It’s no secret that getting admission to a college (especially big names like the Ivy League) is kind of a crap shoot. Sure, you need the grades, the activities, the involvement; but we all also know that sometimes you can give your application a little nudge that has nothing to do with academics. Your parents worked two jobs each to help take care of you and your three siblings and it taught you the value of responsibility and family — admissions gold. Or you spent half of your childhood in another country and had to learn the wonder and struggles of adapting your proud cultural heritage to life in the Midwest — brilliant. These kinds of things have been a leg-up in the admissions process for years and now, it turns out, there’s a brand new one that schools are actively seeking out — LGBT.

That’s right, when just a couple of decades ago many people couldn’t RISK coming out in college, now schools are trying to recruit applicants from the LGBT community and while I have no qualms about that, I gotta wonder if it’s fair.

I have a long-standing record on this column of being pro gay rights, and that’s not a streak I plan on breaking, but this is one area where I have some serious mixed feelings. On one hand, it’s great that schools are being active with the gay community and embracing their students’ sexualities as a part of who they are. It’s wonderful that they’re going to an effort to show students that they can be open, active and comfortable in their school and embracing that the challenges faced by many LGBT students are character shaping  and meaningful. Good job, colleges! It’s also not really affirmative action, so it’s not as though schools are trying to fill a certain quota; it’s just that if a good applicant comes along with the added twist of being LGBT, then it might give him or her a little boost.

No, the problem I have with this idea isn’t really about gay students getting a leg-up on the competition because of their sexuality or maybe taking a slot away from someone else based on that – though it is possible – my real problem is the implications for the gay communities within these schools. First of all, while I hate to think it, it would be a hell of a lot easier to fake a traumatic coming out story than something like, coming from a low-income family. It’s not really something admissions officers can check up on and there probably are dishonest students who would fake it or play up their own less dramatic experiences just to edge out the competition. There’s also the issue of creating an archetype for the gay student. Schools aren’t  just going around asking recruits if they’re LGBT, they see activism on transcripts with a certain expectation that it will continue – that an LGBT recruit won’t just be a student, but an involved, gay student. And while getting involved in the community is great, it puts a pressure on the student to be a certain kind of gay student – to be out and active and “gay.” There’s a lot more to an individual than their sexuality and to fit them into one little box, to put so much emphasis on who you are sexually, is kind of discrimination in reverse.

So what do you think? Should school’s look at something like sexuality when choosing students? Is being LGBT suddenly an unfair admissions advantage over straight students? Is it good or bad for the LGBT community? Duke it out!

In the mood for a good fight? Sound off in Lauren’s other battles.

Is gender equality in college that important?

According to NPR, colleges are favoring male applicants ahead of female candidates, in order to keep schools from becoming overwhelmingly female. Other than being a seemingly blatant violation of Title IX, I can’t quite figure out if this is good or bad.

So I took a look at both sides:

Gender balance on a college campus is not a bad thing. It’s been a long standing argument for Affirmative Action that diversity enhances the learning experience, and it’s true. Guys see things differently than us ladies and hearing their perspective can really change the way we think. As a graduate of an all-girls high school, I can honestly say that having males in the college classroom was a welcomed change and a truly eye-opening experience. And even what happens outside of the classroom – including dating – is an important part of college life and growing up.

And let’s not pretend we don’t see the obvious perk here. With colleges accepting more male students there will be less competition on the hunt for a boyfriend. You may be just as romantically-challenged, but at least there are less girls around to point that out. Can’t hate that.

But on the other hand, what is the problem with having a majority of female students on the college campus? It’s not our fault that we woman are more intelligent than guys. And you don’t see many people trying to fix the wage gap that exists between us! Acceptance should be based on merit, not on gender. Favoring male candidates is a numbers game that seems unnecessary.  Besides, some say marriage only works if the woman is smarter than her husband. For the sake of the relationship, shouldn’t we just leave those boys at home?

What do you think? Should colleges discriminate against women in order to maintain the gender balance? Or should colleges let things run it’s natural course, which obviously ends with women taking over the world?

This week, all eyes are on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as the Senate confirmation hearings rule the media (and not just sleep-inducing C-SPAN, for once). This is a historic time for the United States, as Sotomayor may become the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

But what do we know about this woman?

To help you stay informed, we’ve filtered through the media’s deluge of reports on Sotomayor and have compiled this handy fact sheet, summarizing her rulings and positions on some important issues:

On affirmative action

The Verdict: Supports it

Sotomayor ruled to uphold a lower court’s decision that found in favor of affirmative action in the New Haven, CT fire department. In an earlier case, Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, Sotomayor dissented from the decision, finding that racial discrimination had occurred when a black student was demoted from the first grade to kindergarten.

On strip searches

The Verdict: Against them

In a 2004 case that upheld the legality of strip searches of girls at juvenile detention centers in CT, Sotomayor wrote a dissent emphasizing the intrusive and humiliating nature of strip searches. Sotomayor made similar points in a dissent to the decision in a case concerning the strip search of a 13 year-old middle school student in Arizona.

On abortion

The Verdict: Position unclear

Sotomayor has heard few cases involving abortion, so her position is unclear. In one case, she denied a claim by an abortion rights group that sought to challenge an anti-abortion Bush policy. However, she has said that she considers the issue of abortion rights to be “settled law” and believes that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

On gun/weapon control

The Verdict: Supports it

Sotomayor denied a claim by a New York man that his state’s ban on a martial arts weapon violated his Second Amendment rights. She explained that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government; he had a case only if it had been the federal government banning the weapon. Sotomayor has also agreed with the notion that the right to possess a gun is not a fundamental right.

On the environment

The Verdict: Supports environmental protection efforts

Sotomayor ruled that the EPA could not use cost-benefit calculations in deciding whether to require power plants to change to eco-friendly practices. Essentially, the EPA cannot weigh cost as a factor in the protection of aquatic life from nearby power plants.

What would her confirmation mean for the Supreme Court?
Despite the old Republican talking point, Sotomayor is not expected to be an activist judge or lean to one end of the political spectrum completely, even if many of her positions are considered liberal. Both liberals and conservatives support her, and it should be noted that she was nominated to be a federal district judge by Republican President George H. W. Bush. Many pundits expect her to be almost exactly in-line with Justice David Souter, whom she was nominated to replace. Souter’s record shows a tendency to vote with the the liberal bloc, even though he was nominated as a conservative.

When Sotomayor was nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997, she had this to say on the role of the court: “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

So now you’ve got all the facts.
What do you think about Sotomayor?

It marks the end of an era when American politics were plagued with apathetic citizens, who found nothing in the candidates inspiring enough to take a passionate interest in.

It marks the end of an era when race was an invisible barrier over politics, the end of affirmative action being a weapon against the status quo, and the end of divisions in America over race. Barack Obama has attained the highest office of the American political system, and to some people, the free world. There is no reason anymore why any good citizen of America should not be able to succeed in their goals and dreams through diligence and perseverance, because it has been proven that the highest goal can be accomplished by normal people.

Finally, it marks the end of an era when the media was an impartial observer in the American Political system, and when committed voters were educated properly about their candidates. During the 2008 election, there was an enthusiasm towards our democracy that has not been seen in years. There was also, however, a vast prevalence of ignorance on both sides, and it was spurred by a media that displayed ruthless bias not seen in years. Mainstream news magazine Newsweek published six issues with covers devoted exclusively to Barack Obama, five of them issues in this year alone. 2008 was a year in which public opinion was ruled by media portrayal of political affairs.

The wedding is overshadowing the marriage. The Inauguration has magnified into something bordering on a spectacle, with commemorative trinkets being hawked in every possible commercial medium, and huge celebrations being planned across the country. Happiness and joy at an inauguration are not bad things. Blind euphoria and an unwillingness to accept shortcomings in the president-elect are.

As a conservative and a Republican, I don’t have high expectations for the next four, and possibly the next eight, years. Seeing Obama’s face doesn’t fill me with pride and hope, but a nervous concern for our country’s well-being with an untested president. I could be wrong. With Hillary Clinton as his very intelligent, very acquainted with international diplomacy Secretary of State, we could finally help the world see us as more than a distant and isolated giant. Hillary’s participation in his cabinet gives me hope that America will at least remain stable in international affairs, if not find diplomatic success.

I don’t believe Obama is a terrorist foreigner, but I don’t have much faith in the presiding ability of a man whose career rises from the infamous political machines of Chicago, Illinois. He remains untested, having been nearly completely cushioned from criticism by a media that remains vastly doting upon him. Without having faced adversity against his policies from a large portion of America, I believe he lacks the realistic gravity taken on by politicians who must fiercely defend their policies from a critical media.

I’m happy that a majority of American citizens are bonding together in what must be a very happy time. I’m glad that patriotism is at a recent-years high, as well as pride in our country. But at the same time, I wonder in the back of my mind if such limitless support will blind Americans to the shortcomings of their chosen leader, and draw them heedlessly into the cult of personality maintained by the media and faithful supporters. I take the optimism and euphoria of the inauguration with a grain of salt, because such unified support and utter faith in national leaders has taken a very grim turn in several times in history. If we are going to serve a president with whom we are not well acquainted, we must be willing to call him on the mistakes he makes, and not cushion his errors to maintain high approval.

I applaud America for a historic decision in the elections, but I caution America against turning a blind eye towards the new President’s novice mistakes.

[For more inauguration coverage and political debate, join College Candy's Facebook group!]

According to the article a few universities across the country have begun to change their admittance policies and consider socio-economic status when accepting applicants. Sort of like Affirmative Action but with yearly income instead of racial heritage.

The article tells a story about one student who was given the opportunity to attend a college that he never could have afforded on his own. In addition to covering his tuition (which, by the way, he did work for through a work study program), the university also included money for other items and activities that would allow him to “fit in” with the rest of the student population.

He went on to be one of the top students in his class and has even stuck around post graduation to mentor other students.

It seems almost impossible to find fault with programs like this one. I may get a lot of hate mail for saying this, but I always thought that Affirmative Action should have been based on socio economic status instead of race. Personally, I think that students coming from poor neighborhoods or inner city schools deserve it more than minority students in the upper middle class of society.

We may not notice it, but a college education is completely awarded to the more fortunate people in our society. We have more money to join clubs, take unpaid internships and get private tutors for the SATs. We have better facilities, books and class variety. No matter what color our skin is, college is in close reach.

And because of all that, we have an easier time getting into/paying for/succeeding in college. Why should we get an edge over other equally deserving students? America needs all the brain power it can get, so doesn’t it make sense to make college accessible to as many bright students as possible? Money should never be an issue.

More schools around this country should follow the lead set by Amherst, Harvard, Stanford and Princeton. Every student in this country deserves a chance to succeed and do great things; it is the duty of our universities and educators to keep a little thing like money from getting in the way.