I'm in a debate. "College admission boards should.." Any help?

Question

The topic is: "College admission boards should consider a student's race before admitting them." Also known as the affirmitive action.

I'm on the Opposition... I as much information as possible stating that the college admission boards should not consider race before admitting students.

Thanks for all your help in advance. XD♥

Additional Details

2 days ago
Just to let you know, if colleges were to pay attention to race when allowing students in, it focuses on those minority races who rarely get into college, and allows them to get in, regardless of test scores.
It's not really a racial thing, and it's not excluding those who succeed...

Answer 1

Stongest argument is that using race in admissions actually promotes racism. By singling people out based on their race and then giving them "bonus points" or otherwise easing the admission requirements you are basically saying that they can't do it on their own.

Also, you should probably attack the strongest argument on the other side: that diversity in the class room actually benefits all students and in order for there to be diversity, you need to have a critical mass of students from diverse backgrounds. You can attack this by saying that the color of a persons skin does not create diversity. There are many african american people that come from privileged backgrounds and there are many white kids that came from poor backgrounds. Diversity comes from culture, financial status, upbringing, religion, etc.

Answer 2

It's a racial thing, as much you'd like to think it isn't. Asians are the sticking point. Most AA programs that still go by race exclude asians. That's why they're known as the model minority. Even the poor ones still usually kick butt in school, skewing the demographics at many of the top schools.

Race has nothing to do with whether a student is likely going to college or not. It's their socioeconomic status. It's not cuz of their race that many minorities don't get a good education, it's cuz they're poor so they can't afford to live in areas with good schools or have the resources to help their kids compete with the rich ones.

Let's pick blacks for an example. Rich blacks. You think Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfrey (if she had kids) live in areas with bad school districts? You think their kids wouldn't get SAT prep classes? Private tutoring even? Their kids will go to college. Great ones likely. Cuz their parents can afford to place them in a position to get into those schools.

Now take whites. They're the "majority". However, they have people we refer to as "white trash" or even "red necks". These are the poor whites who live in the ghettos. They face the same problems many blacks do. They don't get discriminated cuz of their race, but they are discriminated against cuz of how they look and act (hence the names "white trash" or "rednecks"). Being white and in the majority, obviously, there problems aren't race. It's their socioeconomic status.

Falling back on "it's a racial thing" is too easy and excuse and often wrong. It keeps up idiots like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who jump on the "racial" excuse far too often. It's like crying wolf. Say it too many times in false cases, and people stop listening. A backlash can even occur. This is especially bad because racial discrimination is not over in the US so causing people to tune it out only hurts the ones who need it.

That's another reason why the College Board shouldn't use race. It doesn't do anything.

The other problem is relying on race too much puts kids in situations where they're going to fail. What's the point of admitting a kid to Harvard if he's way over his head and will flunk out? That does no good and hurts another kid who lost their spot.

At most, race should be at the bottom of the list in the factors a college admissions board considers. There definitely shouldn't be a quota and they definitely should look into an applicants socio-economic status way before they consider race.

Answer 3

If they dont have the grades/test scores/appropriate requirements, they shouldnt be accepted.
If you allow someone in based on race regardless of test scores, theres a chance they arent going to succeed, so its not beneficial.
And making an exception for someone might end up taking the spot of someone more qualified since colleges only accept so many of its applicants.

Answer 4

Actually, they are letting in too many people into college that have no business being there, no matter what race they are. People are coming into college with inflated GPAs but without the knowledge and skillset required of university level work. This takes away resources, time and money from people that actually deserve to be in college.

Answer 5

I think admission should be based soley on performance and potential for sucess. That is not the trend these days though. We need as qualified people as possible though, in my opinion. I'm against affirmative action. It's not even a racial thing, you're right, I just don't want sub-standarded people in professions like medicine (and you DO see it, unfortunately)...it's just dangerous. I don't care if the person is black, white, purple, or green...if they don't have the academic record, you don't let them in.

If we let people in who really don't deserve it, we're just patronizing them. If they get as good of grades as the rest of applicants, great, let them in! It should motivate minorities to want to do well and suceed.

I myself am techincally native americam (like 1/8 I think), but I have never put that on a college/grad school application...I'd rather get in using my good academic/research record.

Answer 6

Affirmative action, in a nut shell, is fairly opposite-descrimination. mutually as offering minorities a greater advantageous hazard to get right into a school, it limits majorities, which suits against the 14th replace of the form (equivalent secure practices...equivalent possibilities, etc.). Limits on Affirmative action (which resulted from the appropriate court docket case Adarand Constructors, Inc. vs. Pena, wherein the SC governed that, to confirm that AA classes to proceed, there could desire to be a compelling state interest in any different case this methodology is unconstitutional) have made AA a splash harder to get carry of, even nevertheless it remains very a hazard for it to happen. The SC additionally governed in Gratz vs. Bolinger that "variety" (as many universities declare is their compelling state interest) is, in fact, no longer a compelling state interest in any respect. What the colleges could desire to be searching for, in the event that they decide for variety, is the learning the applicants took alongside with the golf equipment and events that the applicants have been in touch in. If the colleges decide for to apply race as a manner for faculty scholars to get in, then they could desire to have one hell of a compelling state interest, if no longer, then they are engaging in unconstitutional acts, and which college could decide for to wreck their popularity by skill of doing that?