Affirmative action doesn't bother me. So what if the SAT-tutored and AP/IB class-taking kids from suburbia couldn't get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale? Boohoo! It's the end of the world when they go to the Duke, CMU, or Cornell where upon graduation, you have finally (phew!) saved the family face after all by going to medical school, law school or becoming that engineer - so that your Asian or Jewish mother has something to good to say about her son at her friends' dinner party.
Without the elite ivy league schools offering 100% financial aid (vs. middle-tier state schools that try to amp up their U.S News & Report Ranking by offering full-rides to high SAT scorers from the 'burbs, and hence could not accommodate 100% to need-based financial aid), a lot of urban kids wouldn't be able to afford college at all, not even state school. Also, schools that could afford to let down their average SAT scores often pick students based on their "narrative". A technical forum may sneer at the qualitative over quantitative, but it means that schools consider their applicants' background, what odds they had to overcome in their environment vs. say, how much money someone's parents spent for their child's Princeton Review classes.
However, I agree with you in that affirmative action have a lot of inefficiencies. For instance, a lot of under-represented minorities from the 'burbs and prep school game the system by offering a offer that colleges can't refuse: high SAT score and diversity, but haven't overcome any serious odds as an urban student would. A lot of colleges game the system by claiming diversity on their admissions broshure, when recruiting a lot of black/hispanic students to their freshman pool - but do not do a proper job of trying to graduate their minority students at all.
Without the elite ivy league schools offering 100% financial aid (vs. middle-tier state schools that try to amp up their U.S News & Report Ranking by offering full-rides to high SAT scorers from the 'burbs, and hence could not accommodate 100% to need-based financial aid), a lot of urban kids wouldn't be able to afford college at all, not even state school. Also, schools that could afford to let down their average SAT scores often pick students based on their "narrative". A technical forum may sneer at the qualitative over quantitative, but it means that schools consider their applicants' background, what odds they had to overcome in their environment vs. say, how much money someone's parents spent for their child's Princeton Review classes.
However, I agree with you in that affirmative action have a lot of inefficiencies. For instance, a lot of under-represented minorities from the 'burbs and prep school game the system by offering a offer that colleges can't refuse: high SAT score and diversity, but haven't overcome any serious odds as an urban student would. A lot of colleges game the system by claiming diversity on their admissions broshure, when recruiting a lot of black/hispanic students to their freshman pool - but do not do a proper job of trying to graduate their minority students at all.