Pages

12/17/10

In my opinion, the firing of Larry Summers by the politically correct liberals, was a disgraceful moment for the world's greatest university.

President Drew Faust seems to be bent on fully implementing her politically correct agenda. She recently hired Nohria as the dean of Harvard Business, who explicitly said that he wants the school to accept more women, minorities, and internationals. For those of you who read GMAT club forum or follow HBS Guru, the big PE firms got absolutely destroyed in round 1 admission at HBS this year. Firms like Blackstone, KKR, and Carlyle, which usually sends 90%+ of their pre-MBA associates to HBS did dismally. The number i heard for blackstone is that they went 0 for 4.

I totally appreciate the need to have students from different backgrounds. Business school will be awfully boring if everyone came from a banking/PE background. Nonetheless, I have a major problem when a school accepts people from certain demographics just for the sake of diversity. Once again white and asian men continue to get shafted by the liberals who are obsessed with multiculturalism and making minorities feel better about themselves.

Harvard will remain the greatest school in the world, the standard by which every other school is judged. It is sad though to see this rampant pc agenda.

Comments (135)

In reply to TNA
12/18/10

MSFHQ:
LOL and EOK comes out with the most racist comment of the thread.

It is not racist, its the truth. I just think its a poor metric for gaining entry into universities.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews.

In reply to Troll
12/18/10

masterofpuppets:
No, I did not go there.

But I know one thing: Eliminate the race-based admissions in American higher education and see the proportion of Asian-Americans(including Indians) shoot up at elite institutions in America, and the proportion of Blacks and Hispanics shoot down.

Lets the results speak for themselves.
.

Do you honestly believe that there is some quota system at American universities? And if so, what is the quota? Is it 10% black? 8%? What is being discussed here does not exist; there is no government entity enforcing "Affirmative Action"? Ivies don't answer to big brother before they send out their acceptances in April.

Private universities admit who ever the deem qualified. Its funny how this so called conservatives want to dictate the policy of a private institution that has no effect on them.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

In reply to BigBucks
12/19/10

BigBucks:
differences in culture are why they succeed. Africans do great as well, I am African, u know why we do well? Our parents are on our asses every day about academics, they value it greatly, especially coming from where i'm from. The problem is when you have a single mother who is being worked to the bone she doesn't have time to instill the sense in her children to highly value academics. Asians doing well does not prove anything besides the fact that with or without handouts, parents are the most important factor in a child's life. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, hispanics, are behind the proverbial 8-ball from the moment they are born into uncaring homes.

so...you are basically saying Black parents are working harder/longer hours than Asian parents?
In reply to eokpar02
12/19/10

eokpar02:

No one is saying that blacks don't have lower SAT scores (I don't know how you can compare GPAs from school to school); people are just saying that the metrics themselves are garbage. Increases of 700 points on the SAT are uncommon. Look at the Harvard Scammer Adam Wheeler, he pulled off a 4.0 at Harvard and he got a 1220. The SAT doesn't measure anything.

I literally moved from being in the 50th percentile to the 10th percentile; how could the SAT be a good metric for anything? Even Harvard says the metrics are garbage. People with perfect scores get rejected. Should whites and Asians with 2100s immediately abdicate their position in their class to accommodate whites and Asians who were rejected with perfect scores?


you are basically saying two things

1 things like SAT/GPA are useless....
if that's the case, do you have a better measuring stick?
no one is saying the standardized tests are perfect, but I don't see any better alternatives

2 SAT scores can be easily improved, so they are useless.
Yet, there are so many students don't even want to put in the time to improve their scores,
what does this tell you about their drive/motivation?

12/19/10

Even if they removed AA, I do not think you would see schools admitting anymore Indian or Chinese kids. High test scores alone do not mean you will be successful once you graduate. With the H1 issues in this country as well as language barriers, having a US school that is 20-30-40% foreign would be a disaster.

EOK is correct in saying that high scores are not the sole factor.

In reply to TNA
12/19/10

ANT:
Even if they removed AA, I do not think you would see schools admitting anymore Indian or Chinese kids. High test scores alone do not mean you will be successful once you graduate. With the H1 issues in this country as well as language barriers, having a US school that is 20-30-40% foreign would be a disaster.
.

I think the posters are talking about Indian/Chinese/Asian/South Asian Americans getting shafted over because of AA and reverse discrimination. Visas, language barriers and the proportion of foreign students at these schools are irrelevant.

In reply to TNA
12/19/10

ANT:
Even if they removed AA, I do not think you would see schools admitting anymore Indian or Chinese kids. High test scores alone do not mean you will be successful once you graduate. With the H1 issues in this country as well as language barriers, having a US school that is 20-30-40% foreign would be a disaster.

EOK is correct in saying that high scores are not the sole factor.

For "elite" schools the application involves SAT scores, high school GPA, essays, extracurriculars and interviews also. So, the entire argument about SAT scores is rather myopic. People with perfect scores get rejected all the time, its is important but not everything.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

12/19/10

I don't think Asians get any reverse discrimination. A shit load apply and the schools only want a select % of this group to make up their class. Everyone is assuming that blacks or other minorities steal slots from Asian people who focus their entire life on school grades and scores. If minorities didn't get these spots schools would most likely give them to females or whites.

12/20/10

There is a very good article from The Atlantic from back in the day that talks about the history of affirmative action at the ivy leagues. I tried to dig it up in the online archives but had no luck. The gist of it is that Jews were once in the seat that Asians now occupy. It also detailed the methods that were used to legitimize the decisions. I'm sure that all of you admissions-obsessed folks would find it quite interesting.

In reply to TNA
12/20/10

Pretty sure that's the definition of reverse discrimination. There's a fine line between asking for diversity in your class vs a quota system.

12/20/10

I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

In reply to awm55
12/20/10

awm55:
I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

I think the point is, given the history of race in this country (and frankly, most countries) and the so-called progress we've made as a society, using skin color as a measure of qualification runs completely counter to everything that's been fought for. Admitting a legacy at the very least isn't arbitrary (this is one of the many benefits universities offer prospective students and alumni donors). But admitting (or rejecting) people partially or totally based on race is purely arbitrary. Why not then make admissions criteria consist of other arbitrary measures of diversity, such as religion, creed, eye color, height or 40-yard dash time? Certainly a case can be made that life is more difficult for shorter men or Wahabi Muslims in New York City or Mexican nationals or un-athletic people.

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
awm55:
I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

I think the point is, given the history of race in this country (and frankly, most countries) and the so-called progress we've made as a society, using skin color as a measure of qualification runs completely counter to everything that's been fought for. Admitting a legacy at the very least isn't arbitrary (this is one of the many benefits universities offer prospective students and alumni donors). But admitting (or rejecting) people partially or totally based on race is purely arbitrary. Why not then make admissions criteria consist of other arbitrary measures of diversity, such as religion, creed, eye color, height or 40-yard dash time? Certainly a case can be made that life is more difficult for shorter men or Wahabi Muslims in New York City or Mexican nationals or un-athletic people.

admitting someone because they were a legacy is just as arbitrary as admitting someone because they are black. you think our country has made progress if kids from wealthy families can get admitted to Harvard over someone else because their father donated money? what kind of progress is that? thought this was supposed to be a meritocracy?

again, I think AA is wrong, but I don't think anyone on this forum would not use his/her legacy status to help gain admissions to HBS. it is pretty hypocritical.

12/20/10

As an Ivy League graduate, you don't appear to know the definition of "arbitrary", which basically means without reason or unsupportable. There is a specific reason universities let in legacies--to get more money from alumni donors. Money has a direct impact on the quality of institution/education. However, there are virtually no studies--in fact, many studies that show to the contrary--that racial diversity (i.e. diversity based purely on skin color) actually improves 1) quality of education or 2) the bottom line of a business. Therefore, using skin color as a measure of admissions is purely and utterly arbitrary. However, using legacy status, while "unfair", is not without its merit from the position of institutional functioning. One could even argue that socioeconomic diversity might improve the overall quality of classroom learning, but one would be hardpressed to prove that 2 upper middle class kids, one black and one white from the same city, increases quality of education just because of the color of one kid's skin.

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
awm55:
I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

I think the point is, given the history of race in this country (and frankly, most countries) and the so-called progress we've made as a society, using skin color as a measure of qualification runs completely counter to everything that's been fought for. Admitting a legacy at the very least isn't arbitrary (this is one of the many benefits universities offer prospective students and alumni donors). But admitting (or rejecting) people partially or totally based on race is purely arbitrary. Why not then make admissions criteria consist of other arbitrary measures of diversity, such as religion, creed, eye color, height or 40-yard dash time? Certainly a case can be made that life is more difficult for shorter men or Wahabi Muslims in New York City or Mexican nationals or un-athletic people.

I agree with most of your points, but this is totally wrong. Being a legacy is no less arbitrary than race since one has no control over what college his parents went to. I guess you could make the argument that a wealthy alumni who gives money to the school directly benefits the institutions while an applicant's skin color/ethnic background by themselves do not. But the broader point is whether we should reward or punish people based on factors that are totally beyond his control. In my opinion, race and other conditions of birth, which includes their parents' education level and income, all fall under the "Affirmative Action" grouping. If I had my way, legacy preferences should be abolished as well.

In reply to tsong
12/20/10

tsong:
BigBucks:
differences in culture are why they succeed. Africans do great as well, I am African, u know why we do well? Our parents are on our asses every day about academics, they value it greatly, especially coming from where i'm from. The problem is when you have a single mother who is being worked to the bone she doesn't have time to instill the sense in her children to highly value academics. Asians doing well does not prove anything besides the fact that with or without handouts, parents are the most important factor in a child's life. Blacks and, to a lesser extent, hispanics, are behind the proverbial 8-ball from the moment they are born into uncaring homes.

so...you are basically saying Black parents are working harder/longer hours than Asian parents?

nah i'm saying even if they do work hard at least there are usually 2 parents to balance work and child-raising duties, unfortunately, with the minorities that need the most help this is not the case a majority of the time. V-Tech your argument for legacy admittance and against AA is about as hypocritical as it gets. But I'm not surprised as the same conservatives that cry foul over AA love the good ol' boy frat system that constantly gets unqualified candidates in great positions in this country. If you're going to take a stand, at least be like Brady4MVP (Vick will win it if not him) and be thorough.

In reply to Brady4MVP
12/20/10

Brady4MVP:
Virginia Tech 4ever:
awm55:
I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

I think the point is, given the history of race in this country (and frankly, most countries) and the so-called progress we've made as a society, using skin color as a measure of qualification runs completely counter to everything that's been fought for. Admitting a legacy at the very least isn't arbitrary (this is one of the many benefits universities offer prospective students and alumni donors). But admitting (or rejecting) people partially or totally based on race is purely arbitrary. Why not then make admissions criteria consist of other arbitrary measures of diversity, such as religion, creed, eye color, height or 40-yard dash time? Certainly a case can be made that life is more difficult for shorter men or Wahabi Muslims in New York City or Mexican nationals or un-athletic people.

I agree with most of your points, but this is totally wrong. Being a legacy is no less arbitrary than race since one has no control over what college his parents went to. I guess you could make the argument that a wealthy alumni who gives money to the school directly benefits the institutions while an applicant's skin color/ethnic background by themselves do not. But the broader point is whether we should reward or punish people based on factors that are totally beyond his control. In my opinion, race and other conditions of birth, which includes their parents' education level and income, all fall under the "Affirmative Action" grouping. If I had my way, legacy preferences should be abolished as well.

Fairness and reason often don't go hand in hand. It makes financial sense for institutions to practice "AA" on legacies. However, there is no institutional or educational function to AA based on skin color. Not only is skin color not a real measure of diversity (after all, blacks and whites can both attend the same country club and vote Republican), but there is no evidence that racial diversity in itself improves quality of education. I don't think it's fair that people are born to legacies and/or money, but I at least understand why institutions take this position.

In reply to BigBucks
12/20/10

" V-Tech your argument for legacy admittance and against AA is about as hypocritical as it gets. But I'm not surprised as the same conservatives that cry foul over AA love the good ol' boy frat system that constantly gets unqualified candidates in great positions in this country. If you're going to take a stand, at least be like Brady4MVP (Vick will win it if not him) and be thorough."

Do I really need to explain this position for a fourth time in an hour? It isn't "fair" that people are born into legacy or wealth status, but there is an institutional function for "AA" for legacies. Admitting students using race as a measure has no merit from an educational or institutional standpoint at all whatsoever. If you're going to practice AA, it should be based on socioeconomic diversity--at least that's real.

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
" V-Tech your argument for legacy admittance and against AA is about as hypocritical as it gets. But I'm not surprised as the same conservatives that cry foul over AA love the good ol' boy frat system that constantly gets unqualified candidates in great positions in this country. If you're going to take a stand, at least be like Brady4MVP (Vick will win it if not him) and be thorough."

Do I really need to explain this position for a fourth time in an hour? It isn't "fair" that people are born into legacy or wealth status, but there is an institutional function for "AA" for legacies. Admitting students using race as a measure has no merit from an educational or institutional standpoint at all whatsoever. If you're going to practice AA, it should be based on socioeconomic diversity--at least that's real.

someone has said this already, but you do realize if AA was abolished then Harvard (and every other top university in this country) would literally be 80% chinese/Indian international students. can you seriously sit here and tell me you want that? again, i am not a huge fan of AA, but a little diversity can be a good thing...

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
awm55:
I am not a fan of AA, but it is pretty hypocritical to not see nearly as much outrage when it comes to legacy students being given a huge leg up in the application process. I am guessing because it largely benefits the upper-middle class white students that inhabit this board. It is the exact same thing people, don't kid yourself.

BTW, I am ivy educated and white so don't try to claim i am a retarded black lesbian arguing for AA because it will benefit me.

I think the point is, given the history of race in this country (and frankly, most countries) and the so-called progress we've made as a society, using skin color as a measure of qualification runs completely counter to everything that's been fought for. Admitting a legacy at the very least isn't arbitrary (this is one of the many benefits universities offer prospective students and alumni donors). But admitting (or rejecting) people partially or totally based on race is purely arbitrary. Why not then make admissions criteria consist of other arbitrary measures of diversity, such as religion, creed, eye color, height or 40-yard dash time? Certainly a case can be made that life is more difficult for shorter men or Wahabi Muslims in New York City or Mexican nationals or un-athletic people.

Can you provide any proof that private institutions receive money from the parents of legacies? Can you provide any proof that minorities who are admitted give less money to the school than people who aren't minorities?

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
As an Ivy League graduate, you don't appear to know the definition of "arbitrary", which basically means without reason or unsupportable. There is a specific reason universities let in legacies--to get more money from alumni donors. Money has a direct impact on the quality of institution/education. However, there are virtually no studies--in fact, many studies that show to the contrary--that racial diversity (i.e. diversity based purely on skin color) actually improves 1) quality of education or 2) the bottom line of a business. Therefore, using skin color as a measure of admissions is purely and utterly arbitrary. However, using legacy status, while "unfair", is not without its merit from the position of institutional functioning. One could even argue that socioeconomic diversity might improve the overall quality of classroom learning, but one would be hardpressed to prove that 2 upper middle class kids, one black and one white from the same city, increases quality of education just because of the color of one kid's skin.

Do you honestly believe that there is some quota system at American universities? And if so, what is the quota? Is it 10% black? 8%? What is being discussed here does not exist; there is no government entity enforcing "Affirmative Action"? Ivies don't answer to big brother before they send out their acceptances in April. Admission offices look at SAT scores, GPAs, extracurriculars and where you come from geographically.

Private universities admit who ever the deem qualified. Its funny how this so called conservatives want to dictate the policy of a private institution that has no effect on them.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

Virginia Tech 4ever:
" V-Tech your argument for legacy admittance and against AA is about as hypocritical as it gets. But I'm not surprised as the same conservatives that cry foul over AA love the good ol' boy frat system that constantly gets unqualified candidates in great positions in this country. If you're going to take a stand, at least be like Brady4MVP (Vick will win it if not him) and be thorough."

Do I really need to explain this position for a fourth time in an hour? It isn't "fair" that people are born into legacy or wealth status, but there is an institutional function for "AA" for legacies. Admitting students using race as a measure has no merit from an educational or institutional standpoint at all whatsoever. If you're going to practice AA, it should be based on socioeconomic diversity--at least that's real.

The admissions officers at elite colleges will argue that accepting blacks do serve an institutional function, even ones from affluent backgrounds. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that blacks have a unique viewpoint and set of experiences that they can bring to the school. Now, I personally think that's crap, but these colleges have determined that it is to their advantage to accept these people who oftentimes have lower credentials than their white and asian counterparts.

It seems like most people are opposed to race-based AA because they despise the notion of giving an extra boost to someone simply because of his race. If that's the case I just don't see a substantive difference between AA admits and legacies.

The WSO Advantage - Investment Banking

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

IB Interview Prep Pack

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Actual IB Pros

Land More IB Interviews.

Find Your Perfect IB Mentor

Realistic IB Mock Interviews.

12/20/10

eokapark, unless you're Grove City College, which takes no federal money at all whatsoever, you have an obligation to meet some standards set by the tax payers. Harvard is awash in federal money. However, I'm not arguing affirmative action should be banned by the government at private institutions. What I'm arguing is that holistic admissions process should be color blind to race. There is no value in giving an extra boost to someone JUST because of his or her race. Should the black kid at Andover get special treatment over the lower class white kid from eastern Kentucky just because of his race or some notion of political correctness? It's illogical. There's no rational basis for this except for political correctness. At the very least, one can make a rational connection between legacy "AA" and higher donations to the school (after all, if your alma mater rejected your son, how likely are you to give them money? I'd tell VT to go to hell when they ask for money). Not that I think it's fair that some kids are born with wealthy parents or a Harvard educated father, but "fairness" and rational thought don't always go hand in hand.

Now, I'm perfectly fine with a holistic process. For example, an applicant may have grown up on the mean streets of east St. Louis and overcame his horrible circumstances. I'd definitely give him a points "boost". But that's rational. There's nothing rational about race-based admissions. Nothing at all.

12/20/10

What's sad is that people almost assume that they know exactly how admissions committees make their decision and don't think that other factors like socioeconomic class don't play a role in admissions.

Of course they do, it's just that you dont' happen to be there so you assume something as basic as race drives an entire admissions process. There are plenty of people in every race that don't get into Harvard. A complete picture is formed and one factor happens to be race, just like legacy. What's the problem? Wall Street jobs are driven by connections. I know one guy who is working at a hedge fund, keeps hopping from job to job every 2 years because he is an idiot and his dad is a big wig in leveraged finance. Is that fair?

I know another kid who got into Harvard and his entire family because he's legacy. Rejected at every school he applied to, including Georgetown...except Harvard. He even failed our accounting class. His high school friend also at my firm went to Princeton. Complete idiot. All of them white. Where's the hatred there?

I have a few friends who go to Harvard. One is brilliant with languages, but can't even do simple math or split a check at a restaurant? He grew up poor with a father that abandoned him and a mother addicted to drugs. He spent a couple of years in a program with a foreign family due to his circumstances...he's not the brightest guy but he does have talent in one specific area. Should he have been denied?

It's easier to get into Harvard if you're from Minnesota versus California or Texas because they want a geographically diverse school as well..where's the outcry about that? At the end of the day, you didn't get into Harvard and you think that because someone who happened to be black got in it's the reason why you didn't or countless others did not. Hardly. These are smart people and admissions shouldn't be based solely on things like SAT and GPA. The guy that created BET and became a billionaire, should he have not been accepted to Princeton because his SAT scores weren't up to par?

12/20/10

audacious, I don't think a single person is arguing with what you're saying. The problem is, you're ignoring what the rest of us have said clearly. We are all here, for the most part, fine with holistic admissions (and even hiring) processes. All of us can see the potential value in geographic, socioeconomic, and other forms of diversity. The problem is, we specifically have situations where politically correct deans are saying they want more people of color and they are using skin color as one basis for the proverbial "point total". That, in itself, is not rational. There's no more diversity in using skin color as one of 1,000--or 100,000--criteria than using color of eyes. Skin color should not play a role in admissions or hiring because there is no foundational basis in it other than making administrators feel good. And saying that a rich black kid from Georgetown, for example, needs a points boost just because of his race is incredibly racist against people of color, and this is exactly what any admissions process that uses race says.

12/20/10

I'm not ignoring it but I've heard similar arguments all around the world, from Brazil to South Africa. More universities in South Africa want to improve the admissions of blacks into the elite universities there, but the white Africans say it's not fair to them. What's fair? That country has a similar history to the US but they just ended racial segregation less than 2 decades ago.

Just because you can't understand the rationale behind it doesn't mean it's still not valid. If underrepresented minorities are still being underrepresented at the nation's premier campuses, then why shouldn't they try to increase their ranks? They did when our country was behind during the civil rights movements, what's another step now? It doesn't necessarily mean accepting someone solely based on their race during the admissions process, it could simply mean taking additional steps to reach those groups who wouldn't necessary have the means or knowledge about said schools.

There are plenty of bright people who don't attend these universities, and maybe one of the initiatives is trying to keep that bright minority from going to say..CalTech and instead HYP? What's the harm in that?

It's hard to read these posts especially when you see ignorance is rampant and it's almost like hearing the same arugments from someone in South Africa whose family had the benefit of apartheid and a racist government to keep their status in the country.

Not once have I heard of an alternative solution that could address the issue and be more "fair" in everyone's eyes...

12/20/10

I'm with you 100% if HYP or any school wants to recruit qualified applicants out of certain poorer areas or economically depressed areas. I'm 100% fine with that, and I think most people are. But you can do this without taking skin color into account. You can recruit in Anacostia (SE Washington, D.C.) because it's poor and there are a handful of supreme calibre people who have overcome the fear, violence and poverty who may not even have thought about applying to said school because of money, culture, etc. I'm 100% fine with that. 200% fine with that. But why do we have to have race involved in this decision? Why can't we recruit economically depressed areas looking for exceptional people rather than using skin color as some arbitrary measure? We can help the people who need to be helped without bringing race into it. Look at the animosity that bringing race into the equation has wrought just on this forum.

12/20/10

Our country was built on racial differences and since the country was founded wealth has been heavily divided by ones race. Institutions understand that. I guess the benefit of today's generation is that we don't understand why things can't be created solely on merit because we didn't grow up in a desegregated community, but all one has to do is look at a few documentaries to see people hosed down and spat at just for opportunity to sit in the same classroom with someone of a different race. And that was what..only -40 years ago

It's an attempt at creating an equal footing for a group of people who might not have had the same opportunities. I hope one day we can push for a society where it just comes down to socioeconomic background, but we're not even there yet on a racial level with similar levels of income. It's great that we don't understand. Hopefully the next generation it won't even be an issue, but all one has to do is look at the President and the type of vitriol he brings out in certain people to see we haven't moved to a race blind society. And this is was BEFORE the election.

It's okay if you don't get it. I understand your perspective, but I also understand the place of admissions and why they think it's necessary. When 99% of your faculty doesn't represents 40% of the country, you have to wonder why and then see as a leading institution if you can help address the problem. If not them, then who? What other solutions are available? I'm open to them. I hear the same stuff in Brazil. Very wealthy white brazilians don't want to let poorer dark brazilians into elite schools because they're uneducated..and i wont' use other terms since they're not appropriate.

When you're an outsider you see that slavery, institutionalized barriers to prevent class mobility, etc are more the reasons than race alone, but race can be a tool to break down those barriers. eh it helped me see it from another perspective I can't expect others to.

12/20/10

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
12/20/10
In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

More is good, all is better

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/20/10

More is good, all is better

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/21/10

More is good, all is better

In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
12/21/10
12/21/10

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling