[DubaiSis]

There is no such thing as equally qualified when it comes to these sorts of things because people are first and foremost super special snowflakes. And as has been discussed here, a 4.0 is not a 4.0 is not a 4.0. It depends on the school, the curriculum, your class choices, your extracurriculars, etc. AND it depends on your social background. The kid who grows up in South Central with a crackhead for a Mom who manages to pull out a 3.5 with 1 sport has accomplished A LOT. The kid with the tutor and the high prestige high school and a car from before she's 16 and summer camp every year with a 3.5 hasn't done much.

But that being said, I'm really of 2 minds about these arguments, and really would like to err in favor of advantage instead of race. The poor kid described above could be any race, including white, and my opinion of her accomplishment wouldn't change. And as the economic upper echelons become more racially diverse, the racial minority rich kids don't require the same leg up their parents and grandparents did. But I'm also afraid that a lot of schools would quickly backtrack to the good old days when they only accepted white boys. But on the other hand (how many hands is that now) I do believe there is a significant portion of the population, including rich white boys, who would choose not to attend a school that lacked any diversity. Using Harvard as an example, they continue to be one of the toughest schools to get into, and they work very hard at having all 50 states, many countries, both genders, and every race covered in every new freshman class. And they seem to still accomplish this while letting in plenty of legacies. I can't imagine them changing that policy just because they don't have to accept minorities, women, etc. But would Big State U? I don't know.