilled its original short-term mission. When it comes to college and graduate school admissions, women are often the majority at many institutions, and that is due to their oftentimes higher GPA and standardized test scores. And now women don't need that extra "bump" as it's unnecessary.

I believe that affirmative action in our present day dialog is specifically in reference to underrepresented minorities, in particular African-Americans and Latino-Americans, which combined make up over a quarter of our country's population.
That is combined. ( You can't just lump them all togther and say "ok now they are no longer a minority.)
And women still make less money than men doing the same jobs so I think the the mission is not complete yet.
 
That is combined. ( You can't just lump them all togther and say "ok now they are no longer a minority.)
And women still make less money than men doing the same jobs so I think the the mission is not complete yet.

Heh, I tried to write so that your above interpretations would not be implied.

Anyway, I wrote about AA not being as needed for women more specifically in college and many graduate school admissions. I agree with your point about the workplace.

Also, I did not say that blacks and hispanics weren't a minority any longer. I was hoping to show that these two groups, which are the predominant groups that are underrepresented (more so than women), make up a large number of our country's Americans is all. Hence affirmative action is such a hot topic.
 
Some of you have pointed out that AA is justified because it is not about giving an unfair advantage to minorities, but rather giving minorities who have not had the luxury of going to a private school, having money to take SAT courses, etc; however, here is some evidence that AA is still working as "reverse discrimination" rather than "positive discrimination" as most of us would like to believe.

"The controversy over UC's admission policies ignited in fall 2003, when then-UC Board of Regents Chair John Moores published a report revealing that UC Berkeley had admitted nearly 400 students with SAT scores lower than 1,000, while rejecting 641 students with virtually perfect scores. More than 90 percent of the low-scoring admits were underrepresented minority students."

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=18235
 
Some of you have pointed out that AA is justified because it is not about giving an unfair advantage to minorities, but rather giving minorities who have not had the luxury of going to a private school, having money to take SAT courses, etc; however, here is some evidence that AA is still working as "reverse discrimination" rather than "positive discrimination" as most of us would like to believe.

"The controversy over UC's admission policies ignited in fall 2003, when then-UC Board of Regents Chair John Moores published a report revealing that UC Berkeley had admitted nearly 400 students with SAT scores lower than 1,000, while rejecting 641 students with virtually perfect scores. More than 90 percent of the low-scoring admits were underrepresented minority students."

http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=18235

There's always exceptions to the rule. The reason why there are exceptions is because schools don't always want to admit the person who spends 100% of their time studying.
 
There's always exceptions to the rule. The reason why there are exceptions is because schools don't always want to admit the person who spends 100% of their time studying.

That's stupid... Someone who has focused their life on academics deserves to be awarded a chance to continue those endeavors. UC admissions: "I'm sorry you spend too much time studying, I'm afraid we can't admit you." In what universe does that make sense?
 
So, in cases such as this one, wouldn't you admit that affirmative action is not working the way it is supposed to? And if Cal wants to deny that this was a case of affirmative action, then the general public will be mislead and continue to believe that minorities are getting in based on their race rather than merit.

This is why I believe that affirmative action doesn't work. Admitting a minority based on race is never going to go over smoothly with the public as well as those who are in the same applicant pool; however, if universities admit minorities based on merit than I don't really see a reason to classify it as "affirmative action," or "positive discrimination" but rather a case of "earning" their right to be their. There has to be some underlying factor with affirmative action that allows minorities to attend a university not based on merit.

I don't have a problem with "anyone" who has struggled to do well in school because of socioeconimic problems and based on this admitted to a unversity for undergrad, but when the issue of allowing minorities to attend professional schools when they had equal opportunity as anyone else at their univeristy to use the library, attend class, take notes, use the computer lab, talk to their professors and attend club meetings, then there is a problem.

My two cents...
 
Snahster, it's far from stupid. Dentistry requires many components in order for you to be successful. One of those components is sociability. How well have you developed your social skills if you spend all of your time studying? Another component is community service. How much do you want to help out others if you haven't even shown interest in doing so at the undegrad level. Another component is motivation. Dental schools, as well as medical schools, know that maaany people apply just for the fact that they want to make money. How easy it would be to just study all day long, get into the professional school, and make millions a year.

Columbia, because this happened at Cal, and has probably happened elsewhere, that means that's all affirmative action is about? The public aren't being misled, because this is not the usual case. Tell me this, out of all the cases where schools admit minorities, how many of those minorities fail out of school? There's no difference in the minorities failing and in whites failing. If there was a big difference, then it would definitely be noted by the ADCOMS on the next go-round. The whole point of the application and interview process is for the ADCOMS to assess your ability to succeed in the professional school/profession.
 
Snahster, it's far from stupid. Dentistry requires many components in order for you to be successful. One of those components is sociability. How well have you developed your social skills if you spend all of your time studying? Another component is community service. How much do you want to help out others if you haven't even shown interest in doing so at the undegrad level. Another component is motivation. Dental schools, as well as medical schools, know that maaany people apply just for the fact that they want to make money. How easy it would be to just study all day long, get into the professional school, and make millions a year.

Columbia, because this happened at Cal, and has probably happened elsewhere, that means that's all affirmative action is about? The public aren't being misled, because this is not the usual case. Tell me this, out of all the cases where schools admit minorities, how many of those minorities fail out of school? There's no difference in the minorities failing and in whites failing. If there was a big difference, then it would definitely be noted by the ADCOMS on the next go-round. The whole point of the application and interview process is for the ADCOMS to assess your ability to succeed in the professional school/profession.

My UC's being stupid comment was referring to the previous discussion about Undergrad institutions not accepting students with much higher SAT and GPA scores. I understand that dentistry requires more than just academics but studious students should not be denied the opportunity to go to a UC undergraduate institution where they can explore themselves and their studies.
 
Admissions based soley on any standardized test is not fair to underrepresented minorities because these test have been proven to be culturally biased. Therefore minorities who are just as qualified as any white student may score lower on these test. I am sick and tired of hearing people whine about reverse discrimination. Maybe if the original discrimination is addressed then there would not be a need to fix anything.

Poor people in general (black, white and hispanic or from any group) ultimately are the ones who get the short end of the stick. Our schools are usually ill equiped. Our neighborhoods overrun with crime and violence. And so many other economic problems that America's more fortunate don't have to deal with while studying and learning. So they do tend to do better on standardized test. Numbers do not make them more qualified or smarter. Admission committees around the country are recognizing that it is more than a score on a test the determines qualification.

There are many white people who are also underpriviledged. Adcoms have been taking this into account for them for many years (yes before AA). Yet America seems to get upset when they started doing the same for blacks and Latinos. Tell me why is that?
 
So far it looks like the numbers on this forum match what came out of the 'Michigan Civil Rights Initiative', where 58% voted to make affirmative action illegal. About 60% of SDN has come out against it as well.

There's a little less than 2 days left, will do a final recap then. 🙂
 
So far it looks like the numbers on this forum match what came out of the 'Michigan Civil Rights Initiative', where 58% voted to make affirmative action illegal. About 60% of SDN has come out against it as well.

There's a little less than 2 days left, will do a final recap then. 🙂
Research does show the test to be culturally biased to favor Caucasions and Asians. I am not a researcher am I unaware of the methods by which they determined this, yet it has been known for years. That is why there has been several moves to scrap standardized test all together because they are inaccurate at predicting intelligence and drive to succeed. They just tell who knows how to test well.

If standardized test where accurate that would imply that blacks and hispanics are innately inferior to whites (since overall they score lower than whites). Any sensible person knows that is just wrong and a very racist view.
 
I will agree that it is unfair to admit unquaified people. The probem is that we measure qualification with tests that have been proven to place URM at a disadvantage. I have an African American MD friend who scored a 21 (which is considered very low) on the MCAT, yet graduated first in his class from UIC school of medicine. I doubt that anyone would call him unqualified. He is a top ER, MD today. Yet he might not be a doctor today if the adcoms were not able to see past that number. We need to have sense enough to look at the whole person regardless of race and determine if they are qualified.

Instead of trying to make aa illegal what we need to be doing is expanding it to others who had circumstances that affected their academics. It should not only inlcude minorities and women, yet anyone at a socio-economic disadvantage, because realistically they could be any race.
 
If standardized test where accurate that would imply that blacks and hispanics are innately inferior to whites (since overall they score lower than whites). Any sensible person knows that is just wrong and a very racist view.

I hate this PC bull****. This country is so obsessed with everyone being treated equally that they don't realize people are NOT equal. Blacks and hispanics are less intelligent as a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race
 
I hate this PC bull****. This country is so obsessed with everyone being treated equally that they don't realize people are NOT equal. Blacks and hispanics are less intelligent as a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race

While I dislike "PC bull****" as you put it, I can't believe you just went there! Dude, that is NOT cool.

This poll was not meant for racist* crap like you just wrote. 😡

There is a HUGE difference in saying blacks and hispanics don't generally test as well (for various reasons including cultural bias or that Asians take education ridiculously seriously), and saying that "they're less intelligent". Such broad blanket statements are completely unconstructive and show that you just want to pick an argument.

I apologize if this blows up further, I did not want for that to happen. Call me naive 🙁

*Note I hate call things "racist" as I feel it's a very overused accusation. But in this case I'll make an exception!
 
While I dislike "PC bull****" as you put it, I can't believe you just went there! Dude, that is NOT cool.

This poll was not meant for racist* crap like you just wrote. 😡

There is a HUGE difference in saying blacks and hispanics don't generally test as well (for various reasons including cultural bias or that Asians take education ridiculously seriously), and saying that "they're less intelligent". Such broad blanket statements are completely unconstructive and show that you just want to pick an argument.

I apologize if this blows up further, I did not want for that to happen. Call me naive 🙁

*Note I hate call things "racist" as I feel it's a very overused accusation. But in this case I'll make an exception!

I realize it might disturb some people, but facts are facts. Just because it doesn't fit your worldview, doesn't make it false.
 
It may be true that minorities score lower on standardized tests, but a 21 on the MCAT is too low. You have identified one person, and that one person may just be bad at standardized tests. Yet, since he was black and the adcoms were able to "see" past his exam score and identify his race he was able to enter medical school without standards that are in place for say a white or asian. If this same black MD friend of yours was white the adcoms would have most likely rejected him instead of saying "hey, wait a minute....maybe this guy is just bad at standardized test?" It is not fair. You happen to know someone that got in to Med. School with a very low MCAT and ended up doing very well, and I congratulate your friend, but this action by the adcoms should not be the norm. Everyone, regardless of race, should be evaluated on the same playing field, ESPECIALLY when it comes to health professional schools. And before you make a judgement call and try to say that I'm mad because I think a minority might take my seat in dental school, you're wrong. I just feel very strongly about this issue.

Not all of us have the same luxuries needed to succeed in high school. However, after entering college EVERY PERSON has the same resources needed to succeed. I will make this point again. Every person can use the library, computer lab, cafeteria, gym, office hours, labs, etc regardless of their race. Therefore, there should be no reason why a minority cannot do equally as well as a white or asian or any other majority race. My two cents...
 
Really what does it matter? If everyone were really honest about the entire situation that applies to dental school, you would see that minorities are the least of anyone's problems. There are not that many minorities attending dental school that they would potentially take a well deserved spot.
Also, lets be honest about how many other races, besides minorities, are accepted in to dental school with well than less competitive scores. Why don't you discuss how a person can get in with low scores on their DAT but has a phenomenal background other areas.
If it is a political answer that you are in search for then this is the wrong place. Truth of it is, it is mostly minorities that are willing to work in under privilege areas (there are others that are willing to work in areas that a less fortunate). So the doors are opened for minorities not because they are less qualified. I would hate to see how as a dentist you would treat you colleague who happens to be a minority. Would you assume that he took someone else's well deserved spot? It seems as though you are treating every minority as if they were some "Tyrone" from the street who doesn't know anything, which is very degrading. This seems to me to be a personal problem, because neither you nor I can say how well, or what a lack of, a person has in any area. Believe it or not minorities can earn their spot just as anyone else.
No, I don't believe affirmative action is the way to go because I believe in achieving by what I have on paper not what color I am. This is a useless topic that gets a lot of attention. This is Dentistry Not Politics!
 
I agree with you that everyone should earn their spot by what they have on paper. I have nothing against minorities. I would like to see more of them in dental/med, etc., but I do think that standards should be upheld when it comes to admitting people into health professional schools. Also, I think it is unfair and totally unjustified for you to say that ONLY minorities want to work in underprivelaged areas and because of this, the door to Dental/Med/Pharm, etc. is wide open.

I made my point, you made a point and so did everyone else on this forum. My discussion of this is done.
 
It is that same view point that our county's founding fathers used to justify slavery. I certainly hope that this view is not how white america sees blacks and hispanics. If it is, that is pretty sad.

As far as AA goes, we will be able to get rid of it when we get rid of using standards that are culturally biased. That 21 on the MCAT was not the exception. It is often the rule. Minorities are getting into professional schools with lower scores on these tests and still doing well in spite of.

My whole point was to say that adcoms should make these exceptions for everyone who has an otherwise strong application but may not test well or had other circumstances that put them at a disadvantage.

Even once admitted to undergrad. More URMs still have to work to support themselves, so the playing field is still not equal. Yes they do have access to the schools resources, but the issue still goes deeper than that. It really seems that people don't want to understand the disadvantages that URMs face. Maybe until you have been there, you just don't get it.
 
As far as AA goes, we will be able to get rid of it when we get rid of using standards that are culturally biased.

How are dental school admissions standards culturally biased? Are you saying the DAT discriminates b/n a black student and a white student? I don't see how it could.
 
It really is a shame to see how clueless some future healthcare professionals are. That statement includes the minorities in here saying that AA is a bad thing. As a teacher, I can tell you that the gap in education starts at an early grade. Some one mention that when people get into college they are all in the same playing field. Are you serious?? A freshman who had chemistry (not general science) in the 7th grade and went on to a great high school and took chemistry and physics ect... How in hell can you compare yourself to such a student if your first exposure to chemistry is that first day in college? all the lunch and and libraries and stuff mentioned could not save that student or put him or her on the same level as the rich guy from suburbia s/he sitting next yo. columbia07 your purpose on this planet is just to oppress and kick people while they are down. you are the typical!! RNtoMD2011 keep speaking the truth and educate those socially ******ed people on reality. So many of them are surronded by so much, that they think everyone HAVE the same things that they have.
 
Some one mention that when people get into college they are all in the same playing field. Are you serious?? A freshman who had chemistry (not general science) in the 7th grade and went on to a great high school and took chemistry and physics ect... How in hell can you compare yourself to such a student if your first exposure to chemistry is that first day in college?

If a student doesn't have any exposure to chemistry or physics or whatever I doubt they could get into many colleges. There are prereqs to get into a university you know...it really is a level playing field once everyone makes it into college.
 
for those of you who think getting rid of AA is the answer, think again:

a GREAT nytimes article from a month ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?ex=1170824400&en=faac6e9bd81d690f&ei=5070

*******random clips for those who aren't subscribed********
I ask Mr. Hu what it’s like to be on a campus that is overwhelmingly Asian — what it’s like to be of the demographic moment. This fall and last, the number of Asian freshmen at Berkeley has been at a record high, about 46 percent. The overall undergraduate population is 41 percent Asian. On this golden campus, where a creek runs through a redwood grove, there are residence halls with Asian themes; good dim sum is never more than a five-minute walk away; heaping, spicy bowls of pho are served up in the Bear’s Lair cafeteria; and numerous social clubs are linked by common ancestry to countries far across the Pacific.

Mr. Hu shrugs, saying there is a fair amount of “selective self-racial segregation,” which is not unusual at a university this size: about 24,000 undergraduates. “The different ethnic groups don’t really interact that much,” he says. “There’s definitely a sense of sticking with your community.” But, he quickly adds, “People of my generation don’t look at race as that big of a deal. People here, the freshmen and sophomores, they’re pretty much like your average American teenagers.”

Spend a few days at Berkeley, on the classically manicured slope overlooking San Francisco Bay and the distant Pacific, and soon enough the sound of foreign languages becomes less distinct. This is a global campus in a global age. And more than any time in its history, it looks toward the setting sun for its identity.

The revolution at Berkeley is a quiet one, a slow turning of the forces of immigration and demographics. What is troubling to some is that the big public school on the hill certainly does not look like the ethnic face of California, which is 12 percent Asian, more than twice the national average. But it is the new face of the state’s vaunted public university system. Asians make up the largest single ethnic group, 37 percent, at its nine undergraduate campuses.

The oft-cited goal of a public university is to be a microcosm — in this case, of the nation’s most populous, most demographically dynamic state — and to enrich the educational experience with a variety of cultures, economic backgrounds and viewpoints.

But 10 years after California passed Proposition 209, voting to eliminate racial preferences in the public sector, university administrators find such balance harder to attain. At the same time, affirmative action is being challenged on a number of new fronts, in court and at state ballot boxes. And elite colleges have recently come under attack for practicing it — specifically, for bypassing highly credentialed Asian applicants in favor of students of color with less stellar test scores and grades.

In California, the rise of the Asian campus, of the strict meritocracy, has come at the expense of historically underrepresented blacks and Hispanics. This year, in a class of 4809, there are only 100 black freshmen at the University of California at Los Angeles — the lowest number in 33 years. At Berkeley, 3.6 percent of freshmen are black, barely half the statewide proportion. (In 1997, just before the full force of Proposition 209 went into effect, the proportion of black freshmen matched the state population, 7 percent.) The percentage of Hispanic freshmen at Berkeley (11 percent) is not even a third of the state proportion (35 percent). White freshmen (29 percent) are also below the state average (44 percent).

This is in part because getting into Berkeley — U.S. News & World Report’s top-ranked public university — has never been more daunting. There were 41,750 applicants for this year’s freshman class of 4,157. Nearly half had a weighted grade point average of 4.0 or better (weighted for advanced courses). There is even grumbling from “the old Blues” — older alumni named for the school color — “who complain because their kids can’t get in,” says Gregg Thomson, director of the Office of Student Research.

********************************
In summary: Asians are basically the only group really getting screwed due to AA. For the other majority who think you're getting screwed over, trust me it's not a good idea to get rid of AA.
 
If a student doesn't have any exposure to chemistry or physics or whatever I doubt they could get into many colleges. There are prereqs to get into a university you know...it really is a level playing field once everyone makes it into college.

But you must realize that the skills (learning, studying, etc.) gained from one highschoo,l over another, might give some students an advantage? If we were all on the same playing field in college, we all would have the same entrance exam scores.

Let say that my highschool only offered one AP class while yours offered 5. Who do you think would be more prepared for a college education?
 
But you must realize that the skills (learning, studying, etc.) gained from one highschoo,l over another, might give some students an advantage? If we were all on the same playing field in college, we all would have the same entrance exam scores.

Let say that my highschool only offered one AP class while yours offered 5. Who do you think would be more prepared for a college education?

Like I said, there certain standards that have to be met in order to get in to a university in the first place. IF they meet the minimum they can succeed. If they choose to go to Office hours, student learning center groups, etc. they will do well regardless of where they came from.
 
If a student doesn't have any exposure to chemistry or physics or whatever I doubt they could get into many colleges. There are prereqs to get into a university you know...it really is a level playing field once everyone makes it into college.

I have never heard of that before!!.. you need chemistry and physics to get into undergraduate school?.. anyway.. lots of minority go into school not knowing what they want to major in.. once science or health care is mention, a lot of us want to major in that.. but how can we really compete with others who have been expose to the same sciences for years prior to entering school.. in general NOT POSSIBLE! thats just undergrad
 
I knew what I wanted to major in well before I got to college. Yes, it is true that there are some people that don't have access to great education but be careful when you say lots of minorities. My point is that minorities don't rely or depend on AA nor truly need it as much as others think. We got this far because of what we have to offer. When people stop judging one another and conforming to the idea that one race is better than another, which this whole thing is about anyways, we can move on. Ultimately, no one can say that someone is less deserving of anything. What do you really know about that person (minority), honestly? All you really can do is make sure you are presenting your best at all times. Remember, people choose what they want you to know. Give people a little more credit. However, it is what it is. Yes, I don't agree with AA because I believe in earning my way just as anybody else and I want to be treated as an equal. However, I also cannot say its a bad thing because I don't know how many opportunities I have been given because of it. I'm done! Good luck to you all in your endeavors.
 
celica, I agree. It's comical when people choose to try and find differences between other people, when the similiarities stand out even more! Oh, how different the world would be if we all just accepted that we are 99.999999% the same. They say the human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98-99% alike, so imagine the percentage of similiarity between races! Somebody said blacks and hispanics are innately inferior in intelligence, but they obviously don't even realize that there is no real definition of intelligence. I can say that intelligence is defined by athletic ability; in which case, blacks would be innately superior in intelligence, correct? People have to start realizing that everything in this world is made up. Everything is subjective. Everything that you think is objective is just mass consensus, making it subjective again.

On the other side of the spectrum, I do not agree with any form of Affirmative Action as it stands today. I believe when it started, it was needed because of how racist the environment was. Now, I believe too many blacks are expecting handouts. Entertainment, in general, is the killer of black people. Today, where education is the primary means of success, why is it soo many blacks are still not catching on? People always make up excuses such as blacks being poor, etc. My dad, as well as his successful colleagues, went through ABSOLUTE HELL to get to the point where they are in life. They grew up poor, witnessed friends being beaten to death simply because of the color of their skin, weren't allowed in certain places simply because they were black, etc. Do you think they expected handouts? Do you think they made excuses? They worked their asses off because, like me, they refused to let the next man think he was better than them. Remember, excuses are tools of the incompetent.
 
Now, I believe too many blacks are expecting handouts.

While I am not American (I'm from the Caribbean), many of my father's African American friends frequently discuss how the majority of the younger generation of African Americans are are lazy, rude, and arrogant. They also comment that the "old-school" African Americans have a much stronger work ethic than the newer crop. While this may or may not be the case, it is a fact that the older generation of African Americans faced much harsher inequalities than those faced by African Americans today. As a result, this may explain why, as Vize pointed out, "many [of today's] blacks are expecting handouts."

As for "where I stand," I believe AA is needed for the time being. However, as the United States' population continues to marry interracially , the demographics may one day get to the point where being 100% "white" or "black" will be the minority. Until that day, I believe AA is here to stay... "whether yuh wan jump high or low" (that's Trini slang for "whether you like it or not").
 
I have no clue??? Its apparent that YOU have NO CLUE. You accused me of spamming and advertising for having HELPFUL links for dental admissions WOW YOU have NO CLUE. To make things worse you reported me and had majority of my post deleted because YOU had NO CLUE that I was just trying to help. In fact some people appreciated the links that YOU had NO CLUE about. It might have even helped you out too. Think twice next time before you start BLASTING with accusations because YOU had NO CLUE whats going on. Comprendo???????👍 EL DENTIST FUTURO I hope so you're suppose to be a grown man making informed decisions. :laugh:

Obviously the admin of this site agreed with me if some of your post were deleted. You shouldn't go through every sub forum or thread and post links to the same place, just to give attention to some site that you probably host. You sir need to grow up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top