Re: the view that race-based affirmative action mostly benefits wealthy students of color...

[YoungDemCA]

I've actually read that race-based affirmative action on an individual level helps students of color from poorer backgrounds MORE than it helps more affluent ones both because of the escalating financial cost of going to college in recent years as well as the fact that solidly middle-class/upper-middle class or above students of all racial backgrounds ALREADY have a significant advantage over working class and poor students in terms of having better educated parents and being far more likely to live in (comparatively, at the very least) financially households with two parents present who are married and have higher incomes and at least some measure of job security, as well as being more likely to live in neighborhoods with less crime, concentrated poverty, and low-performing public schools. All of this "cultural capital" absolutely matters in respect to young people's educational, economic, and overall life prospects.

That being said, it's plausible that students of color from more affluent and higher-status family backgrounds will as a group disproportionately benefit from race-based affirmative action, but as I indicated above I suspect that this has less to do with race-based affirmative action in and of itself than the broader fact that higher-status students of ALL racial and ethnic backgrounds are a lot more likely to both go to college in the first place as well as graduate from college, period. Doesn't necessarily seem like the best argument against this policy, IMHO.

What are your thoughts on this admittedly quite controversial topic?

[Anonymous Bosh]

1. Anecdotes

I used to work for a company that had a robust charitable arm. One program provided internships and scholarships to underrepresented minorities. I was on the review board for about five years. It caused me great concern that the vast majority of the students we supported lived in tony zip codes and attended private schools.

It was my opinion that such kids did not need our help: they were academically competitive all on their own, exclusive of their "+1"status. I mean, internships and scholarships just added more fuel to these kids career rockets. (It was discussed as s long-term strategy: to get underrepresented minorities into leadership positions and, to be fair, we also supported programs in "bad" neighborhoods...)

Cultural capital totally applies. I support "earliest intervention," helping new parents understand the value of reading and education. But it's much easier to throw money at the already successful and call it a day.

As an aside, I also give credence to "overadmission," where talented but unprepared kids are thrown into super-rigorous schools. Under intense pressure to perform (and look good), many flame out. What might have been a future doctor, scientist or engineer at, say, an HBCU, at Harvard ends up as a sociology major (no offense intended to any soc majors here!).

[Anonymous Bosh]

2. More to your question

More specific to your question: I think (and hope) that those from lower socioeconomic strata are helped more, at least in a multigenerational way. That is, perhaps an ivy grad (even an underachiever) will hold *xer* offspring to higher standards and expectations (assuming such expectations are worthy, which I do).

All in all the relative affluence of minority applicants likely makes little difference, given the low numbers of minority applicants (versus other groups) overall.