Any "fortunate" URM's Forum

[Mattalones]

I can start one ... watch:

Which one of the following MUS BE TRUE?

A) AA is the best thing on this side the MIssissippi!
B) AA is the worst idea ever!

Let's get ready to ruble

[hiromoto45]

In this thread, people still do not understand the meaning of URM and Affirmative Action. Highly disappointing for a pool of future lawyers who are supposed to be fundamentally sound with logical, comprehension and reasoning skills.

First of all, racism DOES exist and anybody who refuses to acknowledge this is a buffoon. While it's not in-your-face, it's still there as it has become more institutional and systematic.

URM=Under-represented Minorities
-not who's most disadvantaged
-not who's "more black"
-not who suffers the most at the hands of "whitey"

So, considering this, a "rich" black person is no different from a "poor" black person in the eyes of Adcomm members because both are still under-represented minorities. Those who try to say that a bourgie (or well-off) black person doesn't deserve to be considered for admission with respect to AA (like many posters in this thread) are mistaken and don't understand the concept of URMs/AA.

The main reason URMs (blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are sought out by Admission Committees is because of what they are: under represented minorities. Schools, for varying reasons, seek to have as many URMs as possible to at least appear to have a diverse student body. In order to do this, schools go out of their ways to find URMs. This is where AA comes into play. Affirmative Action, in school, seeks to level the playing field in the sense of having plausible, attainable racial/ethnic representation in college and graduate schools. AA achieves when as many QUALIFIED URMs as possible are given opportunities to succeed academically. While there will most likely never be as many blacks/Latinos/Native Americans as whites in institutions of higher learning, given the racial composition of the American population, AA seeks to provide access to premier academic institutions by enabling Adcomms with the ability and desire to give extra consideration to URM applicants. Also, AA doesn't take seats away from "more qualified" (code for: white applicants) and, if anything, increases the level of competition for admission amongst URMs. And while schools may not openly admit to this, there is a quota for URMs that matches the American population, more or less. So, AA doesn't take seats away from whites.

When it comes to the preferences of Adcomms, we can be sure that URMs who have demonstrated achievement in the face of adversity (ie-a latino kid from the barrio who succeeded academically in high school and college in the face of drug dealers, murder, etc.) are generally favored. However, as many people seemingly fail to grasp, when it comes to URMs especially, it's quality over quantity in the eyes of adcomms, even though they would like to have as many URMs as possible. Schools, for the most part, would rather have 20 URMs who seem to be competent of succeeding academically as opposed to having 200+ URMS, some of whom would undeniably struggle. That is why some "rich" black kid who may have attended the best schools and grow up in a relatively affluent neighborhood could be considered more favorably by certain Adcomms than a "poor" black kid who performed at a high level academically in the public education system. It would be less of a risk in terms of seeing their students fail, much less URMs. At the end of the day, education is still a business and schools are still going to want the best and brightest, even in the face of conscious efforts to attain as many URMs as possible.

There it is.

180

This shouldn't be lost in the fray.

Maybe a MOD can post this at the top of the URM section. It clarifies the URM status and dispels the socio-ecomonic component many try to incorporate into AA.

[LAWLAW09]

In this thread, people still do not understand the meaning of URM and Affirmative Action. Highly disappointing for a pool of future lawyers who are supposed to be fundamentally sound with logical, comprehension and reasoning skills.

First of all, racism DOES exist and anybody who refuses to acknowledge this is a buffoon. While it's not in-your-face, it's still there as it has become more institutional and systematic.

URM=Under-represented Minorities
-not who's most disadvantaged
-not who's "more black"
-not who suffers the most at the hands of "whitey"

So, considering this, a "rich" black person is no different from a "poor" black person in the eyes of Adcomm members because both are still under-represented minorities. Those who try to say that a bourgie (or well-off) black person doesn't deserve to be considered for admission with respect to AA (like many posters in this thread) are mistaken and don't understand the concept of URMs/AA.

The main reason URMs (blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are sought out by Admission Committees is because of what they are: under represented minorities. Schools, for varying reasons, seek to have as many URMs as possible to at least appear to have a diverse student body. In order to do this, schools go out of their ways to find URMs. This is where AA comes into play. Affirmative Action, in school, seeks to level the playing field in the sense of having plausible, attainable racial/ethnic representation in college and graduate schools. AA achieves when as many QUALIFIED URMs as possible are given opportunities to succeed academically. While there will most likely never be as many blacks/Latinos/Native Americans as whites in institutions of higher learning, given the racial composition of the American population, AA seeks to provide access to premier academic institutions by enabling Adcomms with the ability and desire to give extra consideration to URM applicants. Also, AA doesn't take seats away from "more qualified" (code for: white applicants) and, if anything, increases the level of competition for admission amongst URMs. And while schools may not openly admit to this, there is a quota for URMs that matches the American population, more or less. So, AA doesn't take seats away from whites.

When it comes to the preferences of Adcomms, we can be sure that URMs who have demonstrated achievement in the face of adversity (ie-a latino kid from the barrio who succeeded academically in high school and college in the face of drug dealers, murder, etc.) are generally favored. However, as many people seemingly fail to grasp, when it comes to URMs especially, it's quality over quantity in the eyes of adcomms, even though they would like to have as many URMs as possible. Schools, for the most part, would rather have 20 URMs who seem to be competent of succeeding academically as opposed to having 200+ URMS, some of whom would undeniably struggle. That is why some "rich" black kid who may have attended the best schools and grow up in a relatively affluent neighborhood could be considered more favorably by certain Adcomms than a "poor" black kid who performed at a high level academically in the public education system. It would be less of a risk in terms of seeing their students fail, much less URMs. At the end of the day, education is still a business and schools are still going to want [WHAT IS SUBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED] the best and brightest, even in the face of conscious efforts to attain as many URMs as possible.

There it is.

180

This shouldn't be lost in the fray.

Maybe a MOD can post this at the top of the URM section. It clarifies the URM status and dispels the socio-ecomonic component many try to incorporate into AA.

edit: good post. see bold.

[3 Stripes]

In this thread, people still do not understand the meaning of URM and Affirmative Action. Highly disappointing for a pool of future lawyers who are supposed to be fundamentally sound with logical, comprehension and reasoning skills.

First of all, racism DOES exist and anybody who refuses to acknowledge this is a buffoon. While it's not in-your-face, it's still there as it has become more institutional and systematic.

URM=Under-represented Minorities
-not who's most disadvantaged
-not who's "more black"
-not who suffers the most at the hands of "whitey"

So, considering this, a "rich" black person is no different from a "poor" black person in the eyes of Adcomm members because both are still under-represented minorities. Those who try to say that a bourgie (or well-off) black person doesn't deserve to be considered for admission with respect to AA (like many posters in this thread) are mistaken and don't understand the concept of URMs/AA.

The main reason URMs (blacks, Latinos, Native Americans) are sought out by Admission Committees is because of what they are: under represented minorities. Schools, for varying reasons, seek to have as many URMs as possible to at least appear to have a diverse student body. In order to do this, schools go out of their ways to find URMs. This is where AA comes into play. Affirmative Action, in school, seeks to level the playing field in the sense of having plausible, attainable racial/ethnic representation in college and graduate schools. AA achieves when as many QUALIFIED URMs as possible are given opportunities to succeed academically. While there will most likely never be as many blacks/Latinos/Native Americans as whites in institutions of higher learning, given the racial composition of the American population, AA seeks to provide access to premier academic institutions by enabling Adcomms with the ability and desire to give extra consideration to URM applicants. Also, AA doesn't take seats away from "more qualified" (code for: white applicants) and, if anything, increases the level of competition for admission amongst URMs. And while schools may not openly admit to this, there is a quota for URMs that matches the American population, more or less. So, AA doesn't take seats away from whites.

When it comes to the preferences of Adcomms, we can be sure that URMs who have demonstrated achievement in the face of adversity (ie-a latino kid from the barrio who succeeded academically in high school and college in the face of drug dealers, murder, etc.) are generally favored. However, as many people seemingly fail to grasp, when it comes to URMs especially, it's quality over quantity in the eyes of adcomms, even though they would like to have as many URMs as possible. Schools, for the most part, would rather have 20 URMs who seem to be competent of succeeding academically as opposed to having 200+ URMS, some of whom would undeniably struggle. That is why some "rich" black kid who may have attended the best schools and grow up in a relatively affluent neighborhood could be considered more favorably by certain Adcomms than a "poor" black kid who performed at a high level academically in the public education system. It would be less of a risk in terms of seeing their students fail, much less URMs. At the end of the day, education is still a business and schools are still going to want the best and brightest, even in the face of conscious efforts to attain as many URMs as possible.

There it is.

180

This shouldn't be lost in the fray.

Maybe a MOD can post this at the top of the URM section. It clarifies the URM status and dispels the socio-ecomonic component many try to incorporate into AA.

Thank you, hiromoto! I wouldn't hold my breath on a MOD valuing what I just wrote, however. They somehow overlook these types of discussions or shut them down prematurely out of fear of unrest. Either way, I just hope more people can use my information, think about it and add to it, if they wish. I'm a big fan of open dialogue.

[rgucsb]

I've had a very fortunate life growing up, I'm a 3rd generation Mexican-American and my parents make great $ so I couldn't really write about the adversities faced by most minorities

I focused my essay on being multicultural, having multiple identities that I can move through fluidly during specific circumstances which ultimately gives me a diverse, cultured perspective!

Good Luck, Message me if you would like a sample of it

[Rock Chalk]

.

[YCrevolution]

..

[Rock Chalk]

.

[YCrevolution]

..

[Mattalones]

censoring: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy

I couldn't resist posting this militaristically worded definition given YCrevolution's avatar

[20121109]

ITT "fortunate" URMs defend the claim that they face a level of discrimination equal to that faced by disadvantaged URMs, thus warranting an equal URM boost across economic strata.

Among the most absurd positions I've seen on TLS, yet argued so vehemently and uniformly...

Any hard evidence to the contrary? Don't be like Romo and try to pass an arbitrary opinion as fact...

[Rock Chalk]

.

[YCrevolution]

..

[Rock Chalk]

.

[20121109]

ITT "fortunate" URMs defend the claim that they face a level of discrimination equal to that faced by disadvantaged URMs, thus warranting an equal URM boost across economic strata.

Among the most absurd positions I've seen on TLS, yet argued so vehemently and uniformly...

Any hard evidence to the contrary? Don't be like Romo and try to pass an arbitrary opinion as fact...

What would you consider hard evidence?

There's my life, and the lives of my family and friends, plus extensive reading and research on the subject suggesting otherwise, and a quite lengthy thesis on theories of socioeconomic rights and their relation to race in America (specifically the black community).

Of these "sources," the most meaningful would easily be personal experience, which leads me to the conclusion that anyone advancing such a position is either ignorant, innocently naive, or fortunately sheltered. I'd love to talk more about the qualification of my stance, but I believe YCR considers this thread an inappropriate soapbox.

Not trying to start/continue an AA debate, but could you possibly provide a link to one such article? I would be interested in reading it.

Also, there's my life, and the lives of my family and friends that would contradict your contention. So clearly claims like these are neither here nor there.

[Rock Chalk]

.

[3 Stripes]

ITT "fortunate" URMs defend the claim that they face a level of discrimination equal to that faced by disadvantaged URMs, thus warranting an equal URM boost across economic strata.

Among the most absurd positions I've seen on TLS, yet argued so vehemently and uniformly...

Any hard evidence to the contrary? Don't be like Romo and try to pass an arbitrary opinion as fact...

GAIA, you are not the only one who is aware of romo's ineffective tactics. I hope other posters can see him for the illogical, unreasonable poster that he is.

RockChalk, regard;ess of the variety of social stati within the black community, you are failing to understand the very basic point that, in the eyes of the dominant, white society, blacks are still considered inferior and not as worthy as their white counterparts. Rich or poor, in white America, a [racist language redacted] is still a [racist language redacted].

Don't believe me, consider the OJ case and what that taught Americans across the board.

[trialjunky]

I've been avoiding this thread...now, it's slow and I'm tempted to read...I feel like it's going to piss me off.

3Stripe, is this thread going to piss me off?

[hiromoto45]

A more useful example of institutional racism happened this week. On the tv show, Celebrity Apprentice, the final two contestants were Holly Robinsion Peete and Bret Michaels. Holly, a black actress raised the most money ever in the series. But she wasn't the winner. This is the first time that the show has broken from its model of the one who makes the most money wins. Holly was clearly a better project manager than Bret. Some may say he won because he overcame a brian hemorrhage. That is true, but Trump never made a business decision on emotion. He had the opportunity to do that in many seasons and the first Celebrity edition when Pierce, the most hated contestant that season won over the country music star that was competing for his daughter and her charity. This has been bothering me all week because there Holly, a qualified and exceptional minority was passed over a marginal white guy. She is privilege and successful in her career but institutional racism got her.

[3 Stripes]

I've been avoiding this thread...now, it's slow and I'm tempted to read...I feel like it's going to piss me off.

3Stripe, is this thread going to piss me off?

I'm already starting to get a little annoyed with these last couple of pages. And a certain poster on here really believes that wealth can wash away the experience of living in an America that operates under systematic/institutional racism.

[20121109]

Not trying to start/continue an AA debate, but could you possibly provide a link to one such article? I would be interested in reading it.

I'm at work, so I don't have the titles at hand, but when I say extensive research I don't mean articles. One of the books that I remember off the top of my head is Rights, Race, and Recognition. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the way racism affects lower and upper classes unequally. Also, I'd suggest many of the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois, especially Darkwater and The Philadelphia Negro, along with the Oxford W.E.B. Du Bois reader, which contains many of his shorter writings and lectures based on sociological studies aimed at "solving" the divergence between the poor and elite classes within the black community.

Also, there's my life, and the lives of my family and friends that would contradict your contention. So clearly claims like these are neither here nor there.

I don't want to discount your experiences, but the existence of differential treatment for at least some undermines your claim of equality. I would make the stronger claim that the same individual would experience much more discrimination being poor than he/she would being well-off, arguing that this exemplifies my position and that my unique experience on both sides of the fence validates that assertion. Comparisons across individuals involve too many variables.

And I would argue that differential treatment doesn't necessarily mean less racism. I actually agree with you in terms of differential treatment. In my first post in this thread I mentioned:

Wealthy blacks still face just as much racism, but just in different, maybe less overt forms.

As we progress towards the higher levels of the socioeconomic strata, racism doesn't slowly become less rampant, it merely changes in form. It becomes more institutionalized, less obvious, but still very much present. Yes, the racism experienced by upper-class blacks may not be equal in the sense that they face the same kinds of racism of those in the lower-class, but the difference in the amount of racism (if its possible to quantify in this sense) is not substantial enough to conclude that my stance on the matter, or that of many other URMs who would concur with my view, is absurd.

Thanks for these books you recommended. Something nice to add to my summer reading list!

[20121109]

Although things are being pretty civil, allow me to throw out a preemptive "everyone play nicely," just in case.

When did you become a mod??

[YCrevolution]

..

[Flanker1067]

I guess I'd say I've been pretty fortunate...I don't want to delve too deep into the topic, but it had absolutely nothing to do with me being a URM and had more to do with life experiences. It was a sort of narrative that explained why I wanted to practice law, based on my own personal experiences. I'm pretty sure there was no mention of race or ethnicity it my PS at all.

I am another middle class URM. I also wrote my DS about life experiences rather than my race. On the one hand, I felt it was an accurate and honest piece of writing, and I was quite proud of the DS. On the other hand, I received absolutely no discernible boost for being a URM. My cycle went just like lawschoolpredictor would have said without the URM button clicked. Maybe even slightly worse, given the competitive cycle and all.


I don't wish to enter this into the debate going although it does say something to the points that many posters have made.

Edited because my first draft was piss poor typing.

[Rock Chalk]

.