>Great example. However, many other examples do not fall into the same situation. The student in your article was definitely qualified, but lacked the social status and contacts as well as the financial means to compete outside of affirmative action. His A grades and SAT scores demonstrate he was committed to an education earlier on and worked at it. Those are the students who should indeed benefit from the program.

But as the article pointed out, in a strict qualification scenario, with 1200 SATs, he would never have been accepted at Amherst. Someone had to make a decision to accept a student who didn't appear to be qualified, but in fact, was.

The founder of Temple University talked about "acres of diamonds"; there are millions of kids out there who could do well, if only someone would take a chance on them. I want to be part of a society where we take those chances, even though occasionally, they'll go wrong.


>In my experience, I have seen many C students who blew off high school gain positions in local universities over others who worked hard during highschool to get good grades and get into college - all made it in over their counterparts due to affirmative action. In those cases, I think a couple of years in a two-year college or less prestigious instition should be the first step, not taking the slot over a more qualified and dedicated student.

That's not affirmative action in its original definition. Affirmation action is finding the kid who would never have thought to apply because he didn't think he could get in or didn't think he could afford the school. (I'm also a big fan of need-blind admissions combined with need-based financial aid.) In the job market, I'm a fan of advertising in non-traditional places to ensure you're not just always hiring from the same "old boys network."

Tamar