JerryLandis

So because I am a middle class white person, I can't possibly understand race issues, I have a misguided belief in meritocracy, I am secretly some kind of flaming racist, and my opinion about AA should be discounted as foolish? First of all, I never said that AA is wrong because it could boil down to rejecting a poor white man in favor of a rich black woman. I never brought gender into this so to say that arguments against affirmative action (but only when middle class white people bring it up) are inherently sexist is ridiculous. Also, bringing up that scenario does not mean that I assumed that the other 8 admitted students were qualified because they are wealthy and white. They could be from any combination of racial or economic backgrounds, the point is that they have the best applications so they were selected first for admission, leaving the other 2 in the running against each other, 2 who happen to have similar qualifications but are of different races. The reason I bring up this hypothetical situation is to demonstrate that AA is fundamentally flawed because, in seeking to redress socioeconomic imbalances, it assumes that all black people must be poor and underprivileged, and all white people must be rich and overprivileged, when it could skip that inaccurate assumption by just evaluating its decisions based on socioeconomic status instead of race. Yes, the hypothetical scenario I bring up may be uncommon or, of course, entirely hypothetical, but the fact is that it is made possible by AA, and is being used as an example to explain why the system is fundamentally unjust. The reason I use the example is not that someone taught it to me in some secret meeting about controlling the world that I had in my high school We Love Being White class, but that it makes sense and is entirely applicable to the discussion. I know that what I'm saying about AA isn't going to convince anyone to change their minds (although many of you in favor of it seem to actually agree with me, in saying that you think it should be adjusted to consider socioeconomic factors), but I just really don't like being told that I can't understand the issue because I'm just so freaking white and privileged, I can't possibly fathom all the deep thoughts in my tiny spoiled brat brain. How would any of you like it if I said that as black people, which I guess some of you are, your opinions about AA are typical of your race and should really just be brushed off because you've simply been raised from a standpoint that is biased in favor of it, because it could directly benefit you? Is it okay for people's opinions to be disregarded based on their economic standing and race, as long as the person is white and middle class?

I'd suggest talking about volunteer work if you have any, and to be clear, over the top, and egotistical. St Andrews seems to like that. Ransome is the one that is given to one person a year, and is available to North American students, correct? Remember that every single other person applying for this is going to be North American, so don't bother talking about how you'd be a great cultural ambassador or whatever - it'll just be white noise. The university is also pretty big on being a leader in environmental developments, so maybe you could talk about that if it's applicable. Also, international relations is huge there - there was a G20 meeting there this year, the IR department is huge, and since it's such a small and remote place, I guess the university likes to feel like it's significant and in the loop on international, sometimes progressive, issues. However, I'm not sure who reads the applications, whether it's a branch of the university administration, or an outside group funded by alumni or something. If it's the latter, it may be a bit more conservative in its outlook. Best of luck with it, I know that it's an extremely competitive scholarship and that I never heard back from them when I applied for it years ago.

So if they are individuals and should not be assumed to share everything with their given demographic, why is that demographic a potentially decisive part of their application processes?

Again, the only reason I brought up slavery was that someone else did and I was responding to that. I recognize that racism is a problem today, but I don't think that fighting it with more, inverted institutionalized racism, even just a teensy bit, is really the way to go. I know they haven't suffered substantially from it because they are my friends and we've talked about it. Sure, they've experienced racism, but that's not the same thing as being disadvantaged. Maybe there have been a few subliminal things they didn't mention, or maybe didn't notice. However, I don't think such subtle disadvantages would be as damaging as coming from a poor background and living in a crappy school district, so I don't think it's right to admit a minority student (who happens to be from a privileged background) over a non-minority student (who happens to be from a disadvantaged background) on the basis of racial difference. Frankly I think a better solution would just be to stop using local property taxes to fund schools, and to fund them all equally based on how many students they have. Not a complete solution, but better I think.

At least this will give us all excuses for not being accepted. Well, me for sure.

Well, the only reason I mentioned slavery in the first place was that I was replying to what someone else had said. I should probably just say that I don't really care that affirmative action exists even though I'm against it in principle. It's rare that something I consider unfair or immoral actually improves the quality of people's lives and educations. So if I were to campaign against something, it would definitely not be this. Even though I think it's unfair, at least it happens behind the scenes so university applicants don't have to be told "Sorry, we couldn't admit you because you're white/Asian and we had to meet racial quotas." And at least those non-minority applicants who are turned away because of affirmative action are probably the ones who are less qualified than the other admits, so they were on the edge anyhow. So, the question remains, just what role does race/ethnic background play in graduate admissions?

I never said that people who benefit from affirmative action are not qualified. But still, why is it okay for two people with reasonably similar resumes/applications to be sorted into the acceptance or rejection pile based one their races? Their applications must have SOME differences that actually have something to do with personal merit. If two white or two black people (i.e. two people of the same race as one another) were being considered for the same position and had relatively equal qualifications, I'm sure the admissions committee would find a way to go through the applications and find some reason to accept one and deny the other. It doesn't seem fair that in a case where the two people happen to be of different races, that becomes the deciding factor. Now, it doesn't really bother me THAT much because at the end of the day, a qualified person is being hired/accepted. But still, I disagree in principle with the process. I know that where people live, how much their houses are worth, whether or not their parents had any or good education, how much money they made, and their family's accrued wealth is still very relevant to race in this country. But there are still plenty of white people who grow up homeless or in crappy homes, are raised by uneducated parents with low incomes, and come from generally poor families. Meanwhile, there are black people who grow up in mansions, are raised by high earning, well educated parents, and come from wealthy families. In an admissions system that uses affirmative action, such an underprivileged white student will be rejected in favor of such a privileged black student with similar credentials. I know that it's a hypothetical situation, but supporting the principles of affirmative action requires believing that this is fair and just. I just can't accept that it is. The form of racism as we know it today is entirely modern and would not be understandable to people living before the modern era. Hating or oppressing people from other geographical locations or religious backgrounds is not racism, it's xenophobia. Racism requires that the sentiment is caused by genetic, physical differences between the groups of people. Perhaps racism has existed in other eras or societies (I can't say I know much about Eastern perspectives since I study European history), but that does not mean that it has existed continuously throughout human history, or that it is an inherent quality of human society. I'm not saying that our current society in the US is post-racial, but I do think it's possible for a multi-racial society to exist without racism or racist undercurrents.

"But, studies (particularly in I/O psych) have repeatedly shown us that if you give an employer the same qualifications in two candidates, the white candidate will get the job over the black candidate. In that case, affirmative action might actually help someone qualified get a job they would not otherwise get." That's interesting. But what if the person reviewing the applications has no idea what race both applicants are? If you're just reading a paper application with no interview, wouldn't not asking about race at all make it easier to ensure a fair decision? I don't really see why coming from a poor family shouldn't merit special recognition, but being part of a racial group that is generally disadvantaged should. If it's not about socioeconomic status, then why aren't the privileged, wealthy African American students who went to my prep school suffering from the difficulties attached to their race that are supposedly irrelevant to socioeconomic standing?

I'm not saying that some white people's opinions about non-white people should be why affirmative action should or should not be implemented, just that it's a real issue to think about. How is our society ever going to get past racism if certain types of racism (is "reverse racism" a term?") are deemed socially acceptable? I disagree that racism is a permanent part of human nature. As far as Western society is concerned, it's largely a product of the Enlightenment and the scientific community's attempts to justify slavery. Personally, I am against affirmative action because it is fundamentally racist. Yes, I understand why it is deemed necessary. I am fully aware that the African American majority was never given adequate compensation for what was done in the past. However, anyone who is African American (or just African) can benefit from affirmative action presumably for this reason even if they came to the US long after slavery was abolished, or if their family is wealthy. Maybe that's not the norm, but it's still entirely possible and not really fair. I am white, but my family came to America during the 20th century and had nothing to do with the oppression of American minorities. Why don't I get to benefit from affirmative action, since my ancestors were Eastern European serfs who received just about the same compensation after serfdom was abolished as American slaves did? If affirmative action type policies were based on socio-economic background instead of just race, those people who are underprivileged because of their race would still benefit, alongside poor and underprivileged whites. Generally speaking, affirmative action doesn't really bother me, because I know that people whose acceptances are aided by it are usually qualified enough to be accepted anyways. But I still disagree with the concept and wish that another way could be implemented to level the playing field for everyone. Just because I haven't read studies and journals about the topic does not mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. No matter how much data is collected about it, the fact remains that admissions decisions (in undergrad anyway) are influenced by people's race - not by their personal family history, not by how much money they have or don't have, not by how privileged they may or may not be, but by the checked box on their application denoting their skin color. I don't think it's unreasonable, ignorant, or bigoted for me to be annoyed about admissions decisions being influenced by race.

I'm expecting to maybe hear back from one school in February (Yale), but if I don't hear back from them that early I will just hope it means that I'm still in the running and am not facing outright rejection. Every other place I have applied to seems to release info starting in March, maybe even in late March. I know that, realistically, I'm not going to have much peace of mind about this for at least two months, but some part of my mind keeps thinking that hey, maybe they'll just randomly decide to release decisions much earlier this year. Irrationality seems to be a major symptom of this whole process.

Frankly, I think a letter like this is deserved when people count on their parents' influential friends and acquaintances to get them into college. I had a friend who applied to the same college as me, but had dismal grades and tried to make up for it by getting several extra, unnecessary letters of recommendation from her dad's political colleagues (judges and the like) who had never even met her, or who barely knew her. I felt bad for her that she didn't get to go to the university she wanted to attend, but at the same time I was relieved that my university had enough integrity not to fall for the crap she was trying to pull, and rejected her despite the letters from influential and wealthy people. Obviously this is meant as a piece of comedy, but fortunately it's even more irrelevant to the general grad application experience because I don't think many people get their recommendation letters from random acquaintances or family friends who are not professors. Lucky for me, since I know no such important people.

Thanks for the response p10x, but I don't really think I do need to step on eggshells when giving out my opinion on this. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum, and this is a thread about affirmative action/minority representation. If you're easily offended by people calmly stating an extremely popular and logical opinion, then you shouldn't have opened up this thread in the first place. I never said that affirmative action shouldn't be used for grad school admittance because grad school is too important or that undergraduate studies are irrelevant and childish enough to make it unimportant that affirmative action is used, or for people accepted mostly on a racial basis to be able to succeed. I never said those things, you simply attached those ideas to my statement that grad school, in my opinion, is a bit late for that kind of social engineering. For those who agree with affirmative action, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that it should be implemented in earlier years of people's education, for example for admittance/scholarships to prep schools or for college admissions. Someone who has made it through high school and college has been awarded higher opportunities than most people on this planet ever get. Sure, maybe the people who would benefit from affirmative action at the grad school level have had to work several jobs through college in order to graduate, but considering most of my non-minority friends have had to do this, I don't see why that should be a factor. If people's academic performance is not viewed with consideration of how many hours they routinely had to spend at a job while in college, then why should someone's race or socioeconomic background play any part? As far as someone's racial identity having a positive impact on the research they're doing, I guess you do have a point, but in my specific field that is pretty much irrelevant. People's attitude to race was completely different in the middle ages, so I don't see why the race of a specific applicant should matter. Anyways, I do consider the ramifications of what I say, and if you don't agree with it then that's really just your problem. This is my opinion. I don't really agree with affirmative action. I'm not doing anything to stop it, and I recognize that it significantly improves the quality of many people's lives. However, I think it is fundamentally unfair and that it reinforces racism, giving younger generations a new reason to be racist. Despite this not being its intention, in creates the misconception that black people (other minorities too, but generally they're left out of the discussion) are somehow intellectually inferior and need to be given some kind of head start or handicap in order to succeed. Just because that isn't the truth doesn't mean there aren't millions of otherwise racially indifferent white people out there who are starting to think this way. I've experienced something similar to this because I'm a non-ugly young female who gets high grades. In high school, the boys in one of my classes tried hard on their essays and tests but I always got higher grades than they did. They would pester me for my grades, and when I told them they'd say "Ugh, I'm so jealous of you, since being a girl you just get handed these higher grades, while we guys hand in work that's just as good and get B's instead of A's." They were convinced that the old male teacher had a soft spot for his female students. Even when I won the departmental award, my male classmates claimed that I didn't deserve it. The whole ordeal made me feel very sorry for qualified college students from minority backgrounds whose qualifications and accomplishments aren't taken seriously because of affirmative action.

Well, grad school is a bit late for affirmative action. I understand taking into account how much time a person may have had to spend working part or full time jobs as undergrads, but anything else about someone's personal background seems like it should be irrelevant. Anyways, I don't think it counts, at least not where I applied. I remember reading something that said the race/socioeconomic questions were only asked so that they could collect data about the people they accepted, and that that section was not passed on to the people making the admission decisions. Maybe they were lying, but whatever.

As a young female, I sometimes worry that I'm being too friendly with some of my professors and it could be interpreted the wrong way. Not that I have sexual intentions towards them, or that they have them towards me, but I guess it's just such a reinforced stereotype and common story about college girls and middle aged professors that I worry about creating a false impression. In high school the boys in one of my classes refused to accept that my grades were always higher than theirs, saying it was because I'm a girl and the teacher was supposedly a pervert. I would hate to have that experience again. Aside from that issue though, I don't see why being friends with an advisor would be bad. I've been friends with my bosses and supervisors at work, and I imagine it's probably quite similar to that.

Okay, last post. I just googled my name and found a myspace page belonging to someone with the same name - she has all the same interests as me! Freaky! Sounds like a cool gal.

Also, I have a fairly uncommon name, but there are a couple other ladies out there with the same name as me, one of them being a famous opera singer (supposedly). It would be cool if they thought that was me!

I wish they'd look at my Facebook profile! I'm sure attaching name to face and interests would make them a little more reluctant to reject me. Sure, I have drunken pictures on there, but I don't really think anyone would be rejected based solely on a couple pictures of them having fun without doing anything illegal.

I want to know for the usual reasons, but also so I can get on with my life/work and not spend half my day spacing out thinking about my chances, or calculating when I can expect a result to come in. Checking this board is definitely making me more neurotic about it. I'm definitely very jealous of everyone who has heard something, since I would like to get some kind of confirmation of how I think I stack up in all this. Not sure if I come off as an idiot or a genius in my application.

I've applied to Notre Dame. Not sure what's up with that one results post saying they sent out emails to those in the finalist pool!

I just don't see why the whole world needs to know someone's GPA. My friends and family don't even know my GPA. I guess it particularly annoyed me because people would post this stuff up while I was still finishing off my semester and was extremely stressed. To me, grades are like an academic salary, and like salaries, should generally be private. Being excited about doing well is understandable, but generally when I see a post saying "another 4.0 semester, aren't I awesome" it's clearly more intended to rub other people's faces in that person's success.

I think that it just seems rude to some people because some, like me, might be used to certain annoying people constantly putting their GPA or their acceptance stuff in their status updates. When I think of a person announcing an acceptance on Facebook, I automatically think of the conceited people I know who have done so in the least modest ways. But that doesn't mean that putting something about your acceptance up on Facebook is an inherently conceited thing to do. Just try to be polite about it. There's one person in particular who was accepted to an MBA program at a big name university and kept putting up constant irrelevant status updates mentioning that he had been accepted. That was annoying, especially because this happened when I and several other people we both know were still filling out applications. I don't think I'll personally post a status update about what I end up deciding to do next year, or where I get accepted. That's the kind of thing I'd rather tell people directly, instead of just launching it out to the whole world as an impersonal piece of information. But if I see posts by other people saying they are excited to have been accepted at X University, I won't be annoyed unless they go about it particularly tastelessly.

Someone posted on the first page of this threat that Yale was finishing its 'first round of reviews' or something like that, which I accidentally read as 'first round of interviews.' I thought it odd because I had never heard of Yale doing interviews, but then when I realized that no one ever said anything about interviews, and I had simply misread and misinterpreted someone's post, I understood. Sorry to confuse you, as far as I am aware Yale definitely does not do interviews for history applicants.

Oh right, for some reason I thought I read "interviews" instead of "reviews." Now I feel much better!

Well I assumed they didn't do interviews because on the results page, it seems that in previous years most people heard back from Yale (department of History, that is) in the 2nd week of February, and no one heard anything earlier than that. Those who did hear got only accept/reject/waitlist. I guess people just didn't report their interview invitations, or maybe they didn't do interviews in previous years.

I didn't know Yale even did interviews.