|
More likely, the ethnicity soft quota just hits Asians a lot harder than other groups than the major soft quota hit the prospective Asian pre-professional/technical majors.
Here, have an anecdote:
I graduated 6th in my class (with 15 AP's), 2370 SAT and was an officer in several clubs including MAO, Orchestra and Sci Oly. Oh yeah, I was vice-editor of the school periodical, debated (badly), won a couple writing competitions and did Nanowrimo for 5 years straight. English major: still rejected from S, H, and Y. Based on your assertion that students in the humanities have lower stats than those in sciences, then every Bio major in those Class of 2015's is going to be the next big thing.
Now, larger story. Yes, we know that the number of Asians applying to elite schools is disproportionately large and well-qualified. However, a significantly smaller proportion of Asians is admitted. I highly doubt this can be purely attributed to the Asians competing for spots in the same pre-professional/ technical majors, as I know a number who did apply indicating interest in other areas and despite sterling stats were gently told to have a nice life elsewhere.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure about the soft quota thing, it might have something to do with outcomes studies that we don't know about.
with the type of selectivity we are talking about here, it could very well be that the stats are only used to boost the school's rankings while other things are given main weight. it's like perhaps a more grad school kind of selectivity where your program strength, unique achievements, 'potential' is treated more heavily. (although may not be measured accurately)
i know the shit i wrote in high school was utterly craptastic even if they were well received in high school. those kids who go the extra length above the high school level, to me at least, shows that he or she has the initiative for self study that is so important in college and academic success.
thus, asian low admissions may just be the result of soliciting more asians to apply to boost stats, rather than bias against asians. those who show the same level of talent and premise in the right ways will still get in.
|
Speaking as a Chinese American who probably would have gotten into an Ivy League school if I was black, I support affirmative action. Yes in an ideal world race would not matter and college admissions would be based purely on meritocratic criteria, but we do not live in that world. The end of institutional discrimination does not mean the playing field is level for everyone. Imagine a game of Starcraft where one player wasn't allowed to build an extra CC for 10 minutes. Does that mean the game is fair after the restriction is lifted? Of course not. The other player still has the advantage thanks to the extra workers and production facilities. Removing discriminatory practices only preserves the pre-existing inequality, it does not negate it. There are of course many flaws with the current implementation of affirmative action, but given the choice of affirmative action or nothing I'd pick the former.
|
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal.
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 05 2012 08:29 Portlandian wrote:
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal.
No your analogy is terrible and inherently racist. You're assuming that blacks are genetically less intelligent and thats why affirimative action exists.
I'm not saying that blacks/asians/whites are possibly NOT more intelligent based on race, but this isn't the argument.
Minorities have been systematically discriminated against in the United States since forever.. THEY STILL ARE. Most minorities live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools where they are criminalized and stigmatized to be bad people all of their life. Affirmative action is supposed to remedy THIS problem, not the fact that some minorities are less intelligent than others or something like that.
|
On November 05 2012 08:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
More likely, the ethnicity soft quota just hits Asians a lot harder than other groups than the major soft quota hit the prospective Asian pre-professional/technical majors.
Here, have an anecdote:
I graduated 6th in my class (with 15 AP's), 2370 SAT and was an officer in several clubs including MAO, Orchestra and Sci Oly. Oh yeah, I was vice-editor of the school periodical, debated (badly), won a couple writing competitions and did Nanowrimo for 5 years straight. English major: still rejected from S, H, and Y. Based on your assertion that students in the humanities have lower stats than those in sciences, then every Bio major in those Class of 2015's is going to be the next big thing.
Now, larger story. Yes, we know that the number of Asians applying to elite schools is disproportionately large and well-qualified. However, a significantly smaller proportion of Asians is admitted. I highly doubt this can be purely attributed to the Asians competing for spots in the same pre-professional/ technical majors, as I know a number who did apply indicating interest in other areas and despite sterling stats were gently told to have a nice life elsewhere.
So you're saying if I have those stats I have a good change of getting into HYPS? Awsome
Obviously affirmative action is inherently racist and discriminatory, but you have to look at this from a college's perspective. Not having a black population to speak of is going to look bad for the top universities, and having very little blacks/ aboriginals/ hispanics is going to look a lot more racist than having too many. It's not fair to the really smart people who get rejected just because of their race, but it's also not fair for these underprivileged kids to go to crappy schools, get crappy jobs, and not have the opportunity to do lots of EC's.
|
On November 05 2012 08:42 glabius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 08:29 Portlandian wrote:
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal. No your analogy is terrible and inherently racist. You're assuming that blacks are genetically less intelligent and thats why affirimative action exists. I'm not saying that blacks/asians/whites are possibly NOT more intelligent based on race, but this isn't the argument. Minorities have been systematically discriminated against in the United States since forever.. THEY STILL ARE. Most minorities live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools where they are criminalized and stigmatized to be bad people all of their life. Affirmative action is supposed to remedy THIS problem, not the fact that some minorities are less intelligent than others or something like that.
Where did he say they were genetically less intelligent? It isn't really controversial that they aren't as smart (their IQ curve is lower down, poorer life outcomes, etc), the only question is why they aren't as smart. Are they not as smart because they face systemically bad environments, or is it biological? More than likely you need to find out exactly what ratio of environment\biology you are dealing with. Believing all differences in human intelligence between "races" is purely environmental doesn't mean you accept that currently everyone has equal intelligence.
He might believe there is a biological component but that isn't obvious from his statement.
You are wrong about the purpose, though. If it were not a system to allow less qualified blacks and latinos (not minorities. Asians and Jews are minorities and they do just fine) then there would be no problem with color blind admissions; you could just give environmentally challenged individuals a bonus. The problem with color blind admissions is that hardly any blacks would ever get accepted because they would much less frequently have the qualifications: SAT, GPA, etc. Affirmative Action is put in place to prevent admissions from being merit based because the result of merit-based admissions would be unacceptable to some people.
Actually, I don't even understand what you are saying. AA is not there to help minorities who tend to be less qualified get in to positions they would not have been accepted to if they had been white or Asian, despite the fact that is clearly the mechanism AA uses, but it is there to stop bad schools and neighborhoods? How does it stop bad neighborhoods?
|
On November 05 2012 08:58 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 08:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
More likely, the ethnicity soft quota just hits Asians a lot harder than other groups than the major soft quota hit the prospective Asian pre-professional/technical majors.
Here, have an anecdote:
I graduated 6th in my class (with 15 AP's), 2370 SAT and was an officer in several clubs including MAO, Orchestra and Sci Oly. Oh yeah, I was vice-editor of the school periodical, debated (badly), won a couple writing competitions and did Nanowrimo for 5 years straight. English major: still rejected from S, H, and Y. Based on your assertion that students in the humanities have lower stats than those in sciences, then every Bio major in those Class of 2015's is going to be the next big thing.
Now, larger story. Yes, we know that the number of Asians applying to elite schools is disproportionately large and well-qualified. However, a significantly smaller proportion of Asians is admitted. I highly doubt this can be purely attributed to the Asians competing for spots in the same pre-professional/ technical majors, as I know a number who did apply indicating interest in other areas and despite sterling stats were gently told to have a nice life elsewhere. So you're saying if I have those stats I have a good change of getting into HYPS? Awsome Obviously affirmative action is inherently racist and discriminatory, but you have to look at this from a college's perspective. Not having a black population to speak of is going to look bad for the top universities, and having very little blacks/ aboriginals/ hispanics is going to look a lot more racist than having too many. It's not fair to the really smart people who get rejected just because of their race, but it's also not fair for these underprivileged kids to go to crappy schools, get crappy jobs, and not have the opportunity to do lots of EC's.
If you have stats around there, I'd say it would be worth your while to apply. I gave myself a fairly generous 50% chance of ending up in one of HYPS (obviously, I ended up in the other 50%, but I'm perfectly happy at another school where I pay significantly less).
The thing is, current AA doesn't create a necessarily diverse community. First, it tends to help some fairly well-off black kid than a poor one who succeeded despite all the barriers in his life. In addition, if it does result in some number of under-represented minorities at the college, the inherent fact that they were admitted in spite of having lower overall stats means many of them will simply end up padding the lower end of the curve. I don't really think that is the way to go.
|
On November 05 2012 09:19 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 08:42 glabius wrote:On November 05 2012 08:29 Portlandian wrote:
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal. No your analogy is terrible and inherently racist. You're assuming that blacks are genetically less intelligent and thats why affirimative action exists. I'm not saying that blacks/asians/whites are possibly NOT more intelligent based on race, but this isn't the argument. Minorities have been systematically discriminated against in the United States since forever.. THEY STILL ARE. Most minorities live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools where they are criminalized and stigmatized to be bad people all of their life. Affirmative action is supposed to remedy THIS problem, not the fact that some minorities are less intelligent than others or something like that. Where did he say they were genetically less intelligent? It isn't really controversial that they aren't as smart (their IQ curve is lower down, poorer life outcomes, etc), the only question is why they aren't as smart. Are they not as smart because they face systemically bad environments, or is it biological? More than likely you need to find out exactly what ratio of environment\biology you are dealing with. Believing all differences in human intelligence between "races" is purely environmental doesn't mean you accept that currently everyone has equal intelligence. He might believe there is a biological component but that isn't obvious from his statement. You are wrong about the purpose, though. If it were not a system to allow less qualified blacks and latinos (not minorities. Asians and Jews are minorities and they do just fine) then there would be no problem with color blind admissions; you could just give environmentally challenged individuals a bonus. The problem with color blind admissions is that hardly any blacks would ever get accepted because they would much less frequently have the qualifications: SAT, GPA, etc. Affirmative Action is put in place to prevent admissions from being merit based because the result of merit-based admissions would be unacceptable to some people. Actually, I don't even understand what you are saying. AA is not there to help minorities who tend to be less qualified get in to positions they would not have been accepted to if they had been white or Asian, despite the fact that is clearly the mechanism AA uses, but it is there to stop bad schools and neighborhoods? How does it stop bad neighborhoods?
The United States is not color-blind though. Blacks have a harder time getting loans for houses in better neighborhoods, they are criminalized by the police at higher rates (with all other things equal) people expect less out of them (labeling theory). Society expects blacks to be ignorant, only good at sports, and criminals. Growing up black is SIGNIFICANTLY harder on you then growing up white. Racism still exists, and by giving more opportunities to those discriminated against in higher education it can help close the gap.
Not saying I disagree COMPLETELY with your point. Yeah, maybe it would be good just do to it for disadvantaged neighborhoods so its colorblind but still looks at the same issue but by accounting for race you are also putting in factors in the above paragraph (societal expectations, criminalization of blacks, cultural negatives).
I am a current student at UT, and let me tell you, there are VERY few blacks here already. UT has like 5% blacks (not sure what percentage of these are athletes) and texas is 12.1% blacks. UT is a PUBLIC university, it should be representing all interests of the state, and the fact that the population is represented that way shows a clear issue with minority equality, that affirmative action can help relieve.
Secondly, UT has SO many asians, like 18% compared to Texas having 4%. If this case is passed in FAVOR of fisher, then UT will probably have to resort to only accepting students in the top whatever percent of their class. Which basically means that UT will be like (according to numbers im pulling out of my ass) 2% black, 10-15% hispanic, 60% white and 20-30% asian. This is NOT good for a public university that is highly prestigious
|
What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what?
You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks"
This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice..
Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
formal discrimination is not the only kind of discriminatory condition. it is only fair to consider both. the eternal dance of kantian and consequentialist logic is not so eternal, when you get to the bottom of it. the real world situation matters more.
|
On November 05 2012 10:53 Reason wrote:What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what? You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks" This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice.. Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action
Republicans on some campuses like to have "Affirmative Action Bake sales" where they sell donuts or cookies but have different prices based on race. Asian $.50, White $.40, Black $.10. Usually with a sign that says, "We are trying to make up for racism! Whites to the back of the line" or some such thing.
Merits of this aside I find it hilarious when they record it. Lots of black people walk up offended asking why everyone can't just pay the same price and line up based on who got there first.
|
On November 05 2012 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
formal discrimination is not the only kind of discriminatory condition. it is only fair to consider both. the eternal dance of kantian and consequentialist logic is not so eternal, when you get to the bottom of it. the real world situation matters more.
It really takes some psychological jumping jacks to justify racial discrimination, doesn't it? If there is some other discriminatory condition, then focus on that instead of advocating more discrimination in response.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not a psychological jump. just facts. read some ethics, or law or whatever. anything practical morality related has to address the issue of formal vs real.
legal procedure, for example.
anyway to put more substance into this so you'll stop being obtuse about it.
when you have a rule and the rule is carried out in a system, both the rule and the way the system is designed matter. the rule underdetermines the kind of results it will produce, and since human social rule making is at the end of the day a practical activity, the formal content of the rule is of a lower order of priority than the sort of results it will create.
Democratic Congressman John Dingell of Michigan is often quoted as saying, “If you let me write the procedure, and I let you write the substance, I’ll…fuck you every time.”
consider a situation in which you are writing the law and i am writing the underlying physical conditions for the society. can you ever beat me in creating a fair playing field?
it would be hard for you to do so without writing laws that consider the real conditions that enable fair participation and opportunity.
for instance, if you wrote the law as, race should not be considered in admissions. i would just have it so that blacks are poorer by 50%. then the outcome would not be equal.
legislation addressing social problems are pragmatic as to their choice of conditions. it is a legitimate question as to whether race is the best selection condition for addressing the problem, but it is wrong to say conditions that involve race are automatically disqualified to address the problem. the question is empirical.
|
On November 05 2012 10:40 glabius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 09:19 Romantic wrote:On November 05 2012 08:42 glabius wrote:On November 05 2012 08:29 Portlandian wrote:
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal. No your analogy is terrible and inherently racist. You're assuming that blacks are genetically less intelligent and thats why affirimative action exists. I'm not saying that blacks/asians/whites are possibly NOT more intelligent based on race, but this isn't the argument. Minorities have been systematically discriminated against in the United States since forever.. THEY STILL ARE. Most minorities live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools where they are criminalized and stigmatized to be bad people all of their life. Affirmative action is supposed to remedy THIS problem, not the fact that some minorities are less intelligent than others or something like that. Where did he say they were genetically less intelligent? It isn't really controversial that they aren't as smart (their IQ curve is lower down, poorer life outcomes, etc), the only question is why they aren't as smart. Are they not as smart because they face systemically bad environments, or is it biological? More than likely you need to find out exactly what ratio of environment\biology you are dealing with. Believing all differences in human intelligence between "races" is purely environmental doesn't mean you accept that currently everyone has equal intelligence. He might believe there is a biological component but that isn't obvious from his statement. You are wrong about the purpose, though. If it were not a system to allow less qualified blacks and latinos (not minorities. Asians and Jews are minorities and they do just fine) then there would be no problem with color blind admissions; you could just give environmentally challenged individuals a bonus. The problem with color blind admissions is that hardly any blacks would ever get accepted because they would much less frequently have the qualifications: SAT, GPA, etc. Affirmative Action is put in place to prevent admissions from being merit based because the result of merit-based admissions would be unacceptable to some people. Actually, I don't even understand what you are saying. AA is not there to help minorities who tend to be less qualified get in to positions they would not have been accepted to if they had been white or Asian, despite the fact that is clearly the mechanism AA uses, but it is there to stop bad schools and neighborhoods? How does it stop bad neighborhoods? The United States is not color-blind though. Blacks have a harder time getting loans for houses in better neighborhoods, they are criminalized by the police at higher rates (with all other things equal) people expect less out of them (labeling theory). Society expects blacks to be ignorant, only good at sports, and criminals. Growing up black is SIGNIFICANTLY harder on you then growing up white. Racism still exists, and by giving more opportunities to those discriminated against in higher education it can help close the gap. Not saying I disagree COMPLETELY with your point. Yeah, maybe it would be good just do to it for disadvantaged neighborhoods so its colorblind but still looks at the same issue but by accounting for race you are also putting in factors in the above paragraph (societal expectations, criminalization of blacks, cultural negatives).
The fact that 30% of black men will be incarcerated at some point in their lives either implies massive racism, behavioral differences, or a mix of both. It is known that certain aggression-correlated variants of genes are far more common among African-Americans than among other races. For example, the monoamine oxidase-A gene's 2R variant. Combined with their average lower socioeconomic status and other environmental factors, it's unlikely that it can be chalked up to racism alone. As for race-wide genetic differences in IQ, well there is plenty of evidence supporting that. Refer to this paper: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability
Also, I'm going to repeat myself and say that education selects primarily for ability to do work consistently and to get along with others (formally called conscientiousness and agreeableness), not intelligence and creativity. To equate education with intelligence is a bad idea.
|
On November 05 2012 11:09 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 10:53 Reason wrote:What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what? You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks" This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice.. Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action Republicans on some campuses like to have "Affirmative Action Bake sales" where they sell donuts or cookies but have different prices based on race. Asian $.50, White $.40, Black $.10. Usually with a sign that says, "We are trying to make up for racism! Whites to the back of the line" or some such thing. Merits of this aside I find it hilarious when they record it. Lots of black people walk up offended asking why everyone can't just pay the same price and line up based on who got there first.
That's actually pretty funny. I've never seen it but now I wanna try it out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2012 11:27 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 10:40 glabius wrote:On November 05 2012 09:19 Romantic wrote:On November 05 2012 08:42 glabius wrote:On November 05 2012 08:29 Portlandian wrote:
The problem with Affirmative Action in schooling is that all races have different levels of intelligence. It is unreasonable to expect equal educational performance from groups with vastly different average IQs.
Discriminating against Asians in education because of their high intelligence is like forcing Black sprinters to carry weights to slow them down to the average speed of Asian sprinters.
But even worse than Affirmative Action is Disparate Impact law. Disparate Impact effectively establishes racial quotas in hiring because if Blacks do not meet hiring standards the standards are said to have "disparate impact" and are illegal. No your analogy is terrible and inherently racist. You're assuming that blacks are genetically less intelligent and thats why affirimative action exists. I'm not saying that blacks/asians/whites are possibly NOT more intelligent based on race, but this isn't the argument. Minorities have been systematically discriminated against in the United States since forever.. THEY STILL ARE. Most minorities live in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools where they are criminalized and stigmatized to be bad people all of their life. Affirmative action is supposed to remedy THIS problem, not the fact that some minorities are less intelligent than others or something like that. Where did he say they were genetically less intelligent? It isn't really controversial that they aren't as smart (their IQ curve is lower down, poorer life outcomes, etc), the only question is why they aren't as smart. Are they not as smart because they face systemically bad environments, or is it biological? More than likely you need to find out exactly what ratio of environment\biology you are dealing with. Believing all differences in human intelligence between "races" is purely environmental doesn't mean you accept that currently everyone has equal intelligence. He might believe there is a biological component but that isn't obvious from his statement. You are wrong about the purpose, though. If it were not a system to allow less qualified blacks and latinos (not minorities. Asians and Jews are minorities and they do just fine) then there would be no problem with color blind admissions; you could just give environmentally challenged individuals a bonus. The problem with color blind admissions is that hardly any blacks would ever get accepted because they would much less frequently have the qualifications: SAT, GPA, etc. Affirmative Action is put in place to prevent admissions from being merit based because the result of merit-based admissions would be unacceptable to some people. Actually, I don't even understand what you are saying. AA is not there to help minorities who tend to be less qualified get in to positions they would not have been accepted to if they had been white or Asian, despite the fact that is clearly the mechanism AA uses, but it is there to stop bad schools and neighborhoods? How does it stop bad neighborhoods? The United States is not color-blind though. Blacks have a harder time getting loans for houses in better neighborhoods, they are criminalized by the police at higher rates (with all other things equal) people expect less out of them (labeling theory). Society expects blacks to be ignorant, only good at sports, and criminals. Growing up black is SIGNIFICANTLY harder on you then growing up white. Racism still exists, and by giving more opportunities to those discriminated against in higher education it can help close the gap. Not saying I disagree COMPLETELY with your point. Yeah, maybe it would be good just do to it for disadvantaged neighborhoods so its colorblind but still looks at the same issue but by accounting for race you are also putting in factors in the above paragraph (societal expectations, criminalization of blacks, cultural negatives). The fact that 30% of black men will be incarcerated at some point in their lives either implies massive racism, behavioral differences, or a mix of both. It is known that certain aggression-correlated variants of genes are far more common among African-Americans than among other races. For example, the monoamine oxidase-A gene's 2R variant. Combined with their average lower socioeconomic status and other environmental factors, it's unlikely that it can be chalked up to racism alone. As for race-wide genetic differences in IQ, well there is plenty of evidence supporting that. Refer to this paper: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive AbilityAlso, I'm going to repeat myself and say that education selects primarily for ability to do work consistently and to get along with others (formally called conscientiousness and agreeableness), not intelligence and creativity. To equate education with intelligence is a bad idea.
it's actually because of the drug trade in ghettos. 30% of blacks are not violent criminals. but 100% blacks in ghettos have to deal with violent crime as a ever present danger in their lives.
|
On November 05 2012 10:53 Reason wrote:What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what? You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks" This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice.. Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action
Yeah go ahead, only let the "most qualified" people attend a PUBLIC university.
Now your school is 35% asian, 60% white, and 5% everything else. This is not the type of demographics you want for a diverse campus. I personally want to interact with all walks of life, cultures, ideas, and people, in my university.
University of Texas is once again, PUBLIC and should be serving the interests of all residents of the state.
The thing is, yeah that is perfectly acceptable, they probably do have enough white people. A 26 on the ACT, top 10% of your class is much easier for whites to attain than blacks (not because of their race but because of other factors I said in my previous post, systematic discrimination since birth, shitty family lives (an insane % of blacks grow up without a father), and lower overall socio-economic status in general. Not to mention that a crazy % of young blacks go to jail compared to whites when the amount of crime that they commit cannot explain the difference.)
|
On November 05 2012 11:09 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 10:53 Reason wrote:What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what? You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks" This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice.. Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action Republicans on some campuses like to have "Affirmative Action Bake sales" where they sell donuts or cookies but have different prices based on race. Asian $.50, White $.40, Black $.10. Usually with a sign that says, "We are trying to make up for racism! Whites to the back of the line" or some such thing. Merits of this aside I find it hilarious when they record it. Lots of black people walk up offended asking why everyone can't just pay the same price and line up based on who got there first.
Definitely bodes well for Republicans winning future votes of the growing majority, I hope they keep behaving this way.
|
On November 05 2012 11:09 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 10:53 Reason wrote:What the hell???? The colour of your skin has nothing to do with deserving admission to a university. So it just so happens in your country a particular ethnicity are more often than not poorer than others? Well so what? You're going to allow underqualified people into your "prestigious" universities and deny people who deserve entry because "we already have enough white people thanks" This whole concept is disgusting. Replace "white people" with any ethnicity and any country in the world and I'd still disagree with this 100% I don't care even if it stood against my favour I'd never support this kind of racism, which is exactly what this is. In an effort to not be discriminatory they have established procedures for discrimination ?? Nice.. Edit: Let's just lower taxes and increase punishment for crimes committed by black people then since statistically they are poorer and more likely to commit crimes. Oh wait that's completely insane and so is Affirmative Action Republicans on some campuses like to have "Affirmative Action Bake sales" where they sell donuts or cookies but have different prices based on race. Asian $.50, White $.40, Black $.10. Usually with a sign that says, "We are trying to make up for racism! Whites to the back of the line" or some such thing. Merits of this aside I find it hilarious when they record it. Lots of black people walk up offended asking why everyone can't just pay the same price and line up based on who got there first.
Take that bake sale to an inner city street and I think you'd see a vastly different result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
