Actually, European Americans are underrepresented across the board in first tier universities, from private universities such as UCLA, UC-Berkeley, and UW-Seattle, to private institutions such as Stanford and the Ivy League. I know this from experience; I was the only European American in most of my classes in a first-tier engineering program. (Most everyone else was Asian.) Anyone who is skeptical of my claim can look at the data.

Likewise, affirmative action supporters should stop focusing on a small layer of "rich white kids" (which certainly don't represent European American students as a whole), and actively support the same racial preferences for European Americans as they do for African Americans and Latino/as.

Sent by Bjorn Herjulfson | 7:15 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Prediction time, cause it is already happening. Democrats are jumping ship like rats so fast the top three layers of rats can't even get close enough to the water to come close to drowning.

This is getting to be more and more like the years of the Democrats for Reagan movement. And maybe even more so.

Every time a voter sees the words 'White' or 'Black' or 'Affirmative Action' in a debate.....or anytime the voter sees the word 'Gender' of 'Male' of 'Female' or 'Sexism' or anything along those lines in a discussion....that is an almost automatic backlash vote against the Democratic Party, by Democrats.

Either the majority Democrats will stay home, or they will do the Democrats for Reagan act and vote Republican in droves.

I hear it said over and over again by Democrats. With all the problems we got in Washington, with all the problems we got in Iraq, with all the problems we got with people arguing over religion, the last thing anyone wants to hear is a race or gender comparison debate.

To imagine spending four years listening to racial and gender debates coming out of the White House, stacked atop what we already are dealing with. that is more than the Democratic majority voters can handle.

Looks like a sheer landslide in the making. So goes the prediction.

And it don't matter what race, color or creed this fellow Schmidt is, this kind of discussion turns voters away in large numbers.

As always, anyone wants to dispute it, I'm taking bets. Meet me in Las Vegas where gambling is legal, and we'll all lay the cash out on the table.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 8:05 PM ET | 10-02-2007

One need look no further than our president to see the result of what Schmidt is talking about. Anyone really think he'd be Ivy League material if his last name wasn't Bush, as in THE Bush family?

Sent by John R. Otten | 8:33 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Bjorn, lots of Asian students in a handful of engineering programs doesn't mean whites can't get into college because of their race. And in terms of class, "rich" is a relative term. Few students in my college were blue collar and/or low income. We barely knew how to apply to college, let alone worry about getting into "top tier" programs like you did. I spent my four years trying to keep up with the most basic tuition payments while my family was on the verge of homelessness. So this "European American" had no trouble because of skin color, but plenty of trouble with social, cultural and economic disadvantages. We still need affirmative action and a host of other changes to address the complex needs of students preparing for college.

Sent by Tracy M. | 11:13 PM ET | 10-02-2007

As a student at one of the top ten universities in the nation, I would have to say the theory proposed in this book is ludicrous. Yes, there are loopholes at every level of the college admittance process for both white, black, and any other race a student might be. However, as a student who checked "caucasion" on her application, I cannot begin to count the number of kids like myself who wished they were 1/8 of some non-European ethnicity in order to gain an edge. I honestly believed if I had manipulated the system and counted myself as Mexican (my great-grandmother was Mexican and if you are 1/8 of a heritage you can legitimately claim it)I would have gotten into more of the 22 schools I applied to. There are a ridiculous number of factors working against the typical "white" kid. Even as an admitted student, I cannot find a job on campus because I am what the author calls a "rich white kid" and do not qualify for the Federal Work-Study program. I am not racist, but I am quite honestly, "sick and tired" of those who are less qualified gaining an edge simply because they are of a different race or a lower income level. College is a competitive environment meant to produce the brightest citizens of the country. The job environment (usually) looks for the best qualified. I suggest our colleges start doing so as well.

Sent by Vara Lyons | 4:03 AM ET | 10-03-2007

As a counselor, it is remarkable to witness who gets in and who does not. Paying full tuition still matters. Playing sports matters. Minority status matters. Perhaps focusing solely on a family's income would be more equitable v. race.
www.coloradoeducationalconsulting.com

Sent by Carolyn Williams | 1:20 PM ET | 10-03-2007

One need look no further than our president to see the result of what Schmidt is talking about. Anyone really think he'd be Ivy League material if his last name wasn't Bush, as in THE Bush family?

Sent by John R. Otten | 8:33 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Hey, John, good buddy! Since you've asked me a number of questions, and I've answered them, how about I ask you a question? In a friendly debate's vein, of course.

I read one of your comments that you are a psychology teacher. Is that correct? I don't know which level of teaching you endeavor. But I was wondering, on a psychological scale, would you say that this blog takes a right or a left turn in its overall content?

Looks to me as though your comment is decidedly leftist. Am I right or wrong on that assumption? Because, when I took you to task on this comment, my comments could have been construed as being rightist. And my taking you to task was not allowed. Which, according to the laws of logic, leaned in your direction.

So, I'm wondering, from your perspective, is the majority of this blog to the left or the right in political dealings?

Also, another question....If white students receive more admissions than blacks, could this discussion be equated to sports? Could one argue that black athletes disproportionately receive more college scholarships than white athletes at many universities?

I mean, what political direction does this discussion take in a broad statement that 'Rich White Kids' Get More College Breaks.'

Could it be said that more muscular black students get more athletic scholarships?

Just wondering. Since the proverbial ball has been tossed onto the proverbial court....and NPR is bound to be objective in its reporting.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 4:18 PM ET | 10-03-2007

Hi F.C. yeah sure I'll answer your questions. Take me to task all you want. No I'm not a psychology teacher nor have I ever claimed to be. I think you're confusing me with someone else about that. I'm far more left than right, though I do support the second ammendment and sometimes I think the right is correct, on certain issues. I think I should stick to an ideological scale, since I know nothing of a psychological scale. I would agree that it appears NPR listeners tend to be to the left of center but most are not very far to the left. And I notice there are plenty of folks commenting from what appears to be somewhere to the right of center (such as yourself, seems to me). As far as blacks compare to whites in society, well look, money and power buy influence. That's always been true. All you have to do is consider a university like USC. Very expensive but you don't need excellent grades to get in if you can pay the tuition. If your grades are not very good but your parent(s) are alumnae that will get you in with grades that aren't so good. If your folks make a huge contribution to the university (it is private, after all) then that would get you in. Now, how many black folks do you think are in the position to do any of the above? Answer: not a lot. They do, however, have opportunities to attend USC if they are great athletes or if they get really good grades and USC wants to ensure diversity by giving them a break on tuition. The way I see it, athletic scholarships to young black people helps to level the playing field somewhat but not to the point that it's truly about equal opportunity. So, wonder no more F.C. and have a good day.

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:56 PM ET | 10-05-2007

"Either the majority Democrats will stay home, or they will do the Democrats for Reagan act and vote Republican in droves. ... I hear it said over and over again by Democrats. With all the problems we got in Washington, with all the problems we got in Iraq, with all the problems we got with people arguing over religion, the last thing anyone wants to hear is a race or gender comparison debate.
To imagine spending four years listening to racial and gender debates coming out of the White House, stacked atop what we already are dealing with. that is more than the Democratic majority voters can handle.
Looks like a sheer landslide in the making. So goes the prediction." says F.C. Now, the Democrat partisan in me sincerely hopes that lots and lots of people on the political right agree with you. My inner-partisan would love nothing better than for the GOP faithful to beat that drum into the ground. Because it'll come as quite a shock to them when they find out that voters on the left and in the political middle are far more concerned about wars, people dying and the deficit these wars are creating, than whether or not Democrat leaders use terms like Affirmative Action or debate race/gender equality. Keep thinking the election will be about something other than Iraq. I'll enjoy watching ya'll get blindsided in 2008 and start scrambling for some other explanation that helps you avoid looking at the obvious. This is going to be fun, politically speaking.

Sent by John R. Otten | 6:00 PM ET | 10-05-2007

". I am not racist, but I am quite honestly, "sick and tired" of those who are less qualified gaining an edge simply because they are of a different race or a lower income level." Vara Lyons
Umm... ever stop to consider why they are less qualified than you? I guess an Ivy League education can't buy you everything you need.

Sent by erica5 | 8:20 PM ET | 10-05-2007

Erica , et al, Why are you so concerned with those that are coming from the lower social tiers of society, and not outraged by those from the higher tiers, that buy or conjole the system to their advantage? The world is actually divided in to three types of people (as oposed to two): those that Have, those that Have not, and then those that do not have, but are running as fast as they can from the have nots, presumably to not be identified or included in that group.
It seems to me most of us are closer to being poor than rich. So why don't you show outrage at those that buy their positions (bought by their families) and are obviously not qualified (think Bush and others), and a little less outraged at affirmative action, which is designed to offer no more than an opportunity (in the name of diversity). YOU STILL HAVE TO PERFORM to stay. And you had to perform to get there vs buying, or conjoling access!
I think you make a splendid case for universal access to education- College for all. After WWII this premise materialized which greatly augmented the economic boom we saw in this country. This would stop the bickering you have against the have nots! When you should side with the have nots against the Haves!Some thoughts!

Sent by Bill G | 10:13 AM ET | 10-06-2007

I have always been the poor white kid. At 40 I am back in school. I am still the poor white kid. I owe tens of thousands in loans. My husband I and I have never made more than 40,000 dollars, this is why we ar eboth back in school. I have to appeal the rigth to get aid every semester. I can't buy my way into school, I don't qualify for minority help, I could get help if I were divorced. Bush is a great example of buying your way in. My question is why do prisoners, regardless of length of sentence, get government grants? They all qualify. Education is getting harder to come by for lower and middle income people all the time.

Sent by Kelley | 11:54 AM ET | 10-06-2007

As an African-American who grew up durning the height of affrimative action (I am 52 years old, and hold a Ph.D., and by the way, did not get into college via affrmative action), and have 4 step-children who are European-American, I do not want my kids to be victims of discrimination. That said, for anyone to think that some form of affrimative action (not quotas) is not necessary is naive. A level playing field has not been realized in our country. If our goal is to educate as many people as possible, doesn't it make sense to include as many students come diverse racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds as possible? I may be an optimist, but I think this can be done without discriminating against any student.

Sent by Dan Hogan | 12:05 PM ET | 10-06-2007

The principle of affirmative action, as it is endorsed at Wellesley College, directs members of the College community--students, faculty, and staff--to make special efforts in all areas of life and work at the College.

Oprah Winfrey's Commencement Address
Wellesley College
May 30, 1997
My hat's off to you! My hat's off to you! [crowd cheers: Go Girl!]
You all have "gone" girls!

Sent by dans | 3:46 PM ET | 10-06-2007

On affirmative action, Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, said he thinks that someday when his two young daughters apply to college, they "should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged" and there is nothing wrong with that.

"I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and been brought up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed," he added. "There are a lot of African-American kids who are still struggling."

Obama said that "if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that [then?] affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society."

Barack Obama

Sent by dans | 3:55 PM ET | 10-06-2007

When racial preferences were ended in California, there was much hysteria in the media, with dire predictions that blacks would be kept out of higher education. Just recently, with much less publicity, the fact has come out that there are now more black students in the University of California system than there were when racial preferences and quotas were in effect. The same is true in the University of Texas system.

Compare racial preferences in Colorado, for example. At the flagship University of Colorado at Boulder, test score differences between black and white students have been more than 200 points -- and only 39 percent of the black students graduated, compared to 72 percent of white students. Meanwhile, at the University of Colorado at Denver, where the SAT score difference was a negligible 30 points, there was also a negligible difference in graduation rates -- 50 percent for blacks and 48 percent for whites.

"Affirmative Action" and College Graduation Rates
by Thomas Sowell (June 4, 2002)

Sent by dans | 4:15 PM ET | 10-06-2007

If a white kid is rich, it must mean that he's dumb. And he is so dumb because he is rich that he needs extra help getting into college. And a black kid who is poor, that must mean he is smarter than a rich white kid. But the poor smarter black kid needs help getting into college because he is so smart, but poor. While the poor white kid, he's smarter than both the rich dumb white kid and the poor smart black kid. And the poor white kid doesn't have a prayer in getting into any college anywhere because he's so darn smart.

Sent by dans | 4:24 PM ET | 10-06-2007

Okay, first off I wonder about the intelligence of anyone who reads this book. The author seems to be saying that a rich white kid, with millions of dollars, can't figure out how to pay college tuition. College is a business. They accept money.

As for issues about affirmative action and the leftist movement today, I went in search of what black intellectuals have to say. Anyway, here's some thoughts on various subjects by two black academic writers who "worked" their way through higher education....fred call

Thomas Sowell Is Harvard magnum cum Laude, Masters from Colombia and doctorate from U of Chicago. His teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles:

"Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing ... A whole mythology has grown up that the advancement of minorities and women in America is a result of policies promoted by the left in the 1960s. Such claims are often based on nothing more substantial than ignoring the history of the progress made prior to 1960 ... Wise people created civilization over the centuries and clever people are dismantling it today.

Walter E. Williams holds a master's degree and doctorate in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University, and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics:

"... it doesn't sound like economics is a very compassionate science." You're right, but neither is physics, chemistry or biology. However, if we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help ... Many of our nation's colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty and the new racism ... Many academics make the mindless argument, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, that racial representation is necessary for academic excellence. For them, getting the right racial mix requires racial discrimination."

Sent by fred call | 9:01 PM ET | 10-06-2007

Fred, You wrote: "If white students receive more admissions than blacks, could this discussion be equated to sports? Could one argue that black athletes disproportionately receive more college scholarships than white athletes at many universities?"

No. Your premise is flawed to begin with. White athletes through white schools systems have nearly comparable athletic resources as black athletes and their blacks school systems. Black athletes who've earned scholarships have done so on a meritocratic, even playing field.

Sent by Dave B | 11:38 PM ET | 10-06-2007

I am white and middle class.

I grew up in a "good" neighborhood. Both my parents went to college. My father earns enough to support the family without my mother having to work. As a result, my parents were about to support me all through high school. If I needed help with my homework, they were there for me. If I strayed and started skipping school my parents were there to make me go.

I graduated high school with good grades and was able to get into many of the colleges I applied to. However, it seems obvious to me that all this was made easier and more likely because of my parents involvement. What about someone whose parents never went to college, whose parents both work, who work two jobs, who didn't graduate from high school? What about someone who went to a public school that couldn't afford paper and pencils, let alone textbooks? Who went to a school that assumed their students would not be going to college? Who had to work through high school and will have to work through college? I sincerely doubt that if this person and I made the same effort to go to college that we would both have the same chance getting in.

America is not an even playing field. When some people start at the top and others at the bottom, when money can buy you anything: a private school and a private tutor, as well as the luxury of spending afternoons volunteering instead of working at a minimum wage job, it seems ludicrous to treat everyone equally and expect everyone to have an equal chance of "getting to the top" or going to college.

Sent by Sarah | 12:50 AM ET | 10-07-2007

Prisoners get help because it's in society's best interests to get them educated in the hope they will not go back to a life of crime.

Sent by Dan | 9:12 AM ET | 10-07-2007

Gosh! The individual's lament is not a concern in establishment of Affirmative Action programs be they lowered college admission standards or set asides for businesses.

The idea is to "integrate" people as symbols so that groups that do not otherwise have sufficient members, who manifest the necessary wherewithal to participate at all levels of society, are not excluded. This seems to be of greater importance in maintaining civil order than the fact that numerous individuals may suffer exclusion as they are at the bottom of their classification of eligibles and are thus displaced by favored groups.

And in fields such as mathematics, hard science, and engineering, where it is not as easy to "fake it," and demonstrate mastery of subject matter, you will notice that the relative difficulty of the subject matter then does on a de facto basis, bar such favoritism.

The putative beneficiaries of the policies may individually be harmed as their drop-out rate is higher at sopcalled elite institutions, when they might have succeeded if they have been enrolled in institutions more accessible to those with their skill levels.

Yet a recent survey of black colleges by US News & World Report demonstrates their relatively low admission standards, and yet these institutions have historically produced successive generations of leaders for the black community, who have thrived and whose prosperity has demonstrated positive achievement and has provided hope for the masses of black people.

Sent by Randy Sykes | 4:47 PM ET | 10-07-2007

Vara - you applied to 22 schools. How much is that in application fees alone? How did you earn those "qualifications" that you so value? How much did music lessons, tutors, a home in a good school district, etc etc cost your parents?

I know where you're coming from. I am a college student at a top ten university, and I attended one of the best high schools in the country. Getting into a good college is absolute hell - but the fact that you worked hard to get where you are doesn't entitle you to a place in the Ivy League. There are a lot of hard workers in this world, and most of them do not have the same access to resources that we enjoy.

What people in our priveleged situation need to appreciate is just how truly lucky we are. Let's say that I didn't get into a top ten university, let's say you didn't, let's say that we attended a top fifty university instead, or even our premier state school instead. What is the worst that would have happened to us? We would have to take many, many wrong turns and suffer many, many tough breaks in order to end up anywhere but the upper middle class. Why should we begrudge people from less priveleged circumstances a helping hand?

Anyway, 99% of your competition in life comes not from those affirmative action helps, but rather from people like me - and, it seems, my richer, whiter, classmates.

Sent by Katie Shen | 8:14 PM ET | 10-07-2007

The term "affirmative action" has led to that societal belief that "being equal" is not enough. Instead, "more", "better", "higher": these are the operative words that come into debate when discussing who should get in where, and why. As a white woman, recently graduated from a top tier university, where am I to fall? In the "rich white kid" category, or the "minority female" category? I spoke to an african-american friend the other day who told me her mother wanted to her to attend a HBCU (historically black college or university) to gain the "black experience". What might that "experience" entail? This isn't about preference based on money or income (as it should be), but the face that preferential treatment still exists in this country EVERYWHERE. What would have happened if I said I wanted to attend a HBCU? I wouldn't have been too accepted, I presume. It's time to turn our heads towards ACTUAL equality and not just "gaining the upper hand".

Sent by mrd9w | 8:26 PM ET | 10-07-2007

Nothing new here. Many years ago the NYTimes published a study about admissions to Columbia. #1 criteria for admission? Legacy status.

Sent by Jake J. | 10:03 PM ET | 10-07-2007

Erica5,
Yes, I have. I tutored the children of recent Mexican immigrants for three hours a week last year and I cannot tell you how much I wish I could give them the opportunities I had. It's not fair they are pushed into a disadvantage, rather born into a disadvantage. However, as someone who was, I am trying to help. I am NOT a privileged white kid who sits on my butt; I competed against some of the smartest kids in the nation to get where I am, pulled all-nighters in high-school, worked a job, and managed extracurriculars--while many of the "haves" sat on their butts knowing they will have daddy's trust fund to get by on one day. My parents came from lower income families and worked their way through college and medical school. They didn't receive any advantages as they came at a time before affirmative action; my dad, being a fourth mexican, would have qualified in today's system. My boyfriend's father, who is Mexican-American, didn't receive those advantages either, and is now one of the most respected Hispanic businessmen in America. Working your way up IS possible and I wholeheartedly agree we should help the "have-nots." However, don't take away from me what I have earned with my hard work simply because I was born into a family that "has."

Sent by Vara Lyons | 12:11 AM ET | 10-08-2007

Some people are not tired of hearing that action needs to be taken towards gender equality. 50% of those eligible to vote are women.

Sent by Janey | 3:53 AM ET | 10-08-2007

Re: Vara Lyons
You've gotten into a top-ten school, and yet you're unhappy that you didn't get into more of the 22 schools you applied to? Just how many schools did you plan on attending? And have you actually ever stopped to have a conversation with any of the non-white students at your school so that you can inform them that they are less qualified to be there than you are? "Not a racist," indeed.

Sent by Nick | 9:26 AM ET | 10-08-2007

Now that Barack and Hillary are running for president, we can talk all we want about affirmative action. In fact, it's damn near mandatory to discuss affirmative action.

Let's be serious. If Bill hadn't been president, Hillary wouldn't have made it into the senate, and be running for president today.

Sure, affirmative action has helped some. Problem is, there are too many to whom you can give a thirty thousand dollar scholarship to, and they're still not able to academically do anything with the welfare. Except they've learned how to politically ask for another thirty thousand dollar scholarship.

After a while, how do you tell that person it is not their race or gender that limits their upward mobility, that they are limiting their own upward mobility?

All the same, I invite debates about affirmative action and racial and gender equality, for a change. We've all become weary of seven years of pithy antiwar slogans that have gone nowhere except into repetitive monotony. Time for a change in our political debtes.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:07 AM ET | 10-08-2007

Colleges and universities today operate under mounting pressures to act less like friendly, all-who-are-qualified-are-welcome institutions of learning and more like corporations. This means that students are required to be seen in terms of investments and, yes, white students who arrive toting unimpressive academic records but proud, ready-to-pay parents are much better "investments" than well-qualified students who represent racial/class minorities. I currently work as a graduate student/instructor at such an institution and am constantly able to witness the politics of upper-class white entitlement at play in my own classroom. While many of my students are racial minorities (particularly Asian and Middle Eastern), they are not the ones who have been placed there by entitlement politics. Many wealthy white students approach college-level learning with a sense of endowed rights; they know how much they are worth, even if they don't know how to compose a piece of cogent, college-level writing.

Sent by S Liming | 12:46 PM ET | 10-08-2007

Bush is a moron and I cannot believe that he was able to finish highschool without a trained helper chimp. Thats not left or right, thats simply looking at his past actions while occupying the highest office in this land.

What annoys me, is there are plenty of people who would be nontraditional students, who might not be fresh out of highschool.

Kids. The old saying that Youth is wasted on the young is no joke, and often so is a college education.

More adults who for whatever reason did not have access to resources to attend college could make great candidates for financial assistance.

However, as an adult what keeps me from going back is the idea that I might have to take out a loan bigger than my mortgage for my house.

You have to be rich to go back to school or send kids to schools these days, and there is something wrong with that.

No one should have to rack up 90,000.00$+ in loans to become a Bachelors of anything! That is ridiculous. College should be more affordable and the first step is to stop charging 80 $ a text book or more.

People are all for sustainable environmental practices, well how about sustainable economic practices.

2nd mortgages, credit debt, and Adjustible rate loans should not be the only answers for lower income people.

Either College is an elitist establishment meant for acquiring useless feathers in caps, or its a learning institution that is available to those who CAN and WILL make the grade regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or economic background.

Sent by Sundog | 1:15 PM ET | 10-08-2007

The focus on 'rich white kids' is irrelevant to the vast majority of 'white' kids who are not rich but who wish to attend college. It's a way for affirmative-action supporters to avoid talking about racial preference policies. These white kids, especially the males, get squeezed at more elite institutions by the legacies, by affirmative-action admissions, by high-SAT scorers, and they end up going to community colleges even if they have worked harder and posted better grades than many who are admitted for the above reasons.

Sent by Mark Richard | 2:52 PM ET | 10-08-2007

Although many of you are getting into debates about leftist and rightist views...i would like to bring up a point of view that may or may not be agreed with.

A main, if not 'the', issue is the separation of classes in this country. There are those which are wealthy and do not interfere at all with the lower lever classes. They buy their way into top schools with their parents money, while many times those with the most intelligence and highest grades can not pay $10,000 a semester.

But a lot of times this turns into a race issue. All you must do is look at our countries history. Look at 400 years of slavery. Look at unequal rights in the past. Look at the near extinction of the Native Americas. Look at segregation. Look at the KKK. Look at hate crimes. Look at police brutality. All these things shape our country and shape our countries peoples' position culturally, economically, and socially.

But it is all about the class issue. Sometimes it seems as though the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It sometimes seems like there is 90% of the wealth in 10% of the population.

Sent by Ali | 9:29 PM ET | 10-08-2007

I honestly believe that this longrunning debate is already a generation behind reality. The time in which an undergraduate degree could allow any member of society to move into the middle class or an opportunity to remain there is past. Academic and employment specialization and the increase in the number of bachelor diplomas awarded have substantially diluted the market value of such diplomas. This has occurred even as the base price of a university education has outpaced inflation annually since the 1980s.
The offspring of well connected and wealthy members of society will always have the means and inclination of insuring that they perpetuate their class privileges and status. Biological incentives will always trump any notion of meritocracy. The upper class parents and grandparents of students are hardly bothered by the high costs of higher education. But they are bothered by the sheer numbers of students who are able to earn the same credentials as their descendants.
Today's reality is the most valuable use for a university undergraduate diploma is simply as a device that enables one to gain access to internships in lucrative fields, alternative study programs, and graduate schools. The students who follow their working class roots and try to work their way through higher education will fall behind and will never be able to compete with their upper class classmates. It is primarily the wealth members of society, subsidized by their families, who are thereby able to afford the living expenses attached with unpaid internships (or paid internships if they are very well connected), alternative study programs outside of regular tuition costs, and the additional financial debts of graduate studies.
The continuing debate around affirmative action policies is a smokescreen as to how the educational system perpetuates class stratification while deluding the debaters that the access to higher education is still an example of meritocracy.

Sent by Mitchell Hough | 2:43 AM ET | 10-09-2007

Dave, you said to me, "No. Your premise is flawed to begin with. White athletes through white schools systems have nearly comparable athletic resources as black athletes and their blacks school systems. Black athletes who've earned scholarships have done so on a meritocratic, even playing field."

Hi, Dave. Could I direct your attention to all pro Washington Redskin defensive end Dexter Manley's confession that even after having retired from pro football, he still couldn't read nor write.

"Five months ago, the All-Pro defensive end went before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Education to tell his deepest, most heavily guarded secret. Shaking visibly, the 1988 Super Bowl Champion Washington Redskin fought to keep his composure and, barely a minute into his prepared statement, almost broke down. For one long, agonizing, seemingly endless moment, Manley sat frozen, locked in combat--with himself....The arresting sight of Dexter Manley crying, coupled with his startling revelation, shocked millions. Dexter Manley illiterate? ."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54701-2005Feb25.html

fred call

Sent by fred call | 11:20 AM ET | 10-09-2007

Nick,
I am not unhappy where I am, nor do I wish I got into more schools. I was simply using the number as an example. And no, I do not believe minorities are less qualified to be here and I would never DREAM of telling them so, especially considering I count many of them as friends. While my university has its faults, I believe the application process here is rather fair and unbiased to the best of its ability.
Katie,
Who exactly do you define as being entitled to a place in the top 10 schools? If not a hard worker, then who?

Overall, I do believe the quantity of opportunities should be taken into account--If someone went to an unacknowledged public school but performed well there, they should be just as much considered as the more-privileged child who went to Deerfield, Holton, or any number of elite private schools. However, someone should NOT be admitted on the basis of race or economic status alone, or given the advantage over someone who worked harder then they did. It all boils down to work equity, determination, and how they used what they were given. And yes, Katie, my parents were able to give me music lessons, etc., but I took advantage of them and was grateful for every one. This is an extreme, almost ridiculous example but I want to make a point: I'm sure Paris Hilton was afforded far greater opportunities, and does she even have a high school degree?

Sent by Vara L | 7:43 PM ET | 10-09-2007

white kiids are not all that

Sent by april | 1:50 PM ET | 10-20-2007

First let me explain that I am a white woman from a very middle-class family (both parents military)and I found this article only by searching out of desperation for a middle-class white girl scholarship(you can find them for everything else right?); as I am about to have to put my education on hold for the third time thanks to shortage of money. Anyway, it got me thinking that if wealthy whites buy their children's slots in college, and minorities have so many scholarships available, it will leave all the middle-class and lower whites uneducated. This doesn't quite seem fair now does it? Why don't they issue admissions on grades, and scholarships on financial need? Then everyone who deserves to be in college is there, and if you can't afford it, then you get help. Just a thought from an army brat working her way through college on the slow track.

Sent by Amanda | 11:07 PM ET | 02-19-2008

Bjorn-

Your statement,
"I know this from experience; I was the only European American in most of my classes in a first-tier engineering program. (Most everyone else was Asian.)"
can clearly be classified as anecdotal and bares no weight when discussing matters of statistical analysis or significance.

It would behoove the reader to, "look at the data." provided you had referenced some of the collected data in your post.

Sent by |\| /\ | 1:44 PM ET | 04-19-2008