As many know, the Supreme Court of the United States is currently hearing Fisher v. Texas, a case challenging the affirmative action policies put in place by the University of Texas. The result of this case will certainly have a great impact in the admissions policies of colleges nationwide, hence it's importance. So, to start the discussion, the background of the case.
In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a white Texas high school student, was denied admission into UT. UT's admissions work in that 75% of applicants are admitted as part of their "10%" plan. That is, the top 10% of each high school class in Texas has guaranteed admission to UT. Fisher narrowly missed out on the cut-off at her school, and applied as part of the 25% (Comprised of non-10% Texans and out-of-state students). These 25% are judged based on UT's "Holistic admissions process," which takes many factors, including race, into account as a factor in admissions decisions. Fisher sued UT. saying that their admissions process unconstitutionally favors minorities, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The case has been tossed around in lower courts, and has now made it to the supreme court.
The act of considering race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. as factors in admissions or hiring processes in order to benefit an underrepresented group is known as Affirmative Action. For the purposes of the thread I would ask that we stick to education for the moment, but the guiding principle is the same. In Grutter v Bollinger in 2003, the supreme court upheld a similar case brought up against the University of Michigan. The landmark decision then was that race could be used as a factor in admissions, but "quota" systems were Fisher is saying that this process in college admissions is unfair, arguing that minority students less qualified than her were admitted to the University, meaning that she was discriminated against. The University of Texas argues that diversity is valuable and a "critical mass" of minorities is necessary to the point that their actions are justified. Fisher counters by saying that UT has achieved great diversity already under their 10% plan (Almost exclusively black or latino schools have top 10%'s comprised of blacks and latinos).
Currently (to me at least) it looks like the Grutter decision will be overturned. Day O'Connor who supported AA has resigned, replaced by Samuel Alito who is firmly against racial preference. Justice Kagan has removed herself from the case due to prior involvement, leaving 8 justices. It will take a 5-3 majority to overturn Grutter, but I think it will happen. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are all firmly against racial preference, while Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer will all likely support AA. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and in the hearings he expressed distaste for UT's admissions process, saying " So what you're saying is that race is above all." Kennedy has in the past supported diversity in the classroom, however.
I'm applying to colleges now, so I'm quite interested in this decision (it will come after decisions about me are made, though). Personally, I believe that if we are after a society with total equality for all races, we should use colorblind admissions processes. Certainly, some children start with disadvantages compared to their counterparts, but it is unfair to assume that they do because of race. Barack Obama's children are candidates for affirmative action while poor white kids with drunks for parents are not. Needs-blind admissions (widely practiced among top universities today) can already somewhat account for socio-economic issues, and the Common App essay along with supplemental essays can have an enormous impact on admissions when children from broken homes describe the challenges that they have overcome. I think that it is in fact racist to assume that simply because one is black or indian that their parents have put them at a disadvantage in their childhood. The best way to stop classifying people by race is to stop classifying people by race, after all. Fisher is not the greatest plantiff for the case though, she probably wouldn't have gotten into UT anyways, she was quite average. But now it's more about the principle than Fisher's personal grievances.
So what do you think? I know this issue is important to many people, both college age and otherwise, so what are your opinions on the case and Affirmative Action as a whole?
I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
The top 10% of any given HIGHSCHOOL gets automatic acceptance.
These people who are the top 10% from EACH HIGHSCHOOL comprise roughly 75% at the UNIVERSITY.
Affirmative Action is degrading. It's nothing more than a modern day "White Man's Burden". As a minority student myself I find it offensive (not really an argument, but those are my feelings on it).
Affirmative action was needed 20-30+ years ago to make sure places had to accept minorities. Now a days racism is much much less a factor(Obviously still exists.) so I don't really think it is a needed thing any more. I would like to think we have advanced to a point where we can judge people solely on their merits and whether they deserve acceptance into schools or hiring etc.
as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Affirmative action is pretty stupid imo. Yes, it is awesome if you have a school with diversity in race but I would rather have school where everyone actually deserved to get in. Race diversity should come second to that. If one student is more qualified than the other, than that student should get priority in getting in regardless of their race. But I guess it is ok to choose the race you have less of if you had to choose between two different people with different race but identical academic achievements.
Race obviously shouldnt be considered whatsoever. Its actually just racist thinking to equate race with diversity. There can be a hell of a lot more diversity intracially, in culture, religion and ways of thinking than any interracial combination. Colour has a rough correlation with culture, but its a contigent one. Regardless, diversity and any associated values with that have little purpose for a college. College should be about merit and education. Really, its quite clear diversity as properly understood has no actual value to colleges given there massive restrictions of freedom of speech and debate, nevermind the almost complete homogeneity the teaching staff has in ideology. lol.
I do believe people should be accepted based on merit, but at the same time I think diversity is very undervalued in society. I just don't think university is the best place to enforce that. Most people in university will actually just stick with people they ethically feel attached to so the diversity goes to waste. Diversity in schools (primary/middle) is much more effective because sad as it is, kids look past ethnic differences unlike adults.
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote: as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Would you mind presenting these "proofs" to me? I've never had that impression.
As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote: as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Have you ever been to UT campus? It's freaking Asian central over there..
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote: as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Would you mind presenting these "proofs" to me? I've never had that impression.
From Wikipedia: "At some schools, legacy preferences have an effect on admissions comparable to other factors such as being a recruited athlete or affirmative action. One study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale): Blacks: +230 Hispanics: +185 Asians: –50 Recruited athletes: +200 Legacies (children of alumni): +160[6]
There are many other studies and authors that make similar points, you'd just have to look a little bit. Perhaps the most glaring proof of what he says is california prop 209. It ended Affirmative Action in california, and afterwards asian populations in UC schools skyrocketed, suggesting that more qualified asians were being passed over in favor of less qualified whites, blacks, and latinos. As an interesting sidenote, graduation rates also increased.
If you're close to the cutoff, you don't get to bitch when you get cut.
That said, race-blind admissions would be much better. I'm down with lowering expectations for underprivileged folks, if you expect them to perform better once they have a better learning environment, but the focus on race seems anachronistic. Anti-minority laws were abolished two generations ago.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
The top 10% of any given HIGHSCHOOL gets automatic acceptance.
These people who are the top 10% from EACH HIGHSCHOOL comprise roughly 75% at the UNIVERSITY.
OK, sounds reasonable then. Maybe 80%-90% would be more appropriate, but I have no problem with this.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote: as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't understand how you came to this conclusion, or what you're trying to get at.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
Admissions based on racial preference is stupid. It is clearly racism.
If the idea of allowing more minorities is to make up for economic injustices, why not make economic preferences instead? So instead of "we'll let more students of X minority in", make it "we'll let more students in X income bracket in".
If the idea is that racially diverse environments make for superior learning conditions, how then can the intellectual success of foreign nations with more homogeneous populations be explained?
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action is incredibly racist. Merit is the only thing that should ever be judged in situations like this. I find it incredibly offensive that people of different skin color than me get scholarships to go to school just because of their skin, while I have to pay out my ass to go (I'm white). I would like to see scholarships and admittance go solely to people with merit. I don't see how it can be balanced in any other way. I can't believe policies like this even exist in modern society.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because racial discrimination was a factor at the time when affirmative action in this context was relevant, racial discrimination created unfair socioeconomic background problems with in the population and affirmative action was meant to combat that. Now people are arguing that it's no longer applicable,
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue because that's what the discourse has been reduced to in the US.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because racial discrimination was a factor at the time when affirmative action in this context was relevant, racial discrimination created unfair socioeconomic background problems with in the population and affirmative action was meant to combat that. Now people are arguing that it's no longer applicable,
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue because that's what the discourse has been reduced to in the US.
I'm sorry but that's just how it is in the US, when affirmative action is brought up its about race. It might be more appropriate to title the thread US Supreme Court to Rule On Affirmative Action based on Race.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue.
How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
Affirmative Action was an interesting social tool to tinker with. It was a useful tool for forcing integration in education and the workplace amongst entities that resisted it. However, we have moved past this as a society. It is now clearly just perpetuating racism.
Quite frankly, we've moved past the point where AA is going to be of significant use. It's time to do away with it. If you read Justice Thomas' opinion on this matter, that pretty much sums up my feelings towards AA. You can't use racism to vanquish racism. It's like fighting fire with fire.
thomas would have said that if this was 1970. the dude is hostile to policy considerations in law and that's a particular kind of detached ideology that only sustains itself through callous adherence to legal mythology.
one involves a direct rejection of a right, while the other has possible consequence upon others. these are rather different in law
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. The broader meaning is that you're helping these people and cultural outlooks elevate themselves. You're decrying this as "racist," but race goes hand in hand with cultural development and socioeconomic condition in contemporary U.S.A. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue.
How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
I don't understand your argument, the incentive to advantage the least advantaged is consistent with almost every ethics / morality system, it's the basis of charity, altruism, and socialist democracy. If there is an existing discrimination based on a specific trait, then obviously the most effective way to combat that is to use that trait to distinguish the party that will receive the help. Yes absolutely it's discriminating, that's why the degree and implementation is extremely important so that you only offset a problem and discontinue it after equal playing fields have been reached. Is it discriminating to help and be sympathetic to the Jewish people and only the Jewish people post WWII? Absolutely it was unfair, and arguably it's created many problems due to the scope of leeway that they were given, which is why continuous change and updating to affirmative action is so important.
The problem with the American legal system is that precedence has such a big impact on decision making that existing examples are just taken for granted to enforce some notion of fairness that should be determined to the specific case. I don't have an issue with the clauses of admission specific to American university being removed, but I know that if this gets overturned then it will be used to overturn similar cases for other affirmative actions, it's just stupid.
On November 02 2012 07:34 BluePanther wrote: Affirmative Action was an interesting social tool to tinker with. It was a useful tool for forcing integration in education and the workplace amongst entities that resisted it. However, we have moved past this as a society. It is now clearly just perpetuating racism.
Quite frankly, we've moved past the point where AA is going to be of significant use. It's time to do away with it. If you read Justice Thomas' opinion on this matter, that pretty much sums up my feelings towards AA. You can't use racism to vanquish racism. It's like fighting fire with fire.
While I do not support Affirmative Action, ironically, you CAN and DO fight fire with fire... and it works!
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. The broader meaning is that you're helping these people and cultural outlooks elevate themselves. You're decrying this as "racist," but race is a good yardstick for cultural development and socioeconomic condition. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
You assume that AA helps elevate the cultural outlooks of a people and helps their "cultural development." Why should this be? If a culture denounces education, are we able to change it just through AA? I think that the current experience with AA has shown no. Furthermore, why should the government aim to change the culture of a people just because it places them at a disadvantage? Is it really the government's function to bend, or destroy cultures so we can say that they're developing culturally? Essentially, you argue that we should change a culture to make it appreciate education. I argue that it cannot be done, and if it can, we have no obligation to see it done.
And perhaps this is biased, but I'm not decrying my society as racist because race has had no effect on the Asians going from a poor, discriminated against group into a superminority where they are discriminated against. I do not believe it was AA that caused Asians to flood into top college institutions. It was their own work ethic and culture which they cultivated on their own, AA or not. I ask why one group, who has pulled itself up due to its own culture of hard work and education, has to be discriminated against while another group, who has been in the same position and even favored for a while, cannot pull themselves up as a group and why AA still favors them.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue.
How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
I don't understand your argument, the incentive to advantage the least advantaged is consistent with almost every ethics / morality system, it's the basis of charity, altruism, and socialist democracy. If there is an existing discrimination based on a specific trait, then obviously the most effective way to combat that is to use that trait to distinguish the party that will receive the help. Yes absolutely it's discriminating, that's why the degree and implementation is extremely important so that you only offset a problem and discontinue it after equal playing fields have been reached. The problem with the American legal system is that precedence has such a big impact on decision making that existing examples are just taken for granted to enforce some notion of fairness that should be determined to the specific case. I don't have an issue with the clauses of admission specific to American university being removed, but I know that if this gets overturned then it will be used to overturn similar cases for other affirmative actions, it's just stupid.
Charity and altruism are not something to be legally enforced, imo, as it ceases being charity and altruism. And at this point I guess we're better off stopping since I believe it's wrong to discriminate even if it's for 'good' reasons, while you seem ok with it.
And I tend to agree the amount of weight precedence is given in the American legal system to probably too much, but at the same time changing it to allow judges to make more specific changes rather then just favor/overturn allows them to mold law even more than they already do, which has it's own problems.
a positive selection criterion like "we want to have this student in the student body for this reason, which incidentally relates to her race" is not the same argument wise as an explicitly exclusionary criterion like "we do not want blacks here" or "only blacks need apply"
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. You're decrying this as "racist," but race is easily the best yardstick for cultural development and socioeconomic condition. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
How is it the best yardstick by any measure? Of the black people I met in college there were guys from the suburbs from rich families, international students from Africa, students from inner city neighborhoods, and a few from rural areas. Completely different backgrounds but all black. Why should they all be elevated to some degree because of their color? And just because I don't believe that AA should be implemented doesn't mean that I think its an injustice that there are such differences amongst racial groups. I have no qualms with focusing efforts to improve the prospects of those in the worst conditions but I do not think affirmative action is the appropriate way to address things (or even effective at all).
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
Of course people aren't upset at charity, they don't hold back some people to the advantage of others. If you could advance minorities to college without it being a disadvantage to non-minorities no one would have a problem either.
So... again, people only cry about it when they themselves are being inconvenienced, not because of the inherent unfairness imposed by it. There's plenty in the developing world who do have to compete against one another on a day to day basis in the lower class, and those recieving government subsidy / charity vastly out-compete others especially in the case of agricultural / infrastructural aid compared to the people who are just trying to do it themselves, and this is a great portion of the population.
There is a difference between being given a subsidy because you're poor vs because of your race. Affirmative action uses race as a blanket standard to determine how disadvantaged you have been at life when it should be looking at your actual status. A poor black kid shouldn't have an advantage over a poor white kid just because of the race difference.
Affirmative action exists outside of the US you know, to the rest of the world it means action to overcome an existing prejudice or disadvantage based on prejudice due to factors like race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc etc etc. Like I said, arguing about implementation and degree is fine, and it should be scaled and scoped to local conditions and changes made to it being an ongoing process, just like how the united way doesn't continue to give charity to people who are no longer poor. But in many places affirmative action is very much relevant and necessary, especially in the empowerment of women in the third world.
I would say that someone's history is far more important than their race/gender/ect and that those factors should never be used to differentiate candidates. Holding one person back to advance another based on unchangeable attributes is wrong no matter the reason.
And sorry that I didn't consider the rest of the world when in a thread about US affirmative action in US colleges.
Bloody hell, the principle of affirmative action and how its implemented are two completely different constructs, like how the principles of democracy and the implementation of a democratic system are completely different ideas. I'm arguing that the principles of it is fine, and the implementation is flawed and outdated. Black people have been held back in the past when this action was relevant in combating, its meant to overcome an existing deficit. I'm not defending how the school is implementing it, yet people are attacking it on principle because they think Affirmative action is literally just limited to this one issue.
How is any principle/implementation of affirmative action any different than what I said? You are disadvantaging a group that has no control over the reason they are being disadvantaged. You are implementing racism to combat racism(or sexism, or whatever) and saying because that group in general has been advantaged in the past that's it ok. Is there a system where this isn't the case?
I don't understand your argument, the incentive to advantage the least advantaged is consistent with almost every ethics / morality system, it's the basis of charity, altruism, and socialist democracy. If there is an existing discrimination based on a specific trait, then obviously the most effective way to combat that is to use that trait to distinguish the party that will receive the help. Yes absolutely it's discriminating, that's why the degree and implementation is extremely important so that you only offset a problem and discontinue it after equal playing fields have been reached. The problem with the American legal system is that precedence has such a big impact on decision making that existing examples are just taken for granted to enforce some notion of fairness that should be determined to the specific case. I don't have an issue with the clauses of admission specific to American university being removed, but I know that if this gets overturned then it will be used to overturn similar cases for other affirmative actions, it's just stupid.
Charity and altruism are not something to be legally enforced, imo, as it ceases being charity and altruism. And at this point I guess we're better off stopping since I believe it's wrong to discriminate even if it's for 'good' reasons, while you seem ok with it.
This isn't a "necessary evil" argument, it's fine to remove affirmative action pertaining to race in the US specific to these college policies because they are in fact just discriminating with out actually accounting for existing phenomenon. If you truly want to level the playing fields of a society after long periods of discrimination, say for example the oppression of women and the ensuing poverty of children, you absolutely have to compensate it by discriminating for women. There simply isn't a way around it, in the vast majority of cases with out any action taken the cycle of poverty and discrimination simply perpetuates itself. Ideally affirmative action is supposed to just give the people a basis for a level playing field according to the deficits that are being perpetuated and stop when it's no longer relevant.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
I think it's reductionist to look at it strictly in terms of race, in fact it's missing the point. I think culture and socioeconomic conditions are far more relevant arguments. Culture and socioeconomic conditions are presently symptoms of race to a significant extent. Unless you're prepared to argue that race, culture, and socioeconomic conditions are mutually exclusive, there isn't much to debate in my opinion.
If the goal is to level the field between those who have persevered through harsh conditions and those who had privelege, why not just limit preference to socioeconomic background? What is the utility of adding race to the issue?
Because culture is important too, and as I've said, culture and socioeconomic conditions are symptoms of race to a significant degree in the U.S.A. The only argument of any value regards what extent AA should be considered valid. I'd argue that if 85% of the seats available are based on academic merit that's fine, because promoting the opportunity for higher education among those who come from cultures or socioeconomic conditions that put them at a significant disadvantage is more important than the remaining 15% of seats being based on merit. You're decrying this as "racist," but race is easily the best yardstick for cultural development and socioeconomic condition. Why aren't you decrying your society as racist where blacks and Latinos are struggling disproportionately (which fundamentally is the basis for AA in the first place)?
How is it the best yardstick by any measure? Of the black people I met in college there were guys from the suburbs from rich families, international students from Africa, students from inner city neighborhoods, and a few from rural areas. Completely different backgrounds but all black. Why should they all be elevated to some degree because of their color? And just because I don't believe that AA should be implemented doesn't mean that I think its an injustice that there are such differences amongst racial groups. I have no qualms with focusing efforts to improve the prospects of those in the worst conditions but I do not think affirmative action is the appropriate way to address things (or even effective at all).
I just edited yardstick to hand-in-hand. I wasn't really happy with the word yardstick. It is a pretty good yardstick in contemporary U.S.A. though. Yeah, some people are gonna get what might seem an unfair advantage. No system is perfect. 100% merit-based admission isn't perfect (because it's hard to define "merit" without looking like a moron). But again, it's going to depend on what extent you implement an AA bias in terms of the total percent of admissions. Am I arguing 100% of admission be based on AA? No. Further, what you've written isn't inherently an argument against AA, it's an argument for more comprehensive attention to candidates for admission. Prejudice is bad, discrimination is good. People in favor of merit based admission are in favor of discriminating grades. I'm in favor of factoring in more of life to help discriminate candidates, and culture and socioeconomic condition are two important parts.
I guess they are trying to artifically create the world they portray in Hollywood, where a third of the senior executives are black. They're not adapting their ideology to reality, they're re-creating a reality in accordance with their ideology. At this little game, I consider eugenism to be a much saner process.
I don't mind a bit of positive discrimation, as far as I understand they consider more than just skin color, so it can be used to help kids who managed to do fairly well (top 25%) while growing up under hard conditions. This happen to favorize colored people, but that's just positive. It can only be healthy to have a wide representation of minorities in the academic environment.
Also defining merit is not as simple as looking at grades (and SAT's in USA?). Especially in a system with weighed grades I could imagine that some schools have otherwise smart kids scoring outside top 10% because there happen to many smart kids on that school.
A closer examination of AA and race in admission probably does need to be had, but in this case, race did not play a roll in the plaintiff's non-admission. I was listening to I believe NPR on this case when it was first brought to the Supreme Court. In the new report, the head of admission's at THE University of Texas (screw you A&M and Tech ) said that due to the plaintiff's meager (in comparison to the usual minimum admission for the 25% non-top 10%ers) SAT scores and and another admission criteria (it may have been for the fact she was not in the top 10% of you class), she would not have been admitted regardless.
The vast majority of educators and educational experts disagree with the concept of Affirmative Action, as it replaces merit and concrete results for prejudicial selection in hopes that those who have previously underachieved will make it on their own, now that they've been given a "fair shot".
The problem here is that results have shown this doesn't actually happen (those who have been given that opportunity with their low scores and racial/ background preference are far more likely to drop out anyway), and so their seat is essentially wasted when it could have been given to someone who has already shown the behavior indicative of someone who is motivated and hard-working.
You can't quantify a race or a gender or a religion anyway. What makes a Native American with a 2.5 quantifiably equal to that of an Asian with a 4.0? It puts much more value on your genetics than on your education, and since you have no control over your genetics but you can work hard in school, that's hardly fair. (It's also important to note that socioeconomic status has the largest correlation with education and intelligence, not race.)
Now, the general argument for AA is that some places that stereotypically have minority families also have poorer schools, and thus can't compete at the level of white and Asian students because the money isn't there. Two big problems with that: 1. That's not true with every minority (or non-minority) kid. An Asian kid living in a poor area is doubly hurt (by AA and by lack of resources). A rich black or Hispanic kid is doubly helped by AA and extra resources. (Interestingly enough, white people don't get harmed by AA as much as Asians do, although they tend to live in nicer places than minorities.) 2. AA doesn't solve the problem of unequal education. It's a lazy man's solution to education. A proper solution would be to work on making sure that secondary (middle/ high) schools receive the proper funding and educational needs that they require, so that every school could compete at the same (top) level, so that it could be safely assumed that all student opportunities across the nation were the same (a hefty goal, but something to always move forwards to). That way, only results would matter on college applications.
As someone with a master's degree in education and pursuing his doctorate in education, this is a topic I frequently discuss with my friends and professors. I don't know of any educators who really support AA.
On November 02 2012 20:14 xavierofsparta wrote: A closer examination of AA and race in admission probably does need to be had, but in this case, race did not play a roll in the plaintiff's non-admission. I was listening to I believe NPR on this case when it was first brought to the Supreme Court. In the new report, the head of admission's at THE University of Texas (screw you A&M and Tech ) said that due to the plaintiff's meager (in comparison to the usual minimum admission for the 25% non-top 10%ers) SAT scores and and another admission criteria (it may have been for the fact she was not in the top 10% of you class), she would not have been admitted regardless.
Based on what shes going to court for, this is all that matters. The top 10% rule gives unfair advantages to students from underperforming schools. Throw out the sat's for arguments sake, and shes right (imo).
I went to school in texas, we had close to 1100 students in our grad class, and to be in the top 10%, basically required a 97/100 gpa. Many of the top 10% (across the state) did not make more then 70/100 because their schools were bad. Conversely many of the top 10% from the bad districts also failed out quickly once in college because their grades had been inflated (if you live in texas you know what im talking about).
Now, i agree with the concept of the top 10%, to help people further their education, but you cant have terrible students from preschool to high school then sit them down in college and expect magic. The problem in texas is the fucked up education system. Many school districts have kids doing poorly, who cant do jack shit. Thats where these resources theyre spending at the college level need to be redirected to, elementary/middle/highschool grade students. Then if theyre worthy students, and you have a difference in race being the only different factor for admissions, and want to promote diversity, boom, go for it, i can understand that to an extent. But its easier for some jackass to make money off these kids at the collegiate level so i doubt anything good will happen.
AA is a tough issue, I'm really not sure where I stand on it. As a white male it certainly isn't helping me any though... And people in the thread, racist=/=discriminatory.... but w/e.
On November 02 2012 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The vast majority of educators and educational experts disagree with the concept of Affirmative Action, as it replaces merit and concrete results for prejudicial selection in hopes that those who have previously underachieved will make it on their own, now that they've been given a "fair shot".
The problem here is that results have shown this doesn't actually happen (those who have been given that opportunity with their low scores and racial/ background preference are far more likely to drop out anyway), and so their seat is essentially wasted when it could have been given to someone who has already shown the behavior indicative of someone who is motivated and hard-working.
You can't quantify a race or a gender or a religion anyway. What makes a Native American with a 2.5 quantifiably equal to that of an Asian with a 4.0? It puts much more value on your genetics than on your education, and since you have no control over your genetics but you can work hard in school, that's hardly fair. (It's also important to note that socioeconomic status has the largest correlation with education and intelligence, not race.)
Now, the general argument for AA is that some places that stereotypically have minority families also have poorer schools, and thus can't compete at the level of white and Asian students because the money isn't there. Two big problems with that: 1. That's not true with every minority (or non-minority) kid. An Asian kid living in a poor area is doubly hurt (by AA and by lack of resources). A rich black or Hispanic kid is doubly helped by AA and extra resources. (Interestingly enough, white people don't get harmed by AA as much as Asians do, although they tend to live in nicer places than minorities.) 2. AA doesn't solve the problem of unequal education. It's a lazy man's solution to education. A proper solution would be to work on making sure that secondary (middle/ high) schools receive the proper funding and educational needs that they require, so that every school could compete at the same (top) level, so that it could be safely assumed that all student opportunities across the nation were the same (a hefty goal, but something to always move forwards to). That way, only results would matter on college applications.
As someone with a master's degree in education and pursuing his doctorate in education, this is a topic I frequently discuss with my friends and professors. I don't know of any educators who really support AA.
It's not about quantifying race or gender. It's allowing those races and cultures who have been in a position of disadvantage to improve upon their life, mostly due to the fact that they have been actively suppressed throughout US history. The fact that they are in this position to begin with is a result of discriminatory practices by the dominant, white society.
You need to take into consideration that these inner city/majority ethnic schools also receive far less funding and support than other schools in the suburbs and other areas. So Asians, who have access to better education, will do better than say blacks living in inner Philadelphia who's dilapidated school probably has a drop out rate of a third and majority black. The other goal of AA is to ensure that the school's population is heterogeneous and a meltingpolt of cultures. Segregation in public schools is still a huge issue and is even worse in private institutions. While you may call it a lazy's man solution, your alternative is far cry from reality. While I agree it should happen (and needs to), it isn't a practical view considering the state of the economy and the education budget. As someone who is also getting his doctorate from a public university, I know there are many educators who support AA up here in the northeast.
On November 02 2012 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The vast majority of educators and educational experts disagree with the concept of Affirmative Action, as it replaces merit and concrete results for prejudicial selection in hopes that those who have previously underachieved will make it on their own, now that they've been given a "fair shot".
The problem here is that results have shown this doesn't actually happen (those who have been given that opportunity with their low scores and racial/ background preference are far more likely to drop out anyway), and so their seat is essentially wasted when it could have been given to someone who has already shown the behavior indicative of someone who is motivated and hard-working.
You can't quantify a race or a gender or a religion anyway. What makes a Native American with a 2.5 quantifiably equal to that of an Asian with a 4.0? It puts much more value on your genetics than on your education, and since you have no control over your genetics but you can work hard in school, that's hardly fair. (It's also important to note that socioeconomic status has the largest correlation with education and intelligence, not race.)
Now, the general argument for AA is that some places that stereotypically have minority families also have poorer schools, and thus can't compete at the level of white and Asian students because the money isn't there. Two big problems with that: 1. That's not true with every minority (or non-minority) kid. An Asian kid living in a poor area is doubly hurt (by AA and by lack of resources). A rich black or Hispanic kid is doubly helped by AA and extra resources. (Interestingly enough, white people don't get harmed by AA as much as Asians do, although they tend to live in nicer places than minorities.) 2. AA doesn't solve the problem of unequal education. It's a lazy man's solution to education. A proper solution would be to work on making sure that secondary (middle/ high) schools receive the proper funding and educational needs that they require, so that every school could compete at the same (top) level, so that it could be safely assumed that all student opportunities across the nation were the same (a hefty goal, but something to always move forwards to). That way, only results would matter on college applications.
As someone with a master's degree in education and pursuing his doctorate in education, this is a topic I frequently discuss with my friends and professors. I don't know of any educators who really support AA.
It's not about quantifying race or gender. It's allowing those races and cultures who have been in a position of disadvantage to improve upon their life, mostly due to the fact that they have been actively suppressed throughout US history. The fact that they are in this position to begin with is a result of discriminatory practices by the dominant, white society.
You need to take into consideration that these inner city/majority ethnic schools also receive far less funding and support than other schools in the suburbs and other areas. So Asians, who have access to better education, will do better than say blacks living in inner Philadelphia who's dilapidated school probably has a drop out rate of a third and majority black. The other goal of AA is to ensure that the school's population is heterogeneous and a meltingpolt of cultures. Segregation in public schools is still a huge issue and is even worse in private institutions. While you may call it a lazy's man solution, your alternative is far cry from reality. While I agree it should happen (and needs to), it isn't a practical view considering the state of the economy and the education budget. As someone who is also getting his doctorate from a public university, I know there are many educators who support AA up here in the northeast.
I already explained how generalizing by races and minorities isn't useful all across the board, especially since being a minority doesn't mean you're poor, nor does being a non-minority mean you're necessarily from a high-income family.
As far as being "actively suppressed throughout US history" is concerned, generations paying for that now because of things in the past like slavery and unequal treatment is absolutely absurd. You don't cause reverse racism now to "balance" the intense racism that existed years ago (although obviously prejudice still exists today too). Reverse racism is still racism. You're only piling on the hatred by telling whites and Asians that they should dislike their minority classmates because they can get away with fewer achievements and lower GPAs and still get into the same (or better) colleges. Or do you really think that every school is all-white or all-black?
Furthermore, as I said before, the "dominant, white society" isn't even being hurt by AA as much as the Asian population is. Here's a link to plenty of sources showing how blacks and Hispanics get boosted 40-90% in Ivy Leagues alone, compared to the overall acceptance rate, whereas Asian acceptance goes down considerably and "Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Class_inequality .
While my alternative is not something that can be done immediately, even you agree it is something that should be actively pursued, and invoking Affirmative Action allows the government to literally stop pursuing active changes in education and funding because they may feel that this racism helps balance out everything. Note- again- that just by giving less educated minorities a free college acceptance letter doesn't make them any smarter. As I said before, they're still more likely to drop out of college than those who were better prepared, so we still need to properly fund them and educate them before they hit college age. You can't just throw an acceptance letter at them and assume they'll make it on their own. They don't have the foundation. It's called Mismatching (a student to a college he can perform well in): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Mismatching .
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
AA is a compromise. The hugely disproportionate academic success between races is the statistical legacy of our historical brutality. All anecdotes aside, the game was rigged for a very long time and there is no better indicator of children's success than the success of their parents. It would simply take too much money and be too brutally unfair to the current generation to reset the game such that all races fall within a normal variance, so we put in place AA in the hopes that it would slowly shift the their numbers until they fairly represent the reality that whites, blacks, asians and all other minorities are equally capable of leading healthy and productive lives.
In other words, this does fix the cause, just incrementally over many generations.
I would also like to say that It strikes me as strange that people keeps saying "race shouldn't matter just take the most qualified". Race is a qualification. Certain fields such as psychology and sociology can't be properly learned without a diversity of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in the class to challenge concepts as they are presented. You may disagree with this personally but it is a valid view.
Affirmative action... A rule put in place, to afford minorities who were "held back" a chance to have equality to those white folks who abused them in the past. In strictly the black/white and slavery part of this. No black person was ever held back, even through racist times. No matter what the education was better here for than in Africa. I think the best person should always get accepted. Their color should never be a consideration. And if every college has every race in it except white people, so be it.
On November 02 2012 21:46 NoobSkills wrote: Affirmative action... A rule put in place, to afford minorities who were "held back" a chance to have equality to those white folks who abused them in the past. In strictly the black/white and slavery part of this. No black person was ever held back, even through racist times. No matter what the education was better here for than in Africa. I think the best person should always get accepted. Their color should never be a consideration. And if every college has every race in it except white people, so be it.
I'd say that black people aren't being held back by any major organisation, like a university, now so affirmative action policies like this aren't as necessary as they were back when they were first introduced. Saying that black people have never been held back though is just wrong. Black people were given so few opportunities throughout most of the 20th century, which is why affirmative action policies were required in the first place.
On November 02 2012 21:46 NoobSkills wrote: Affirmative action... A rule put in place, to afford minorities who were "held back" a chance to have equality to those white folks who abused them in the past. In strictly the black/white and slavery part of this. No black person was ever held back, even through racist times. No matter what the education was better here for than in Africa. I think the best person should always get accepted. Their color should never be a consideration. And if every college has every race in it except white people, so be it.
I'd say that black people aren't being held back by any major organisation, like a university, now so affirmative action policies like this aren't as necessary as they were back when they were first introduced. Saying that black people have never been held back though is just wrong. Black people were given so few opportunities throughout most of the 20th century, which is why affirmative action policies were required in the first place.
Again compare the lifestyle, medicare, education at any moment in time between US and Africa, and African Americans were never at a disadvantage when compared to native Africans. Even during slavery. Now, if we want to talk about current place are all people equal, then yes affirmative action was needed up until the early 90's.
The "Critical Mass" argument is bogus. This can be clearly seen when you have Universities discriminating against Indian Americans and in favor of African Americans despite the fact that African Americans are already more represented.
On November 02 2012 21:46 NoobSkills wrote: Affirmative action... A rule put in place, to afford minorities who were "held back" a chance to have equality to those white folks who abused them in the past. In strictly the black/white and slavery part of this. No black person was ever held back, even through racist times. No matter what the education was better here for than in Africa. I think the best person should always get accepted. Their color should never be a consideration. And if every college has every race in it except white people, so be it.
I'd say that black people aren't being held back by any major organisation, like a university, now so affirmative action policies like this aren't as necessary as they were back when they were first introduced. Saying that black people have never been held back though is just wrong. Black people were given so few opportunities throughout most of the 20th century, which is why affirmative action policies were required in the first place.
Again compare the lifestyle, medicare, education at any moment in time between US and Africa, and African Americans were never at a disadvantage when compared to native Africans. Even during slavery. Now, if we want to talk about current place are all people equal, then yes affirmative action was needed up until the early 90's.
Saying that they weren't disadvantaged compared people living in Africa doesn't mean they weren't disadvantaged as all. Also during slavery it would be hard to argue that they were in an advantageous position compared to people in Africa.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
That's clearly not the same as Affirmative Action, because you don't have the same houses and money (much like college acceptance spots) being stolen from better applicants in favor for others' races (not even socioeconomic status, mind you, but race).
It's more akin to saying, "Oh, Asian guy who has fantastic credit and is hardworking and has shown a high degree of motivation in the past with several previous general life achievements (like holding down a steady job and having a nice, stable family), I'm going to decide to ignore your request for this house that you can afford, and instead give it to this black guy whose resume is far worse than yours and has a decent probability of not being able to pay the mortgage, only because blacks are stereotypically poorer and so I think he might need a hand (even though I've never met him- I just know he's black) and so you don't deserve it as much as he does.
Affirmative action tries to make up for previous prejudices with its own prejudice and assumed stereotypes.
I think most everyone here agrees that in a world where children of no race were disadvantaged compared to their peers of a different race, Affirmative Action wouldn't be necessary.
In the US, that doesn't seem to be the case yet. I think a little Affirmative Action can be warranted, but to choose 25% of a University's alumni based almost exclusivly on race seems excessive to me. I wouldn't have a problem if the figure were 10-15% instead, and to ideally dial that down to zero once AA stops being necessary.
Let's back up and talk about what AA even means. AA all started because JFK issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," which most people today would agree is pretty reasonable. Later it evolved into quota systems, which most people today, including the Supreme Court, would agree are pretty unreasonable. In this case, we're talking about a very limited question: Are colleges and universities <i>allowed</i> to consider race as a factor. No college or university <i>must</i> consider race as a factor, but some choose to, and the case is about whether colleges and universities should have this freedom to <i>consider</i> race as a factor.
Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about.
This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process?
Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people.
In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments.
Anything that moves society away from a pure meritocracy should be looked at with an extremely skeptical eye. Generally speaking, prioritizing a group of people by their individual races is frown upon and considered racist.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
Can you please explain in this thread or PM me? I am desperately looking for a good opinion on affirmative action that is not on cable TV or filled with bigotry on Internet forums.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
On November 02 2012 23:28 whatwhat wrote: Let's back up and talk about what AA even means. AA all started because JFK issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," which most people today would agree is pretty reasonable. Later it evolved into quota systems, which most people today, including the Supreme Court, would agree are pretty unreasonable. In this case, we're talking about a very limited question: Are colleges and universities <i>allowed</i> to consider race as a factor. No college or university <i>must</i> consider race as a factor, but some choose to, and the case is about whether colleges and universities should have this freedom to <i>consider</i> race as a factor.
Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about.
This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process?
Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people.
In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments.
Glad someone finally said what I was thinking. She's assuming she didn't get in because of some black or hispanic kid, when in reality she is also competing against other white students, the majority of her competitors, not to mention her grades weren't good enough in the first place to get in, should have got better grades if she wanted guaranteed admission. I tend to favor affirmative action but I am i in no way sure its the best way to go, I think more focus needs to be diverted towards improving under performing schools, poverty, and getting at the root of the problem not the top of the tree. But in this case particular, I don't buy her argument. I enjoy reading some of the cases against AA in this thread and it get me thinking, but a lot of it is "it's just not fair", well, the majority of life in the U.S. hasn't been fair for minorities since its inception. I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism I've heard that some of the kids with lower scores aren't performing well because they're simply not prepared for some of the curriculum at the schools they attend, this is a disservice and the opposite of what AA intended to do, and it goes back to my point about getting at the root of the problem.
I am quite offended by the notion of AA for pretty much all the same reasons everyone here has already stated.
Here is the problem though: I think racism/bigotry/whatever is hardwired into us as humans. We are naturally cautious of outsiders and this caution often leads to a fear reaction. Once fear has taken hold it would seem that rationality goes out the window. I mean, how long have humans been evolving? Thousands of years, longer? My point is in all those years there has always been racism/bigotry. I don't know if we could eliminate these things if we evolved for another thousand years.
This brings me to my point, is AA a necassary social construct to artificially eliminate discrimination? I would like to think that in modern America the answer is no, but I can't be sure.
Perhaps the best course of action here is to get rid of such laws and see what happens. If the outcome is possitive, great! If not, reinact the laws.
On November 02 2012 23:28 whatwhat wrote: Let's back up and talk about what AA even means. AA all started because JFK issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," which most people today would agree is pretty reasonable. Later it evolved into quota systems, which most people today, including the Supreme Court, would agree are pretty unreasonable. In this case, we're talking about a very limited question: Are colleges and universities <i>allowed</i> to consider race as a factor. No college or university <i>must</i> consider race as a factor, but some choose to, and the case is about whether colleges and universities should have this freedom to <i>consider</i> race as a factor.
Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about.
This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process?
Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people.
In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments.
Glad someone finally said what I was thinking. She's assuming she didn't get in because of some black or hispanic kid, when in reality she is also competing against other white students, the majority of her competitors, not to mention her grades weren't good enough in the first place to get in, should have got better grades if she wanted guaranteed admission. I tend to favor affirmative action but I am i in no way sure its the best way to go, I think more focus needs to be diverted towards improving under performing schools, poverty, and getting at the root of the problem not the top of the tree. But in this case particular, I don't buy her argument. I enjoy reading some of the cases against AA in this thread and it get me thinking, but a lot of it is "it's just not fair", well, the majority of life in the U.S. hasn't been fair for minorities since its inception. I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism I've heard that some of the kids with lower scores aren't performing well because they're simply not prepared for some of the curriculum at the schools they attend, this is a disservice and the opposite of what AA intended to do, and it goes back to my point about getting at the root of the problem.
that is the double standard in society when something is unfair toward black people, we will make laws and bend over backwards to make it right when something is unfair toward asians or whites, we tell them to suck it up and deal with it
if a black applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how how disadvantaged they are even if they came from middle class households and try to get them into the top schools. if a white applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how they didn't deserve it in the first place.
affirmative action was created by politicians to improve racial diversity and get votes, but it is not a fair system. the truth is that the people benefitting from affirmative action are middle to upper class black females. the ben carsons of this world are the exception and not the rule.
a better system would be to make a hard cutoff and then consider race and socioeconomic status after. that allows the schools to keep a racially diverse population and give disadvantaged applicants a chance at admission without compromising academic standards.
Just base it off of social class. Poor kids, especially those with uneducated parents, have a harder time in life. This should be the basis for giving them a boost so they can have a stab at a better life that their parents can't give to them. If this benefits one race over another, so be it.
A important concept to take account when thinking about positive action is that treating different groups the same way is being prejudiced and unfair, we have to treat different groups in different ways to grant all groups the same rights.
Governments have to care only about things in practice, to use my country as example: if the poor kids aren't getting in a good university (the good universities here are free but you have to pass a test and the rich kids study in private schools and pass the test, the kids who study in public schools have almost no chance) and the rich kids are, we have a problem. It is not only pretending they have the same chance to get in a good university that is gonna grant both groups the same rights, from the pov that governments must take, the poor kids are having LESS rights than the rich kids in this example, so affirmative action may lessen this unconstitutionality.
It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists.
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades.
Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'.
African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically.
Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you.
Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic?
Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion.
As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.”
Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
Can you please elaborate on which opinions those are, what you learned in your class, and what your position is on Affirmative Action? (After all, this thread seems to be about the case and AA in general, not just about how other people are stupid.)
I agree that AA needs to be looked again, preferably on an economic basis. What we have now is an imperfect system, and to me seems more likely to help a member of a traditionally disadvantaged minority who is not actually disadvantaged rather than one who is. Who is more likely to benefit from AA- a black kid from a upper-middle class family with a good high school and tutors, or a black kid from a family below the poverty line who just managed to finish high school? This kind of goes even deeper into the whole problem with the US education system.
However, I have a HUGE beef with this girl. First, she's graduated from LSU which is not a bad school at all-- for example, students won the PWC case competition 2 years running. She needs to move on-- 4 years of college, and its like she hasn't gained anything. I could bitch about not getting into Stanford or Yale, but hey that's life. Instead on dwelling on something she couldn't change (for four years, I might add, she should have made the most of her years which she clearly didn't.
She failed to meet requirements for auto-admission to UT Austin-- top 8% of students. Sucks, but if you miss such a clearly-drawn cutoff, it means either 1. you just weren't good enough, or 2. you didn't try hard enough and just screwed yourself over. Frankly, her stats were not impressive at all, especially given in the context of AA where she had basically all the advantages in the world to succeed. Moreover, the assumption that "her spot" went to some minority student rather than perhaps a more qualified white candidate is rather ludicrous.
On November 03 2012 01:14 Whitewing wrote: It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists.
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades.
Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'.
African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically.
Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments.
Maybe I missed something, but why make blanket race statements at all. Like why can't they just focus individually on the socioeconomic background of each applicant, rather than just assuming because they're black (or something) that they should be given advantages? Its an extreme generalization...not all black people are poor! Why not do as the OP wrote:
Needs-blind admissions (widely practiced among top universities today) can already somewhat account for socio-economic issues, and the Common App essay along with supplemental essays can have an enormous impact on admissions when children from broken homes describe the challenges that they have overcome. I think that it is in fact racist to assume that simply because one is black or indian that their parents have put them at a disadvantage in their childhood. The best way to stop classifying people by race is to stop classifying people by race, after all.
That way if you're poor and went to a bad school, and you're a minority, then you get help. It doesn't change any of that. It just makes the rest of the system fair by not generalizing all minorities as being equal. The system as it is just seems like a lazy cop-out so no one has to do the hard work of figuring out which students deserve to go to university and which don't.
Edit:
On November 03 2012 01:05 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Just base it off of social class. Poor kids, especially those with uneducated parents, have a harder time in life. This should be the basis for giving them a boost so they can have a stab at a better life that their parents can't give to them. If this benefits one race over another, so be it.
This seems 100x more reasonable than affirmative action.
On November 02 2012 23:28 whatwhat wrote: Let's back up and talk about what AA even means. AA all started because JFK issued an executive order that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin," which most people today would agree is pretty reasonable. Later it evolved into quota systems, which most people today, including the Supreme Court, would agree are pretty unreasonable. In this case, we're talking about a very limited question: Are colleges and universities <i>allowed</i> to consider race as a factor. No college or university <i>must</i> consider race as a factor, but some choose to, and the case is about whether colleges and universities should have this freedom to <i>consider</i> race as a factor.
Diversity, including racial diversity, is a valuable part of a college education, and a rather unique feature of it in the U.S.. The truth is that the U.S. is more of an ethnic "salad" than a "melting pot," and there are important differences between a poor white kid from an Appalachian town and a poor black child from the ghetto, though both deserve special consideration in college admissions. In other words, there are still distinct and valuable cultures in the U.S. centered partly around race, and we all gain when we can learn from these cultures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go make some friends from a different race, though I suspect that most people on progressive TL already know what I'm talking about.
This goes to the core of why I disagree with the plaintiff in this lawsuit. She's claiming that the reason she wasn't admitted was because of racial preferences. OP correctly notes that almost all of the "other 25%" were African American or Hispanic. But a) that's just UT's approach to AA, not THE approach to AA. If you accept that race still matters in America and the world, then I can't understand why it should be <i>illegal</i> to <i>consider</i> race as a factor, and b) Even in the UT situation, it's just factually inaccurate to claim that the plaintiff was denied admission because and only because of race. She lost not only the race to be in the top 10% of her class in order to be guaranteed a spot at UT; she also lost out to other white students in the "other 25%". UT, like virtually every college and university in the U.S., likes to be able to say that it has students from all 50 states. It's on the main page of their web site. This means that a white student from, say, Alaska or Wyoming also had a distinct competitive advantage in the admissions struggle, probably a greater competitive advantage than a black student. It's deceptive and mathematically inaccurate to claim that because more black students were admitted in the other 25% than students from Alaska that race was a more important factor than state origin. On the contrary, it means that state origin is the more important factor, since UT had fewer Alaskan students to choose from than black students, and therefore being Alaskan conferred greater advantage than being black. In essence, the "We have students from all 50 states" form of diversity functions as a very weak quota system, guaranteeing that any given college has at least one spot reserved for a student from every state; but even a weak quota benefit is still in many ways more influential than a strong "holistic" approach. So why isn't the plaintiff suing to outlaw consideration of state origin, legacy (i.e., having relatives who have preiviously attended the same school), good looks, or any other arbitrary factor in the admissions process?
Just to mess with your head, and drive home the way the AA has changed since the 60s: I'm a minority student, but I chose not to indicate my race in my applications - not out of some noble ideal, but purely out of self-interest. My family is relatively wealthy, and if I had indicated my race, then I might have put myself into a race only with others of my own race, and lost out because I wasn't really a participant in the distinct racial cultures I talked about above. All the same, I feel that I benefited from making friends with people who were participants in those cultures, and that people outside of my race benefited from meeting both kinds of people.
In a way my argument about diversity seems contradictory: I'm both saying that having people of different races is valuable because it reveals differences and because it reveals similarities. But, I don't really think that that's a paradox. Learning about racial similarity and racial difference are both about learning more about how the world works, involves many such apparent contradictions. Sometimes race matters, and we gain a lot by having distinct ethnic cultures in the world, but sometimes it doesn't and we also gain a lot by learning to recognize humanity's deep similarities. We can't learn either of these things if we are in ethnically homogeneous environments.
Glad someone finally said what I was thinking. She's assuming she didn't get in because of some black or hispanic kid, when in reality she is also competing against other white students, the majority of her competitors, not to mention her grades weren't good enough in the first place to get in, should have got better grades if she wanted guaranteed admission. I tend to favor affirmative action but I am i in no way sure its the best way to go, I think more focus needs to be diverted towards improving under performing schools, poverty, and getting at the root of the problem not the top of the tree. But in this case particular, I don't buy her argument. I enjoy reading some of the cases against AA in this thread and it get me thinking, but a lot of it is "it's just not fair", well, the majority of life in the U.S. hasn't been fair for minorities since its inception. I think there is some legitimacy to the criticism I've heard that some of the kids with lower scores aren't performing well because they're simply not prepared for some of the curriculum at the schools they attend, this is a disservice and the opposite of what AA intended to do, and it goes back to my point about getting at the root of the problem.
that is the double standard in society when something is unfair toward black people, we will make laws and bend over backwards to make it right when something is unfair toward asians or whites, we tell them to suck it up and deal with it
if a black applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how how disadvantaged they are even if they came from middle class households and try to get them into the top schools. if a white applicant's grades weren't good enough to get in, we'd talk about how they didn't deserve it in the first place.
affirmative action was created by politicians to improve racial diversity and get votes, but it is not a fair system. the truth is that the people benefitting from affirmative action are middle to upper class black females. the ben carsons of this world are the exception and not the rule.
a better system would be to make a hard cutoff and then consider race and socioeconomic status after. that allows the schools to keep a racially diverse population and give disadvantaged applicants a chance at admission without compromising academic standards.
Do you really want to get into an unfairness pissing contest between minorities and white people? I don't think you're going to win that one. Your argument might make sense if it was based in reality where everyone is on an equal playing field and the scale tips one way or the other, but the scale is already lopsided. I understand AA might not be the best way, and certainly shouldn't be the only way in promoting equality. But, in this case her grades weren't good enough to guarantee her admission, it's not a matter of "deserving" anything. She's still competing against everyone else who applied. As far your comment towards socioeconomic status, in the Texas case Texas considers socioeconomic status as well, I agree for the most part it wouldn't make sense to give someone from a privileged background more of an advantage.
From UT's website http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshmen/after-you-apply/factors Special circumstances in an applicant’s life sometimes help an application reviewer to get a clearer picture of the applicant’s qualifications. The special circumstances we consider include:
Socioeconomic status of family Single parent home Language spoken at home Family responsibilities Overcoming adversity Cultural background Race and ethnicity Other information in the file
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
Well don't keep us waiting.
I've said it before and I've said it again. I am both Asian and white, and come from a middle class family. Why should I be penalized for the color of my skin.
It is a double standard, and the bullshit about having equality and giving equal opportunity is the same. Ethnicity should never be a factor, EVER.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you.
Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic?
Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion.
As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.”
Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
I would admit the 3.7 GPA black kid mainly because of his economic situation, not his race.
Perfectly reasonable answer, but his assertion was admission should be made regardless of race and socioeconomic status.
I'm against affirmative action as well, because it's a practice that is only fair on the assumption that people of black or hispanic communities are inherently disadvantaged due to anti-intellectual culture or low socioeconomic status (or any other thing that can be overcome by education). It's also harmful to me because I'm not one of these minorities, so obviously I'd be against it .
The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings.
PS: If you live in a state other than California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, or Connecticut, (these states banned affirmative action) you can list your own race as African-American on college applications and they will not be able to dispute it no matter how you look. By definition, someone with just one African-American ancestor can claim to be that, but since they can't dispute it it doesn't matter. You can get the benefits of being African-American and spite affirmative action at the same time!
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you.
Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic?
Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion.
As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.”
Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
I would admit the 3.7 GPA black kid mainly because of his economic situation, not his race.
Perfectly reasonable answer, but his assertion was admission should be made regardless of race and socioeconomic status.
The only problem with choosing the 3.7 GPA black student is that you don't know how well the white student would have done in his situation and vice versa. It may be that the white student would have dealt with it better than the black student did, but since he didn't choose his upbringing, the white student is disadvantaged in this situation because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate his mental and emotional fortitude.
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence.
Edit: that said I am personally against affirmative action
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence.
The supreme court takes something around 150 cases a year. Precedent is a convenient shortcut to save time, so that new types of cases can be given more time and attention.
On November 03 2012 01:14 Whitewing wrote: It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists.
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades.
Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'.
African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically.
Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments.
You say that African Americans and Hispanics are still working on digging themselves out of a deep economic, historic hole. Have Asians not been doing that too? Did the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans not have to dig themselves out of a deep economic hole? When they came here and were forced into hard labor, discriminated against in the late 1800-early 1900s, and when the Japanese were forced into labor camps, they suffered no historical damage to their economic mobility? I highly doubt that. What I find the most unfair about AA is that other ethnic groups HAVE been discriminated against, yet do not get the same benefits of AA.
If you argue for economic opportunities, then perhaps you should be arguing for AA based on socioeconomic status. Race, however, is not the same as economic status. In fact, there are many poor whites and Asians as well who do not get the benefits of AA, but still get discriminated against because of race. They, too, lack those opportunities to attend private schools or college, do they not?
On November 03 2012 02:07 Demonhunter04 wrote: I'm against affirmative action as well, because it's a practice that is only fair on the assumption that people of black or hispanic communities are inherently disadvantaged due to anti-intellectual culture or low socioeconomic status (or any other thing that can be overcome by education). It's also harmful to me because I'm not one of these minorities, so obviously I'd be against it .
The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings.
PS: If you live in a state other than California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, or Connecticut, (these states banned affirmative action) you can list your own race as African-American on college applications and they will not be able to dispute it no matter how you look. By definition, someone with just one African-American ancestor can claim to be that, but since they can't dispute it it doesn't matter. You can get the benefits of being African-American and spite affirmative action at the same time!
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you.
Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic?
Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion.
As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.”
Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
I would admit the 3.7 GPA black kid mainly because of his economic situation, not his race.
Perfectly reasonable answer, but his assertion was admission should be made regardless of race and socioeconomic status.
The only problem with choosing the 3.7 GPA black student is that you don't know how well the white student would have done in his situation and vice versa. It may be that the white student would have dealt with it better than the black student did, but since he didn't choose his upbringing, the white student is disadvantaged in this situation because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate his mental and emotional fortitude.
'I'm against affirmative action as well, because it's a practice that is only fair on the assumption that people of black or hispanic communities are inherently disadvantaged due to anti-intellectual culture or low socioeconomic status (or any other thing that can be overcome by education)."
I'm not sure I'm clear what you are trying to say, I tried to understand it but I don't get what you mean. I think you're saying we shouldn't assume, and its belittling to assume, that black and hispanic communities have an anti-intellectual culture or are disadvantaged because they're poor? I would agree that assumption is belittling. However, it is not an assumption but a reality that many minority communities are in fact facing larger obstacles because of socioeconomic status, (of course there are white families too), whatever culture has developed that seems anti-intellectual has been produced by historical events and government policies not simply because people are minorities (slavery, drug war, white flight, segregation).
"The real reason for certain minorities being underrepresented in education is known but is kept hidden from the public, like almost all politically incorrect scientific findings."
What/Where are these findings? and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say because the previous statement is contradictory to this one if I'm reading between the lines correctly.
In regards to your GPA answer, it is still missing the point. The point is how you measure work ethic and achievement if you want to remove socioeconomic status and race as a consideration for admission, which was the post I was responding to. Do you just look at the numbers cut and dry and decide to take the 4.0 because its better than 3.7? Or is there something to the effort the 3.7 student had to put in to get by? It's fine if you don't think that's fair, but it is a real situation, especially if you do away with other factors and only include academic achievement and "work ethic" as the other poster suggested ( I know this isn't your suggestion), however you want to define and measure it. Kids are applying with whatever they have and being evaluated for that, not what should have or could have been a different United States. Would you want to replace AA with anything?
I appreciate your input, actually something you said gave me a clearer view of the opposite perspective.
Merits should be all that matter. End of story. To think otherwise is naive at best, and stupid at worst. Of course, I believe that those merits include not only results, but also what lies behind those results. Getting straight A's is not as impressive as getting entirely A's and B's while working a job to help out your impoverished family.
I actually was talking with an admissions person at a law school I'm applying to who essentially said (paraphrased):
"You're disadvantaged because you're a white male. Unless you have an amazing LSAT or are a minority, you're not getting in, which is a ridiculous policy because our statistics showed direct correlation between those with high LSAT scores and success. Almost none of the people accepted due to affirmative action that have low LSAT scores do well in the program."
Just sayin'. AA doesn't work from a stats standpoint and is completely retarded from a common sense standpoint, but I'm biased because I'm judging discrimination against me, so take it with a grain of salt.
It really amuses me how this issue turns everyone into staunch critics of prejudice and makes them vocal in their outrage against racism. Do you realize how much racism still exists in the U.S.A.? It's an enormous amount. But, meh, that stuff's probably just protected speech under the 1st amendment, no big deal. But 15% of University admissions having an AA bias? The torches and pitchforks quickly come out, don't they?
Has anyone considered that grades aren't equivalent to merit? Sorry, but some poor bastard Asian kid whose parents force him to study 8 hours per day so he can be #1 (I'm honestly not trying to be offensive or racist, I have many Asian friends, had a Chinese girlfriend for 3 years, and have TA'd a number of these misfits for years, and it's astonishing how much cultural truth there is to this "Asian parent" meme) isn't necessarily the best candidate. Frankly, if this is a cultural aspect among a huge number of Asians, then I'm absolutely in favor of an AA bias against that culture. It's not normal or conducive to human growth to behave that way in your childhood and teenage years. This is an unhealthy cultural element, and I don't think a culture like that should be rewarded with disproportionately large admission to our universities.
You guys pretend that race doesn't matter. Culture and socioeconomic condition is intertwined with race to a sufficient degree to justify 10-15% of admissions involving an AA bias. A university should value having many different races, cultures, religions, socioeconomic conditions represented. I don't know why we're talking about whether AA is completely right or completely wrong. Wouldn't it be more sensible to argue to what extent it's justified?
On November 03 2012 01:14 Whitewing wrote: It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists.
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades.
Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'.
African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically.
Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments.
You say that African Americans and Hispanics are still working on digging themselves out of a deep economic, historic hole. Have Asians not been doing that too? Did the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans not have to dig themselves out of a deep economic hole? When they came here and were forced into hard labor, discriminated against in the late 1800-early 1900s, and when the Japanese were forced into labor camps, they suffered no historical damage to their economic mobility? I highly doubt that. What I find the most unfair about AA is that other ethnic groups HAVE been discriminated against, yet do not get the same benefits of AA.
If you argue for economic opportunities, then perhaps you should be arguing for AA based on socioeconomic status. Race, however, is not the same as economic status. In fact, there are many poor whites and Asians as well who do not get the benefits of AA, but still get discriminated against because of race. They, too, lack those opportunities to attend private schools or college, do they not?
Asian Americans don't suffer the same disadvantages that African Americans and Hispanics do. Now, I agree that they've been poorly treated historically, REALLY unfairly, but economically they're doing quite well, and have no trouble getting an education. Part of it is that culturally, education is something that's very important to them, so that alone is often enough to counteract the damages. Asian Americans don't usually suffer the same disadvantages with regards to equality of opportunity.
And yes, people who are hurt the most by affirmative action are Asians and Jews, and yes, I am well aware of that fact.
getting into good schools seems like a religion with asian kids so they prob care a lot about this issue for very narrow, selfish reasons. most of the time it's a difference between getting into a top 10 school and getting into a top 25 school. it's not that big of a deal.
there is a high premium for the very top top places, but eh, cry me a river for not getting into harvard with a 3.9 gpa (or 95 in the case of stuy lol)
On November 03 2012 04:32 XoXiDe wrote: I'm not sure I'm clear what you are trying to say, I tried to understand it but I don't get what you mean. I think you're saying we shouldn't assume, and its belittling to assume, that black and hispanic communities have an anti-intellectual culture or are disadvantaged because they're poor? I would agree that assumption is belittling. However, it is not an assumption but a reality that many minority communities are in fact facing larger obstacles because of socioeconomic status, (of course there are white families too), whatever culture has developed that seems anti-intellectual has been produced by historical events and government policies not simply because people are minorities (slavery, drug war, white flight, segregation).
Being black or hispanic does not automatically mean you are poor or were raised in an environment that regards intellectual pursuits disfavorably, but it does automatically mean that, ceteris paribus, you are given an advantage over other students. There is obviously a correlation, and I'm not disputing that. Anti-intellectualistic culture is a whole different topic I'll avoid for now.
What/Where are these findings? and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say because the previous statement is contradictory to this one if I'm reading between the lines correctly.
In regards to your GPA answer, it is still missing the point. The point is how you measure work ethic and achievement if you want to remove socioeconomic status and race as a consideration for admission, which was the post I was responding to. Do you just look at the numbers cut and dry and decide to take the 4.0 because its better than 3.7? Or is there something to the effort the 3.7 student had to put in to get by? It's fine if you don't think that's fair, but it is a real situation, especially if you do away with other factors and only include academic achievement and "work ethic" as the other poster suggested ( I know this isn't your suggestion), however you want to define and measure it. Kids are applying with whatever they have and being evaluated for that, not what should have or could have been a different United States. Would you want to replace AA with anything?
The example they used omitted all the other information one would use to judge which student is a better choice, so I didn't take it into account.
Looking at someone who had a tough background and guessing that it resulted in them being more prepared for dealing with college is too huge a leap. Personality and neurology shapes how you perceive and deal with experiences mentally. For some, hardship and poverty motivates them to try and escape it, so perhaps the 3.7 GPA black student would have a lower GPA were he born into a wealthy family, and maybe the white student would have done even better if he was raised in a worse environment. For others, hardship demotivates them and leads them to a life of crime, in which case it might be a bad idea to select someone from that background.
Colleges also place emphasis on extracurricular activities. While it's feasible for poor students to go to school, they often cannot afford many of these activities and so the wealthy are advantaged here. I do not think that it is a reasonable assumption to say that AA evens it out.
As for replacing AA with something, I feel the issue is more fundamental than that and is a problem with the education system itself, and is beyond the scope of this thread. The real flaw in college applications is the way they gauge your capability and in what they think is important.
On November 03 2012 01:35 N.geNuity wrote: socioeconomic background should be the basis for AA rather than race anymore.
I concur. The African American kids I met in law school and in law practice for the most part come from the narrow layer of middle and upper class African Americans that exist in the States. My experiences might not be based in hard statistics but I'd say I encountered 4-5 years worth of admitted students to my top law school and top law firm. Most of the African Americans I encountered (a) displayed a range of competence equivalent to everyone else, with some getting federal clerkships and some being unemployed due to the shitty law economy that arrived in 08 and (b) the plurality of them were paying for law school via their parents. Conversely some really poor white people I've met in law school now have the equivalent of a house mortgage, at 7.9% to slog through.
On November 03 2012 04:44 deth2munkies wrote: I actually was talking with an admissions person at a law school I'm applying to who essentially said (paraphrased):
"You're disadvantaged because you're a white male. Unless you have an amazing LSAT or are a minority, you're not getting in, which is a ridiculous policy because our statistics showed direct correlation between those with high LSAT scores and success. Almost none of the people accepted due to affirmative action that have low LSAT scores do well in the program."
Just sayin'. AA doesn't work from a stats standpoint and is completely retarded from a common sense standpoint, but I'm biased because I'm judging discrimination against me, so take it with a grain of salt.
My law school class had more white people than their % of the population. If the admission person was from a top 14 then they were straight up lying to you.
PS. If you are applying to law school right now and are going to self finance, you should really think long and hard about it. The economy for lawyers is brutal. It will continue to be brutal. Putting up 160k into that and graduating to unemployment or working at 50k as a tort lawyer is pretty awful.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
Well don't keep us waiting.
I've said it before and I've said it again. I am both Asian and white, and come from a middle class family. Why should I be penalized for the color of my skin.
It is a double standard, and the bullshit about having equality and giving equal opportunity is the same. Ethnicity should never be a factor, EVER.
You won't get an answer. His message is the classic shaming / guilt-trip you see from people who want to manipulate you into acquiescing to them; no logic needed.
As most people have said, we need to base it more on socioeconomic status.
A typical argument is that black people are underrepresented because they have been continually repressed in the past, meaning they are less educated and therefore lower income wage earners. They are consequently less likely to attend college, etc.
If this is true, then they should make up a larger portion of the pool of bottom class applicants, and thus should still have preference.
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence.
The supreme court takes something around 150 cases a year. Precedent is a convenient shortcut to save time, so that new types of cases can be given more time and attention.
...you realize the big deal with precedents is they being binding on lower courts
I really take great personally issue with the way that common law is handled in the US, just because one case posed a precedent it have to continually affect policy of the future to uphold an illusion of fairness, when judiciary changes happen on a yearly basis and conditions surrounding the issue have since shifted to where the original judgement is no longer relevant and needs to be updated. Precedence isn't directly related to principle or correctness, if anything it prevents appropriate actions be taken with in a changing environment. If this gets overturned it becomes an example to overturn Affirmative Action across the board regardless of context, and if it doesn't it prevents changes to be made to the existing Affirmative Action programs. It's bloody stupid.
I also dislike the valuation of the idea of precedent in US Law. Precedent certainly should be a contributing factor but most cases have very different mitigating circumstances. There is too much emphasis on precedent and not enough room to adjust for individual case evidence.
The supreme court takes something around 150 cases a year. Precedent is a convenient shortcut to save time, so that new types of cases can be given more time and attention.
...you realize the big deal with precedents is they being binding on lower courts
It's purpose is to promote consistency, fairness, future guidance, and the ability to not make everyone in fucking existence confused on what is allowed.
In theory, it shouldn't be an issue because rulings can be challenged and escalated to higher courts. It just doesn't work as effectively in that regard. I like the idea of precedence, simply because consistency can be achieved, and the fact a lower court decision on a massive issue will always be challenged anyways.
I like it, I don't love it though. It definitely has massive flaws and limitations.
State schools should be color and gender blind. Private schools can do whatever they like. If I ran a school it would likely be color and gender blind, that would be my advice to private schools. Court decisions regarding affirmative action are just hilarious. You can't have quotas or discriminate, but you can, "consider race" - discriminate, just be quiet about it.
I do not see a good reason to use race. Naturally if the problem is not biological in origin, using race as a proxy isn't perfect; environmental conditions would be. If you had a system where environmentally challenged people paid less or were accepted with lower average scores, that would naturally benefit the same group affirmative action is set up to help with the bonus of not giving assistance to rich minorities or denying help to poor white\Asians.
The only people AA is really great for are "privileged" minorities who come from wealthy backgrounds but receive victim status by virtue of being black. Well, and all the white people who feel good about themselves for supporting racial policies.
On November 03 2012 11:50 Romantic wrote: My, uh, moderate libertarian? Opinion:
State schools should be color and gender blind. Private schools can do whatever they like. If I ran a school it would likely be color and gender blind, that would be my advice to private schools. Court decisions regarding affirmative action are just hilarious. You can't have quotas or discriminate, but you can, "consider race" - discriminate, just be quiet about it.
I do not see a good reason to use race. Naturally if the problem is not biological in origin, using race as a proxy isn't perfect; environmental conditions would be. If you had a system where environmentally challenged people paid less or were accepted with lower average scores, that would naturally benefit the same group affirmative action is set up to help with the bonus of not giving assistance to rich minorities or denying help to poor white\Asians.
The only people AA is really great for are "privileged" minorities who come from wealthy backgrounds but receive victim status by virtue of being black. Well, and all the white people who feel good about themselves for supporting racial policies.
No, the poverty minorities receive benefit as well, as they are still considered over poverty nonminorities, etc. The threshold for their acceptance is lower.
I don't care if I go to school with a thousand blacks or a thousand whites. If they got in for being the best, great for them. Saying that all the applicants that earned their spots have to give some up in the name of "diversity" is racist in itself.
It's actaully ridiculous what the university is doing. The capitalist US is based entirely on meritocracy, and should stay that way. You earn your way in, not get in for being a minority.
I absolutely think that race/ethnicity and anything else that isn't related to your grades/character should have 0 impact on your admission chances. Affirmative Action is definitely not taking society too good places.
On November 03 2012 11:50 Romantic wrote: My, uh, moderate libertarian? Opinion:
State schools should be color and gender blind. Private schools can do whatever they like. If I ran a school it would likely be color and gender blind, that would be my advice to private schools. Court decisions regarding affirmative action are just hilarious. You can't have quotas or discriminate, but you can, "consider race" - discriminate, just be quiet about it.
I do not see a good reason to use race. Naturally if the problem is not biological in origin, using race as a proxy isn't perfect; environmental conditions would be. If you had a system where environmentally challenged people paid less or were accepted with lower average scores, that would naturally benefit the same group affirmative action is set up to help with the bonus of not giving assistance to rich minorities or denying help to poor white\Asians.
The only people AA is really great for are "privileged" minorities who come from wealthy backgrounds but receive victim status by virtue of being black. Well, and all the white people who feel good about themselves for supporting racial policies.
No, the poverty minorities receive benefit as well, as they are still considered over poverty nonminorities, etc. The threshold for their acceptance is lower.
Benefit from AA as opposed to an environmental program.
On November 03 2012 11:50 Romantic wrote: My, uh, moderate libertarian? Opinion:
State schools should be color and gender blind. Private schools can do whatever they like. If I ran a school it would likely be color and gender blind, that would be my advice to private schools. Court decisions regarding affirmative action are just hilarious. You can't have quotas or discriminate, but you can, "consider race" - discriminate, just be quiet about it.
I do not see a good reason to use race. Naturally if the problem is not biological in origin, using race as a proxy isn't perfect; environmental conditions would be. If you had a system where environmentally challenged people paid less or were accepted with lower average scores, that would naturally benefit the same group affirmative action is set up to help with the bonus of not giving assistance to rich minorities or denying help to poor white\Asians.
The only people AA is really great for are "privileged" minorities who come from wealthy backgrounds but receive victim status by virtue of being black. Well, and all the white people who feel good about themselves for supporting racial policies.
No, the poverty minorities receive benefit as well, as they are still considered over poverty nonminorities, etc. The threshold for their acceptance is lower.
Benefit from AA as opposed to an environmental program.
AA programs have unfortunately disproportionately helped minorities coming from middle and upper-class families when they should be helping the poor. AA-type programs should be income-based and assets-based, not race-based. As John Roberts famously said, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
This principle is wrong. Any form of admission (university, work etc.) should be based on merit alone and not being tarnished by some dumb arbitrary thing like meeting a certain quota of people with specific complexion, disabilities and so on.
"Offering advantage to the disadvantaged"? What are you even talking here about? Are you telling me that a black person can't study just as hard as white person, or vice versa, and one of them needs some special advantage over the other? Please...
Let's take a quick look at how it's around here:
Automatic admission: you get that only if you're one of the finalists of a 3rd stage (state-wide) science olympics in a given subject. That's right, only when you went beyond what was required of you in highschool and proven that you're actually good at it. Highschool scores have 0 impact on your admission, so does being good at sports, legacy and other bullshit like that.
Giving advantages to the disadvantaged: you come from a poor family? No problem, the university is actually paying you to study if you got admitted. Students who come out of town and from poorer families get first dibs on the dorm rooms.
It seems like you got some things backwards in the land of the free...
* It's a matter of historical and statistical fact that many ethnic minorities in the US are underprivileged and suffer from poor socioeconomic circumstances. They are often born into poor communities and go to horrible, underfunded schools with a slim to nil chance of producing the sort of academic standout top colleges are looking for - even if the student him or herself is studious and intelligent. * These socioeconomic circumstances limit their prospects in life, as well as the prospects of their children, and their children's children. I don't think it's realistic or well-grounded to ask them to bootstrap their way out of the hole that widespread racism dug them into. * If we don't do anything to address this situation, then race-based socioeconomic inequality will continue. * It is, in my opinion, more racist to be indifferent to this inequality, and not propose meaningful solutions to it, than to advocate temporarily treating people of different races differently in order to address a social problem. * The concept of a "meritocracy" in this context is philosophically jejune. It is premised upon a notion of the individual that is a homunculus, a miraculous, uncaused, unscientific nexus of will and decision-making. It is fundamentally incompatible with a materialist view of the world in which we are simply the product of genes and social circumstance, which is the view that I hold. Meritocracy, in this context, is not adequately accounting for the social circumstances, such as socioeconomic class and education, that shape the individual. It simply expects the individual to transcend all of that and study/work harder. This is what some people would call "a crock of shit." * The efficacy of affirmative action in practice is something that can only be determined by statistical studies. The data that I have seen from these studies is inconclusive, and the timeframe may be insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions, since the result we are hoping for (the gradual equalization of socioeconomic class between different races in the US) spans across generations. That being said, I have seen no other meaningful solutions to this problem proposed. * Affirmative action is not a failure if the recipients of it don't academically excel on the same level as their non-AA peers. You may consider it a failure if you only care about the prestige/results of the university. But if you care about helping minorities get the same socioeconomic playing field that whites in the US statistically enjoy, then that degree goes a long way.
i concur with your estimates on how it is likely to go based on justice's preferences. I think that since the policy is to ensure diversity; a necessary part of the system should be adjusting the values for any minority based on the amount that are already getting into the school; so if there's already enough of a minority getting in, there's no need for affirmative action and the weight will be 0 for that group on that point. With their 10% policy, i woudln't be surprised if that's enoguh to reach the point where a 0 weight would be appropriate. Affirmative action is something that was necessary, and should end at some point; and it's good to figure out exactly what statistics should be used to trigger an end to it; preferably with local variation because I suspect some areas have more trouble with it than others.
Look if the communities are underfunded or decaying you don't implement affirmative action You fix the communities. Instead of bringing everyone to the low level you bring everyone to the high level through restoration programs.
Afirmative Action is outdated, unneeded, and downright racist to the majority. It is not fair that people are being segregated based on their race and not on their academic achievements. We are in a time where AA is not needed, maybe 30-40+ years ago when racism was a real thing, but at the University level, and everywhere else, racism is a thing of the past. We should not be using policies that were put in place to stop something that doesn't exist anymore.
Students should be admitted based on their academics not the color of their skin or the place that they came from, fulfilling quotas and percentages is outrageous. The best fit should get in, just as in the workplace, if that happens to be all Asians, African Americans, or Caucasians so be it. Anything else is discrimination.
I remember reading this article by an African-American Journalist who went to Princeton and said that Affirmative Action has failed. He stated that people treated him at Princeton like he didn't deserve to be there because of Affirmative Action. EDIT: also for people who think admissions should be ALL about academic qualifications, I would argue that having a personality rather than being a study robot is also an important qualification, which could also be used by colleges to prove that race was not the only discriminator.
I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
After taking an African Americans Class last semester and discussing affirmative action in depth, I can without a doubt say some of the opinions expressed in this thread are without a doubt uninformed, close-minded, and frankly borderline offensive.
I have taken the classes too (we were required). It doesn't matter how "offensive" you think the posts are in this thread. A lot of people have made good and legitimate points.
People need to realize that the purpose of college is to learn and excel. The most qualified people need to be accepted regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and any other factors other than academic achievement and work ethic.
I agree, learn and excel, but learning about what? There are more, I think many would argue, things to learn outside of the classroom in college. Diversity is a part of it. I go to school up here in New Hampshire, I moved from Texas and I am hispanic, it's pretty much 99% white over here, myself, I think I benefit greatly from meeting people from other backgrounds, and in general New England is vastly different from Texas. That said, let me ask you.
Do you think diversity is important to the university experience? Would you be ok if AA was done with, and universities became more homogeneous, would you want to go to a school that was overwhelming culturally homogeneous? Do you feel there is any value, for example, for future lawyers, interacting and learning with students from different backgrounds that makes them better professionals? How would you choose between a student who has a 3.7 gpa and a student who has a 4.0 gpa, the 3.7 student is black, grew up in public housing, and had to overcome many obstacles to get where he is, the 4.0 student is white and is upper middle class, and has lead a relatively comfortable life. Did the 4.0 student work harder because simply because he has a 4.0? Does it show he has a better work ethic?
Some excerpts from the Michigan Law School AA Case majority opinion.
As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.”
The Law School’s claim of a compelling interest is further bolstered by its amici, who point to the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity. In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and “better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.”
Moreover, universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of our Nation’s leaders. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634 (1950) (describing law school as a “proving ground for legal learning and practice”). Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. See Brief for Association of American Law Schools as Amicus Curiae 5–6. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges. Id., at 6. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. As we have recognized, law schools “cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts.” See Sweatt v. Painter, supra, at 634. Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
I think there is diversity outside of someone's race. If I were to go to a school that was all white, all black, or all asian, it is inevitable that there will be some diversity that is present. Whether there are nerds, jocks, rednecks, or hipsters, there will be differences and therefore diversity.
I think the diversity that I roughly described above is important. Racial diversity is nice, but nothing that should be acquired at the penalty of others. Again, I think diversity is very important to the learning experience (in some majors more than others), but there is diversity aside from a generalization based on race.
Your hypothetical situation about the students is interesting (that being said it would never happen). What the university would do, is probably bump off another student with a 3.7 gpa, and let the less privileged student with a 3.7 gpa in. Then also let in the 4.0 gpa student. Everyone wins... sorta, but I don't think I really answered the question you wanted me to! ^^
If gpa were truly a measure of intelligence and intellectual ability and work ethic applied to school (assumptions... assumptions), I would admit the 4.0 gpa student over the 3.7 gpa student.
On November 04 2012 08:41 peekn wrote:We are in a time where AA is not needed, maybe 30-40+ years ago when racism was a real thing, but at the University level, and everywhere else, racism is a thing of the past
ahahaahahaha
maybe 30-40 years ago when we were racist but now there is no racism anymore
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
Although I understand the argument for cultural and racial diversity in higher education, I have to agree with Sated, because in the most objective mindset race and culture do not matter. In fact, when you do some deep thinking, I find it odd...or rather sad, that we think in terms of race and culture. It's not realistic in our society, but in reality we are all human, all the same. So we should help everyone the same, and strive for equality for humans not for whites/blacks/asians/latinos/etc, but as a species. As such, our motivation for programs like Affirmative Action (which has the right intentions, but the wrong methodology) should be to create equal opportunities for all humans, not just minorities. But like I said, probably not realistic.
Realistically, programs should act on their target demographics below the college admissions level. We should focus efforts on creating a level playing field BY THE TIME students need to be applying for college. Simply lowering standards for the kids that were at a disadvantage is not acceptable. If their are programs like "One Laptop per Child" for children in Africa, and it's feasible, then certainly we can provide opportunities for our own. And it's my non-expert opinion that the real problem is the "attitude" in lower income communities that makes it difficult for kids who want to excel in academics but find it difficult because of the community which is violent and judgemental.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
This principle is wrong. Any form of admission (university, work etc.) should be based on merit alone and not being tarnished by some dumb arbitrary thing like meeting a certain quota of people with specific complexion, disabilities and so on.
"Offering advantage to the disadvantaged"? What are you even talking here about? Are you telling me that a black person can't study just as hard as white person, or vice versa, and one of them needs some special advantage over the other? Please...
Let's take a quick look at how it's around here:
Automatic admission: you get that only if you're one of the finalists of a 3rd stage (state-wide) science olympics in a given subject. That's right, only when you went beyond what was required of you in highschool and proven that you're actually good at it. Highschool scores have 0 impact on your admission, so does being good at sports, legacy and other bullshit like that.
Giving advantages to the disadvantaged: you come from a poor family? No problem, the university is actually paying you to study if you got admitted. Students who come out of town and from poorer families get first dibs on the dorm rooms.
It seems like you got some things backwards in the land of the free...
??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
On November 04 2012 08:41 peekn wrote:We are in a time where AA is not needed, maybe 30-40+ years ago when racism was a real thing, but at the University level, and everywhere else, racism is a thing of the past
ahahaahahaha
maybe 30-40 years ago when we were racist but now there is no racism anymore
ahhahahahaha
literally inconceivable that you are not white
Most college educated people(and this includes the college admission board etc.) are not very racist. It's because they are educated.
Racism is in EVERY country, not just in predominately white countries.
To your last comment, I actually think minorities in the USA can be extremely racist.
In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote: ??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
now, I doubt that the people who buy into this on TL, who are a young bunch, are as calculating as that and I suspect they simply want to believe it out of a desire to leave behind our terrible history of racism in the states. unfortunately, it makes it very hard to have civilized discourse on the matter as it tends to get shut down as charges of racism and reverse racism (something that I as a white male find laughable but w.ever) get thrown around early and often and derail any discussion of the matter.
my own impression is that at least 2/3rds of the people against affirmative action in this thread base their position on the idealistic pursuit of racial equality, if not all of them. unfortunately for them, the statistics do not support their position that the solution has solved itself over time or that there is any indication that it will so in the future.
I think the UT system is dead, but it depends on how conservative the court is. If the Court takes the equal protection clause and the 14th Amendment both into consideration literally, then I don't think the system can stand. Things have changed a lot since Grutter and Bakke. The system, when you take away everything else, is saying that they will accept a black/hispanic/other race over a white if all other criteria besides race are equal, which is inherently unconstitutional.
On November 04 2012 10:59 guN-viCe wrote: In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
Honestly I don't know why AA was not pointed towards low income individuals rather than [Insert non-white/asian ethnic group] in the first place. Nothing discrimates like money they say, so help the poor who have it the toughest.
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote: I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote: I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote: I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
Two things, first of all, Fisher has attended another school and graduated, and still followed through with the suit, so I'm not sure why you characterize her as classless and immature, but whatever.
Secondly, you yourself framed this as an income disparity problem, not a racial problem. So why is it so bad to fight against using race as a preferential characteristic rather then income?
On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote: ??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
I don't know about old rich white guys but Morgan Freeman has been pretty vocal on stopping racism by not talking about it.
On November 04 2012 10:59 guN-viCe wrote: In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
I agree mostly, but it fails to take into account the culture importance that some ethnic groups place on their children to succeed in school versus the amount that other ethnic groups place on it.
On November 04 2012 09:38 red_b wrote: I went to high school in Texas and did not make it into UT. My year had a lot of strong students and I went to a very high income high school and despite having more than a dozen 4 or 5s on AP exams I didn't study much and didn't make the cutoff because my gpa wasn't good enough. Im white as shit, both my parents have graduate degrees and had sufficient income that my application was never even considered.
In the end I went to a different undergraduate program, decided at some point to show up to class and graduated with honors, then went to highly ranked graduate program.
I am what this girl could be if she acted with some class and maturity instead of crying that she didn't get in. Hey girl, get better grades if you want to go to UT and your school is good.
The next town from mine was desperately poor. Had a huge population of low income, immigrant/migrant students. Had UT only gone on GPA and test scores, I would have taken the spot of one of the kids from their run down, gang-ridden high school. But even after that, I'm not mad. I'm not bitter.
A kid who worked hard to do the best he could in shitty circumstances got a chance he deserved and my dad's money made sure I ended up ahead of most people in the end anyway.
Im telling you, as a supposed "victim" of affirmative action, that I support affirmative action and Texas' admissions plan.
I think if more people who were in my position were more honest with themselves, they would realize that they actually do have a lot of unfair advantages and that there are plenty of opportunities that giving a poor kid a shot to go to a state school isn't a bad thing.
Two things, first of all, Fisher has attended another school and graduated, and still followed through with the suit, so I'm not sure why you characterize her as classless and immature, but whatever.
Secondly, you yourself framed this as an income disparity problem, not a racial problem. So why is it so bad to fight against using race as a preferential characteristic rather then income?
Indeed, what difference does the race of the kids from the run down poor school make? Sure, the rich kids have an advantage when it comes to their upbringing. Yes, this should be taken into consideration. But affirmative action isn't helping the dirt poor kids from run-down, gang-ridden high schools unless they're a minority. Barack Obama's kids get the same affirmative action that inner-city kids with parents working 3 jobs. Considerations should be made based on the backgrounds of applicants. Those considerations should not be based on race. It's wrong. If race is as big of a disadvantage as some people would paint it to be than this would show through AA based on socioeconomic status. Minorities would be getting the boost anyway. But minorities who don't need it wouldn't be, and that would be an improvement.
On November 03 2012 01:14 Whitewing wrote: It seems most people lack some pretty important knowledge about what affirmative action is actually for, and why it exists.
Most minorities are significantly disadvantaged from the get-go in life in this country. They lack out on many economic opportunities, and suffer from accidental discrimination many steps of the way. They have less opportunity to attend private schools or to even go to college. It's not at all unusual for a black or hispanic student to be told by a school guidance counselor not to even bother applying to college, despite decent grades.
Affirmative action is intended to make up somewhat for the disadvantage these people suffer from birth. It is not intended as a make up measure for over racism, nor is it intended to give and advantage to minorities. It's purpose is purely to lower the bar slightly for minorities to account for the economic and social disadvantages they suffer to make the consideration more fair. It was not created to 'create social diversity'.
African Americans and Hispanics in particular are still working on digging themselves out of a ridiculously deep economic hole they've been in historically.
Now, if you want to argue that they're doing that poorly, that there are better ways to do it, etc., then those would be fair arguments.
You say that African Americans and Hispanics are still working on digging themselves out of a deep economic, historic hole. Have Asians not been doing that too? Did the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans not have to dig themselves out of a deep economic hole? When they came here and were forced into hard labor, discriminated against in the late 1800-early 1900s, and when the Japanese were forced into labor camps, they suffered no historical damage to their economic mobility? I highly doubt that. What I find the most unfair about AA is that other ethnic groups HAVE been discriminated against, yet do not get the same benefits of AA.
If you argue for economic opportunities, then perhaps you should be arguing for AA based on socioeconomic status. Race, however, is not the same as economic status. In fact, there are many poor whites and Asians as well who do not get the benefits of AA, but still get discriminated against because of race. They, too, lack those opportunities to attend private schools or college, do they not?
Asian Americans don't suffer the same disadvantages that African Americans and Hispanics do. Now, I agree that they've been poorly treated historically, REALLY unfairly, but economically they're doing quite well, and have no trouble getting an education. Part of it is that culturally, education is something that's very important to them, so that alone is often enough to counteract the damages. Asian Americans don't usually suffer the same disadvantages with regards to equality of opportunity.
And yes, people who are hurt the most by affirmative action are Asians and Jews, and yes, I am well aware of that fact.
... That was my point? Asian Americans are doing well DESPITE being treated "REALLY unfairly" historically, yet they now get punished because they accomplished precisely what AA aims to do. They cultivated that culture of education, and I highly doubt it was thanks to affirmative action. They don't suffer the same disadvantages BECAUSE they've been able to climb the socioeconomic ladders, yet they're being punished for doing so by AA. It defeats the whole purpose of it, which is to bring minority groups up. Instead, the one minority group that raises itself up is pushed down in favor of other minority groups which have yet to raise themselves up because they have, I suppose, different cultures which do not value education as much. And you know what else is ironic? Because they value education, AA makes it that much harder for them to get a great education.
On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote: ??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
I don't know about old rich white guys but Morgan Freeman has been pretty vocal on stopping racism by not talking about it.
Morgan freeman is an old and extremly rich black man. Morgan probably understands how obscene it is for extremly wealthy black guys to make middle-class white people feel guilty (or punish them) about slavery or discrimination since these people (and even the overwhelming majority of their ancestors) never were in a position to practice them.
Yeah, strike it down. Too much like a quota, too little in keeping with the freedom that law provides (In this case 14th Amendment). Let the grants continue to provide financial support to students who cannot afford it, and a free market generate the loans for families with good credit that cannot afford it without the loan (a big discussion of its own to be sure, especially in the case of Florida and school fees by degree). Let the focus be to improvements in schools with high "minority" percentages (i.e. where minorities make up the majority) that under perform and not the colleges that have high admissions criteria.
I myself benefited from a similar program in California, where a top percentage of high school graduates would have guaranteed admission into a state college. To think that my race might've been the deciding point if I had missed the cutoff is disgusting. That would be similar to disgust I feel for the ad hominem attacks on the minorities daring to oppose constant race discourse in favor of a colorblind society.
On November 02 2012 07:01 whatevername wrote: Because its treating people based on peripheral and irrelevant physical characteristics? Because its discriminatory?
The principle of affirmative action is to overcome an existing discriminatory / unfair disadvantage based on irrelevant characteristics, often the only way to do that is to offer advantages to the least advantaged. The degree and implementation is up to debate but the principle isn't wrong at all, people only cry about it when they feel that they themselves are being inconvenienced. No body is up in arms about charities helping those in poverty by giving them money or housing for free.
This principle is wrong. Any form of admission (university, work etc.) should be based on merit alone and not being tarnished by some dumb arbitrary thing like meeting a certain quota of people with specific complexion, disabilities and so on.
"Offering advantage to the disadvantaged"? What are you even talking here about? Are you telling me that a black person can't study just as hard as white person, or vice versa, and one of them needs some special advantage over the other? Please...
Let's take a quick look at how it's around here:
Automatic admission: you get that only if you're one of the finalists of a 3rd stage (state-wide) science olympics in a given subject. That's right, only when you went beyond what was required of you in highschool and proven that you're actually good at it. Highschool scores have 0 impact on your admission, so does being good at sports, legacy and other bullshit like that.
Giving advantages to the disadvantaged: you come from a poor family? No problem, the university is actually paying you to study if you got admitted. Students who come out of town and from poorer families get first dibs on the dorm rooms.
It seems like you got some things backwards in the land of the free...
It varies a lot between states, universities, and countries. His statement was that automatic admission should only be offered if you go above and beyond the minimum requirements by X amount -- in this case, a fairly prominent competition.
In the US, in the smaller western states / midwestern states, if you have a pulse, you more or less get into the one or two public university offerings within the state. A pulse being defined as passing highschool with a 2.5 gpa (aka you show up to class, lol).
I know this school is growing by about 500 people a semester, we now have double-wide trailers on an asphalt pad on what used to be a nice green field as "temporary classrooms". Dorms are now offering triple-occupancy options, etc.
Back home, school costs about 5k per year (not including living), and if you get mediocre scores (2.5 GPA, 25+ on ACT), the state more or less gives you 8-1600 dollars per semester or year (forgot) in scholarships. Just south of the border, school costs 20k+ per year, so home gets a lot of out of state students because 15k (5k * 3 for out of state tuition) is still less than their in-state rates and the schools are similarly ranked in many ways.
On November 04 2012 10:59 guN-viCe wrote: In response to the OP, I think Affirmative Action should end, and they should focus more on income level. Children who are poor are at a big disadvantage compared to their wealthier peers(and this will still help minorities).
I agree mostly, but it fails to take into account the culture importance that some ethnic groups place on their children to succeed in school versus the amount that other ethnic groups place on it.
If they don't then let them suffer for it.
When doing these sorts of social programs we should only be showing participants the door; they have to be the ones with the incentive to walk through it.
The University has a right to admit who it wishes in order to create what it determines as the best community for itself and its goals as an institution. As far as I know, aside from rules like the 10% cutoff, nobody has the legal right to be admitted into any school anywhere.
Even if the SCOTUS overturns the Grutter case, I still don't see a future student with her exact credentials getting automatically admitted.
On November 04 2012 10:54 Judicator wrote: ??? This actually happens you know? I am not saying AA is the answer, but to say that everyone has an equal opportunity for success in the education system is a fucking joke.
at some point old rich white guys figured out that you could make the discussions of racism go away if you simply screamed that such discussions were in themselves racist.
I don't know about old rich white guys but Morgan Freeman has been pretty vocal on stopping racism by not talking about it.
Yeah, this has to be one of the wisest things I've ever heard. If anything, affirmative action is just a form of reverse-racism.
Affirmative Action is reverse-racism, pure and simple. It had a place in our society in unintegrated 1950. It is no longer neccessary. Racism may still exists in the hearts and minds of some ignorant people, but institutional racism is actually near extinct. We should eliminate the racism affirming laws of affirmative action and now deal with the few rare claims of institutional discrimination on a case by case basis. People should be judged on ability alone, and there should never exist a situation where one man is preferred over another because of the color of their skin or their family history or their culture. It is so wrong in so many ways.
As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
On November 05 2012 02:31 StarStrider wrote: Affirmative Action is reverse-racism, pure and simple. It had a place in our society in unintegrated 1950. It is no longer neccessary. Racism may still exists in the hearts and minds of some ignorant people, but institutional racism is actually near extinct. We should eliminate the racism affirming laws of affirmative action and now deal with the few rare claims of institutional discrimination on a case by case basis. People should be judged on ability alone, and there should never exist a situation where one man is preferred over another because of the color of their skin or their family history or their culture. It is so wrong in so many ways.
Saying that institutional racism is extinct is just ignorant. Institutional racism and sexism are very much alive in many parts of this country. It doesn't necessarily warrant AA like this, but it's most definitely there.
On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
Damn those minorities and women and all their power in the teacher's assistants field!!! Seriously though can you be more specific, you're making a lot of assumptions. First of all have you applied and been rejected? What school do you go to? How many positions are there, filled and unfilled? How do you know you're more qualified, have you had discussions with the other students about their backgrounds? Have you done work in the engineering field, are you an undergrad or masters student? Are there any other factors in hiring teacher's assistants at your school, like is it a form of financial aid? Also, who posted the flyers, you should ask them why they are are looking for minorities and women to apply. Or ask the department how they choose applicants. Obviously knowing how many positions there are and who fills them is a bit unreasonable, I'm not asking for a research paper, I'm just looking for more information, and if the school is choosing under qualified candidates no matter what race or gender then that definitely isn't a good thing and you should say something to somebody.
Thomas Sowell quite possibly one of my favorite men today and he makes a valid argument in these quick 2 and 3 minute video. I think its degrading to someone because they simply got hired or into a school because of their ethnicity/color. Why? because they didn't actually meet the requirements to get such job and or school but were allowed to enter because of affirmative action.
On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
Hmm. Interesting. For me, it was during my first two years of undergrad that the affirmative action was at its greatest in engineering. When I was in higher level engineering courses, the teachers really never mentioned that stuff.
As to TA's and RA's, the teachers hired the best at the university I attended (whether they were guys or girls). You do see a lot of women and minorities there though. I am not sure why this is.
Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
None of these things should be anywhere on the applications. Admissions and scholarships should be awarded without these factors coming into play, pro or con.
On November 05 2012 04:07 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Not reverse racism. No such thing as reverse racism. Just racism.
Anyways, that would make sense on behalf of the colleges but they would have to specify and maybe prove they're searching for well-rounded students.
Yeah, it's understood that there's no such thing as reverse racism. It's just a term that best communicates the issue. It's politically incorrect but I think everyone knows what is meant by it.
On November 05 2012 04:07 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Not reverse racism. No such thing as reverse racism. Just racism.
Anyways, that would make sense on behalf of the colleges but they would have to specify and maybe prove they're searching for well-rounded students.
Yeah, it's understood that there's no such thing as reverse racism. It's just a term that best communicates the issue. It's politically incorrect but I think everyone knows what is meant by it.
I guess I'd be a hypocrite if I argued about being politically correct. I get your point though.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
There are only so many people who can do much better than a doctor or engineer (think >2 SD above IQ norm, which occurs in 1/50 people, combined with high creativity and discipline, which altogether is extremely rare). As it is, there is a shortage of people who are capable of being good doctors...if universities were to only admit the people who could do better, then they would have almost no students. Also, most people of all races, even if they are ambitious in college, settle for mediocrity eventually. Having reproductive success significantly dampens creativity and ambition.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
i despite self-hating asians like you
I'm sorry that you "despite" me =( I don't hate myself, but it's good to take a more objective stance rather than a biased stance when viewing a lot of Asian Americans' stance toward education and life.
My only real point was that Asian Americans tend to limit themselves to a few fields when they could do so much more than that.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
There are only so many people who can do much better than a doctor or engineer (think >2 SD above IQ norm, which occurs in 1/50 people, combined with high creativity and discipline, which altogether is extremely rare). As it is, there is a shortage of people who are capable of being good doctors...if universities were to only admit the people who could do better, then they would have almost no students. Also, most people of all races, even if they are ambitious in college, settle for mediocrity eventually. Having reproductive success significantly dampens creativity and ambition.
Out of three or four million high schoolers graduating every year in the US, from which top universities have *almost* free pickings, only a few thousand are admitted at these top top schools.
Compare that level of selectivity to the millions of engineers and doctors active in a country with less than two hundred million working people.
A lot of Asian kids in high school feel that they're entitled to these rare rare spots merely because they can work through standardized test review books.
I feel that the application process should be based on merit and grades alone, but at the same time I recognise that minority groups, the poor, and others won't advance their part of a society group unless they too are given the opportunity to higher education.
I guess the solution to that is scholarships (non athletic) to encourage those groups to obtain higher grades to guarantee acceptance and the scholarships to take care of the financials.
That being said, I am personally applying for post secondary education for next year, even in my ripe old age. At this time, I have no idea how I am going to pay for it outside of a loan. I was looking at the various grants etc etc, and a massive majority are specific for certain minority groups, disabled, etc etc, and I do not qualify even to apply for the grant or scholarship, though my grades are likely higher then those I would be competing with.
I guess, private funds and money, goes where it wants, when it wants. Nothing I can do about it though.
By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
edit: AA is a terrible system because it doesn't directly address its purported goals. If you want to bridge the gap in terms of socioeconomic status, have it based on your family's net worth and income not your skin color. If you want to generate a class with a diversity in terms of majors/interests, have it based on your pursuits/strong performance in these areas, not your skin color.
Therefore, the only way you can really justify the current AA system is if you claim you want to maintain a certain, quasi-arbitrary distribution/quota of ethnicity (at my univ. it is maintained to be around 60 percent whites, 20 percent asians, and 20 percent blacks/hispanics) -- but I see neither fairness nor point in that....
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
There are only so many people who can do much better than a doctor or engineer (think >2 SD above IQ norm, which occurs in 1/50 people, combined with high creativity and discipline, which altogether is extremely rare). As it is, there is a shortage of people who are capable of being good doctors...if universities were to only admit the people who could do better, then they would have almost no students. Also, most people of all races, even if they are ambitious in college, settle for mediocrity eventually. Having reproductive success significantly dampens creativity and ambition.
Out of three or four million high schoolers graduating every year in the US, from which top universities have *almost* free pickings, only a few thousand are admitted at these top top schools.
Compare that level of selectivity to the millions of engineers and doctors active in a country with less than two hundred million working people.
A lot of Asian kids in high school feel that they're entitled to these rare rare spots merely because they can work through standardized test review books.
lol
Well yes, I would also feel "entitled" if I worked hard for it. The school system doesn't necessarily select the most qualified people, just those who are the most regular with doing their assignments and how well they can memorize information. So your issue is with the education system, not with Asians, who happen to be good at doing what the education system emphasizes.
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
On November 05 2012 03:57 chenchen wrote: Asians don't get shafted in admissions at top top universities (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, then maybe Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia) not because of their race but because not many of them are exceptional and they're all trying to squeeze into a few narrow fields. Those universities want to maintain diversity in fields pursued. If they accepted all those Asian kids with "good stats," they'd be overflowing with biology, computer science, and engineering majors. Instead, they also want students with interests in literature, history, social sciences, mathematics, literally everything else, etc. Unfortunately, Asian students don't really pursue those fields.
Honestly Asians are already grossly over-represented at every top university relative to their low population in the US, and as a lot of them (certainly not all) end up being careerist, passionless drones, admitting less Asian students would benefit the reputation of these institutions as they would end up educating more students more likely to impact the world in significant ways and less likely to educate the next great family doctor or software engineer.
For almost all people, being a doctor or software engineer is the most significant way they can contribute to the world (if they can even do that). So...I don't know if you really have an argument. Someone is more likely to impact the world from a scientific discipline than from literature, arts, history, or social sciences anyway.
Top universities don't want to admit ordinary people. They want to educate people to become leaders in their fields. A lot of Asian students don't have the drive to reach that level. They just want ordinary careers and ordinary lives. There are millions of doctors and software engineers in the world. Your impact as a doctor is limited by how many patients you can serve. Educating a doctor who will go on to perform the same service as millions of other doctors who came from less rigorous educational backgrounds is "almost" a waste of a space.
Educating an exceptional doctor on the other hand . . . . that can change the world.
There are only so many people who can do much better than a doctor or engineer (think >2 SD above IQ norm, which occurs in 1/50 people, combined with high creativity and discipline, which altogether is extremely rare). As it is, there is a shortage of people who are capable of being good doctors...if universities were to only admit the people who could do better, then they would have almost no students. Also, most people of all races, even if they are ambitious in college, settle for mediocrity eventually. Having reproductive success significantly dampens creativity and ambition.
Out of three or four million high schoolers graduating every year in the US, from which top universities have *almost* free pickings, only a few thousand are admitted at these top top schools.
Compare that level of selectivity to the millions of engineers and doctors active in a country with less than two hundred million working people.
A lot of Asian kids in high school feel that they're entitled to these rare rare spots merely because they can work through standardized test review books.
lol
Well yes, I would also feel "entitled" if I worked hard for it. The school system doesn't necessarily select the most qualified people, just those who are the most regular with doing their assignments and how well they can memorize information. So your issue is with the education system, not with Asians, who happen to be good at doing what the education system emphasizes.
Too bad a lot of those Asian kids seem to be shocked when undergraduate admissions at top universities aren't always looking for what they perceive to be "success" with the "education system."
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career. There's no reliable way of predicting what the accepted student will ultimately pursue in college. Perhaps as a result, biology is indeed the most popular major at my school -- and biology majors probably outnumber certain humanities majors by more than ten-to-one.
I applied to Harvard, Yale, Stanford and UChicago as an English or Journalism major. I was rejected from Harvard, waitlisted (then rejected) at Yale and Stanford and accepted at Chicago.
Calling Asians people who "won't excel" and "just want a normal life"... there's some problem with that logic. Can you really have the motivation to stay at the front of the curve for your whole life and expect to just settle down with that? I think most of these stereotyped Asians (including myself) expect to be among the best at what they do. I don't want to be some general practitioner, I want to manage a fucking hospital or be a surgeon.
@Chenchen... you're buying into the stereotype that Asians are some kind of test-taking robot-- maybe that's what you thought you needed. That's exactly fucking over Asian students. Not only do they need a really good SAT/ACT, they have to prove that they can do more than that more than students of other ethnicities.
i'll say that chenchen takes things a bit too far, but the general rationale for admission decision is sound in that they want people who will pursue grad school/research a bit more than lower tier unis.
also the generalist tests that are used for college admissions is too easy to separate out the best of the best. with enough prep you can do well on these tests, but they do not show ability required to be a successful phd level student.
there are plenty of asian kids who are good at humanities stuff too. there are lazy and unfocused ones too. :D
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career.
Applicants definitely check off what you intend to study, and life goals are usually fairly clear from the application package, even though life goals are never static.
Yes, not all people major in what they intended to in high school. but I'm sure that even at your school, Asian students disproportionately prefer fields with greater job security such as biology, computer science, and engineering. If your school were selective, which it may or may not be, the Asian kids that made it into those spots studying those things made it over a large amount of less qualified Asian students trying to get to those spots, who may have looked much better on paper in high school compared to people, regardless of race, studying sociology or anthropology.
Again, I will emphasize once again, this phenomenon of perceived institutionalized racism against Asians only really occurs in top top top universities, and I am merely offering an alternate explanation.
On November 05 2012 07:13 ticklishmusic wrote: I applied to Harvard, Yale, Stanford and UChicago as an English or Journalism major. I was rejected from Harvard, waitlisted (then rejected) at Yale and Stanford and accepted at Chicago.
Calling Asians people who "won't excel" and "just want a normal life"... there's some problem with that logic. Can you really have the motivation to stay at the front of the curve for your whole life and expect to just settle down with that? I think most of these stereotyped Asians (including myself) expect to be among the best at what they do. I don't want to be some general practitioner, I want to manage a fucking hospital or be a surgeon.
@Chenchen... you're buying into the stereotype that Asians are some kind of test-taking robot-- maybe that's what you thought you needed. That's exactly fucking over Asian students. Not only do they need a really good SAT/ACT, they have to prove that they can do more than that more than students of other ethnicities.
I'm not buying into anything. Many Asian students, capable or incapable, limit themselves to a handful of fields solely because of perceived job security. Universities want students pursuing all sorts of different fields, like English and Journalism, which many Asian student shun away from.
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career.
Applicants definitely check off what you intend to study, and life goals are usually fairly clear from the application package, even though life goals are never static.
Once again, this just isn't true for a large majority of students at my school. There was an informal survey done which indicated that 70 percent of freshmen weren't sure about what they would pursue as their career. So if even you don't know what you will pursue, how should the school?
This is, btw, at a very selective school and I understand that the story is slightly different at UCs where what you indicate as major does matter a bit more. But AA really comes into play more in admission for top institutions.
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career.
Applicants definitely check off what you intend to study, and life goals are usually fairly clear from the application package, even though life goals are never static.
Once again, this just isn't true for a large majority of students at my school. There was an informal survey done which indicated that 70 percent of freshmen weren't sure about what they would pursue as their career. So if even you don't know what you will pursue, how should the school?
This is, btw, at a very selective school and I understand that the story is slightly different at UCs where what you indicate as major does matter a bit more. But AA really comes into play more in admission for top institutions.
"Yes, not all people major in what they intended to in high school. but I'm sure that even at your school, Asian students disproportionately prefer fields with greater job security such as biology, computer science, and engineering. If your school were selective, which it may or may not be, the Asian kids that made it into those spots studying those things made it over a large amount of less qualified Asian students trying to get to those spots, who may have looked much better on paper in high school compared to people, regardless of race, studying sociology or anthropology.
Again, I will emphasize once again, this phenomenon of perceived institutionalized racism against Asians only really occurs in top top top universities, and I am merely offering an alternate explanation."
Do you not observe this at your "very selective" school? Is this merely a coincidence? Do all those Asian students gravitate toward those fields magically after they start college from a state of being "unsure about what to study?"
Look at the Asian kid studying anthropology. I guarantee his "high school stats," or whatever those terms have come to mean look much much worse than most of the rejected kids who wanted to study computer science or biology.
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career.
Applicants definitely check off what you intend to study, and life goals are usually fairly clear from the application package, even though life goals are never static.
Once again, this just isn't true for a large majority of students at my school. There was an informal survey done which indicated that 70 percent of freshmen weren't sure about what they would pursue as their career. So if even you don't know what you will pursue, how should the school?
This is, btw, at a very selective school and I understand that the story is slightly different at UCs where what you indicate as major does matter a bit more. But AA really comes into play more in admission for top institutions.
"Yes, not all people major in what they intended to in high school. but I'm sure that even at your school, Asian students disproportionately prefer fields with greater job security such as biology, computer science, and engineering. If your school were selective, which it may or may not be, the Asian kids that made it into those spots studying those things made it over a large amount of less qualified Asian students trying to get to those spots, who may have looked much better on paper in high school compared to people, regardless of race, studying sociology or anthropology.
Again, I will emphasize once again, this phenomenon of perceived institutionalized racism against Asians only really occurs in top top top universities, and I am merely offering an alternate explanation."
Do you not observe this at your "very selective" school? Is this merely a coincidence? Do all those Asian students gravitate toward those fields magically after they start college from a state of being "unsure about what to study?"
Look at the Asian kid studying anthropology. I guarantee his "high school stats," or whatever those terms have come to mean look much much worse than most of the rejected kids who wanted to study computer science or biology.
If you take out the international students (who do indeed tend to gravitate more strongly to tech-y fields due to language barrier, cultural expectations back at home etc.), I genuinely don't see observe the trend that you claim exists. There are exceptions for a very small number of majors: I'd say asians are probably slightly overrepresented in CS and EE (but this could largely because of the number of int. students pursuing these fields). But that's really about it -- and the larger trend is that ... there is none. BTW, to give a little credence to this, I am active in both music and biology departments, and I see about the same proportion of Asians active in these departments. I might even venture to say there is larger proportion of asians in music than in bio.
Racial discrimination is wrong, period. Questioning which race in general is better off than another has no bearing at all on this distinction. To even bring up the question of which race is better off is racist in my opinion. Who cares what a person's race is except people with a fundamentally racist world view? I thought prejudice was a bad thing? I thought the problem wasn't a fundamental physical difference between races, but simply poverty? So why not focus purely on poverty instead of race?
On November 05 2012 07:00 phosphorylation wrote: By "self-hate," I refer to hating on your own race, not necessarily your individual self. At my university, what you say about Asians is simply not true; and in any case, affirmative action is a terrible and unjust way to generate diversity in the students pursuing different fields. If this were really the purpose of AA, why not have affirmative action based not on ethnicity but on what field the student has largely pursued/excelled in his high school years?
I don't "hate" my "own race" either. I'm not particularly in favour of dividing people into races and ethnic groups. I enjoy learning about many different cultures I'm glad that you've met many Asians at your universities who are very self motivated and not afraid to sacrifice financial security to pursue their interests.
Affirmative action based on ethnicity and only ethnicity seems very silly. However, I am only trying to explain why Asian students face lower acceptance rates at top schools and I don't believe that it is primarily due to racist admissions policies.
Imagine 20,000 kids applying to a school with 1,000 spots and around 50% predicted yield rate. 2,000 kids will be accepted. Let's say that the university shoots for 500 kids accepted into biology, computer science, and engineering. The university will end up with around 250 students in its incoming class studying those things. This seems fair enough, as there are many different fields of study. Let's say that out of those 20,000 kids applying, there are 10,000 Asian kids applying, but 8,000 of them are trying to squeeze into the 500 spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering. Even if 400 out of those 8,000 are accepted, filling up 80% of the spots set off for biology, computer science, and engineering, that's still only a 5% acceptance rate compared to 10% overall.
This scenario is actually pretty spot on when you look at Asian students trying to apply to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and then Yale or Stanford.
The low acceptance rate that Asian students face may not be a consequence of institutionalized racism, but simply . . . what I've outlined.
Your hypothesis is flawed because at schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford, you do not declare your intended major. At my school, you do not have declare your major until your junior year and even then, many people switch their majors/fields halfway through their UG career.
Applicants definitely check off what you intend to study, and life goals are usually fairly clear from the application package, even though life goals are never static.
Once again, this just isn't true for a large majority of students at my school. There was an informal survey done which indicated that 70 percent of freshmen weren't sure about what they would pursue as their career. So if even you don't know what you will pursue, how should the school?
This is, btw, at a very selective school and I understand that the story is slightly different at UCs where what you indicate as major does matter a bit more. But AA really comes into play more in admission for top institutions.
"Yes, not all people major in what they intended to in high school. but I'm sure that even at your school, Asian students disproportionately prefer fields with greater job security such as biology, computer science, and engineering. If your school were selective, which it may or may not be, the Asian kids that made it into those spots studying those things made it over a large amount of less qualified Asian students trying to get to those spots, who may have looked much better on paper in high school compared to people, regardless of race, studying sociology or anthropology.
Again, I will emphasize once again, this phenomenon of perceived institutionalized racism against Asians only really occurs in top top top universities, and I am merely offering an alternate explanation."
Do you not observe this at your "very selective" school? Is this merely a coincidence? Do all those Asian students gravitate toward those fields magically after they start college from a state of being "unsure about what to study?"
Look at the Asian kid studying anthropology. I guarantee his "high school stats," or whatever those terms have come to mean look much much worse than most of the rejected kids who wanted to study computer science or biology.
If you take out the international students (who do indeed tend to gravitate more strongly to tech-y fields due to language barrier, cultural expectations back at home etc.), I genuinely don't see observe the trend that you claim exists. There are exceptions for a very small number of majors: I'd say asians are probably slightly overrepresented in CS and EE (but this could largely because of the number of int. students pursuing these fields). But that's really about it -- and the larger trend is that ... there is none. BTW, to give a little credence to this, I am active in both music and biology departments, and I see about the same proportion of Asians active in these departments. I might even venture to say there is larger proportion of asians in music than in bio.
That's cool. If this were truly the case, Asians shouldn't face lower acceptance rates at your university. I'd be willing to bet then that acceptance rates for Asian students are even with overall acceptance rates.
I too feel that this case will result in Grutter being overturned.
It's amazing to think about. This is a nine year precedent. To have a case contradicted so swiftly is fairly unprecedented, and from my perspective a good indication of how ideological the current court majority is. What's somewhat likely is that Grutter will survive in some form, but that restrictions on affirmative action will become even tighter to the point where they are impractical. But make no mistake, the University of Texas at Austin developed their affirmative action program specifically in response to Grutter, if they lose this case it'll be the deathblow for affirmative action in the US.
I have a tiny shred of hope that a 4-4 decision will salvage this case and save the precedent. Or perhaps that the justices will rule that Fisher has no grounds to sue as in injured party, because the university has said she would not have been admitted regardless of race. But I don't expect either of these results.
Losing affirmative action will be a big blow to opportunity in the US. It's a hugely important practice that in some way works to counteract the pernicious impact of residential segregation on test scores and grades. Cities and neighborhoods in the US are deeply divided based on race, even more so than by poverty in many many areas. (Although one is often a proxy for the other). This residential segregation traps minority students in substandard schools, and severely restricts their ability to compete in the college admissions process. Minority-heavy, poverty-stricken schools don't just produce worse test scores, they are often unable to provide adequate college counseling or information. The supreme court and the court system as a whole has a mixed record on endorsing busing as a solution, and busing has a mixed record on actually being the solution.
All of that said, hopefully the demise of affirmative action will force the federal, state, and local governments to be more creative in finding ways to promote minority access to quality schooling and higher education. Doing away with property taxes as a method for school funding would be a bold first step. Smarter zoning laws and aggressive laws that spread affordable housing out evenly in cities would tackle the problem at the root. If there is a silver lining to the looming cloud of this decision, its that without affirmative action as a crutch to tackle the symptoms of residential segregation, we might start to address the actual disease.
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.
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.
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 08:29 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 08:09 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 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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
You all talk as if blacks living in ghettos is a permanent problem. It will take some time to fix but with gradual steps, not rigging uni admissions, it can be solved. Start at HS level by putting money into programs that offer real returns. Charter schools. Merit pay. Et cetera.
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.
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.
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.
Well, everything is interrelated. Violence creates violence, low IQ is associated with poorer impulse control, and low impulse control is associated with substance addiction, among many, many other things (part of why so many African-American children are raised by single mothers). Being raised by a single mother makes a person six times more likely to go to prison, typically because of the lack of resources and parental presence - the mother often works multiple jobs and has little time for her children. Substance abuse causes some to act more impulsively (and more likely to be violent), and being on either end of a drug trade carries its own risks.
On November 05 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote: that it would no longer be funny.
I don't understand what people are trying to communicate when they point out black people are much more violent on average... or they perceive them to be (not important which) by telling someone who is simply speaking to go do it in a black neighborhood. Implication being those black people will hurt or kill you for saying something that offends them or something.
This is puzzling because it tends to come from people who are staunchly anti-racist.
many low iq people do not have drug infested neighborhoods. why would you draw this singular connection in spite of everything that goes wrong with black history is beyond me.
On November 05 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote: that it would no longer be funny.
I don't understand what people are trying to communicate when they point out black people are much more violent on average... or they perceive them to be (not important which) by telling someone who is simply speaking to go do it in a black neighborhood. Implication being those black people will hurt or kill you for saying something that offends them or something.
This is puzzling because it tends to come from people who are staunchly anti-racist.
it's like that zen master that tells you to smack yourself after you said something silly. smack some sense into you so you realize how silly you are.
On November 05 2012 11:50 oneofthem wrote: that it would no longer be funny.
I don't understand what people are trying to communicate when they point out black people are much more violent on average... or they perceive them to be (not important which) by telling someone who is simply speaking to go do it in a black neighborhood. Implication being those black people will hurt or kill you for saying something that offends them or something.
This is puzzling because it tends to come from people who are staunchly anti-racist.
That was not my intended implication; I meant more to suggest that your campus Republicans waste their time making stupid jokes to other college kids, while the rest of the world actually moves about.
On November 05 2012 11:57 oneofthem wrote: many low iq people do not have drug infested neighborhoods. why would you draw this singular connection in spite of everything that goes wrong with black history is beyond me.
I'm curious, do you have data I can check out showing incidence of illegal drug use between races after being normed for wealth and IQ?
On November 05 2012 12:16 oneofthem wrote: blaming it on blacks being dumb is not the best way to understand the history of crack cocaine. at least without the help of you know, history.
I read that link, and it says that distribution of the drug occurred mainly in low-income inner city neighborhoods, where they (blacks) already were disproportionately represented beforehand. Drug traders took advantage of the poor, and that's why drug abuse is such a big issue in these areas. Without a supply of drugs, drug abuse obviously would never be an issue in the first place. You reduced my statements to blaming drug abuse on "blacks being dumb", when I wasn't really saying that. I didn't bring up non-biological influences first because it seems like everyone already knows about them. Having lived in a poor inner city neighborhood before, I have firsthand experience and took it for granted that others would know about the environmental side to the issue and that it wouldn't be part of the debate.
well, what makes you think the purported low iq of blacks factor prominently into the thing? do you think they are segregated in ghettos and poor because of it? or was it because of this that they were conquered by europeans and sold into slavery in the first place
On November 03 2012 09:56 oneofthem wrote: getting into good schools seems like a religion with asian kids so they prob care a lot about this issue for very narrow, selfish reasons. most of the time it's a difference between getting into a top 10 school and getting into a top 25 school. it's not that big of a deal.
there is a high premium for the very top top places, but eh, cry me a river for not getting into harvard with a 3.9 gpa (or 95 in the case of stuy lol)
The difference between these schools are massive depending on what you want to get into. Good luck getting into MBB from a top 25 school that does not have on campus recruitment as you would have to network like crazy. There is a reason why people work their asses off to get into these Unis, the fact that they have on campus recruitment from elite firms means a lot.
On topic: Get rid of this retarded system already, it favours no one but only breeds contempt in the work place. It becomes nature to think that the Aboriginal in our firm got in through AA rather than merit. Same with my friends in engineering firms and their attitude towards their female colleagues.
more seriously, seems like aa's impact of sowing dissension amongst the privileged groups is a side effect underestimated. although in this case the problem may not be on aa. any equalizing measure will seemingly have the same effect if you have a reactionary populace
On November 05 2012 20:33 oneofthem wrote: yes, more productive bankers. just what we need
more seriously, seems like aa's impact of sowing dissension amongst the privileged groups is a side effect underestimated. although in this case the problem may not be on aa. any equalizing measure will seemingly have the same effect if you have a reactionary populace
Yup those management consultants whip out their pitchbooks and lbos during the night when their growth matrices and bubble charts are done.
"It becomes nature to think that the Aboriginal in our firm got in through AA rather than merit." "Same with my friends in engineering firms and their attitude towards their female colleagues."
On November 05 2012 20:54 oneofthem wrote: it's what you said buddy, not me.
"It becomes nature to think that the Aboriginal in our firm got in through AA rather than merit." "Same with my friends in engineering firms and their attitude towards their female colleagues."
I agree with that, I stand by what I said. Just nfi where you pulled bankers from.
To me having a different work ethic does not mean I am privileged considering a lot of the Asians actually came to this country with less material goods than some of these non privileged people.
the policy may be wrong in the particular privileged groups it identifies, but we cannot deny that there are privileged groups, as well as underprivileged. identifying the right ones is pretty complicated especially in a legal regime that is rule following to the degree of the american one
and privilege is itself too simplistic. aa is in part addressing the problem of social marginalization of the sort that can have in groups excluding qualified but different people. this may not be as large a problem today/in certain areas, but make no mistake, active effort was needed to get it to this place.
people also totally ignore the school's side to it.
Just base it on actual need, not on skin colour. If people of certain races need more of a leg up because they tend to be in a worse situation then the university should judge the situation not on the colour of their candidate's skin. That way a disadvantaged minority will be able to be weighed fairly against a disadvantaged white person.
That's how we do it in Australia except for the Aboriginals (who get affirmative action similar to that of Native Americans in the US).
I understand if it were socioeconomic reasons for affirmative action; there are still people who just don't have access to resources like others (it's just a covariance that minorities tend to be in relatively worse socioeconomic classes. But then again, we have a lot of opportunities nowadays with grants and scholarships...)
Religion and ethnicity should never be used for affirmative action. "Diversity" is a bullshit idea that colleges gobble up and regurgitate in order to attract students.
On November 05 2012 08:03 tree.hugger wrote: I too feel that this case will result in Grutter being overturned....
excellent post.
On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
yeah, probably not; your shitty arrogant attitude probably convinced them otherwise.
honestly Im glad we aren't in the 1950s where a person like you or me would get the job automatically.
pro tip: there is always someone better than you. always.
On November 05 2012 08:11 red4ce wrote: 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.
I agree, and that's a nice analogy.
A personal story of where I have seen institutionalized racism; I had a professor of business law who was fantastically intelligent, published tons of quality work and was very effective as a professor. Granted, many students didn't appreciate the fact that they had to do some actual work (shock), but honestly the guy was plenty good enough.
The University never offered him tenure. In fact, the business college hasn't offered a black professor tenure in 2 decades.
Now, had he been the only one I might have been able to see that as a personality issue, but honestly 2 decades? You can't find one black professor worthy of tenure in 20 years in Tennessee?
On November 06 2012 17:16 kamicom wrote: "Diversity" is a bullshit idea that colleges gobble up and regurgitate in order to attract students.
um well my undergraduate program was almost entirely white. but my graduate program had tons of foreigners from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Quite a few from South America and even a few African students.
I am truly grateful for that experience and meeting lots of people who had a different culture than me. You might call it bullshit, I don't care. You may not value having those experiences. But I do.
I like meeting people who challenge my preconceived notions in a respectful way and find those interactions far more useful than just another white kid with a rich dad who I share dumb ass, petty hobbies with.
On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
yeah, probably not; your shitty arrogant attitude probably convinced them otherwise.
honestly Im glad we aren't in the 1950s where a person like you or me would get the job automatically.
pro tip: there is always someone better than you. always.
On November 05 2012 08:11 red4ce wrote: 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.
I agree, and that's a nice analogy.
A personal story of where I have seen institutionalized racism; I had a professor of business law who was fantastically intelligent, published tons of quality work and was very effective as a professor. Granted, many students didn't appreciate the fact that they had to do some actual work (shock), but honestly the guy was plenty good enough.
The University never offered him tenure. In fact, the business college hasn't offered a black professor tenure in 2 decades.
Now, had he been the only one I might have been able to see that as a personality issue, but honestly 2 decades? You can't find one black professor worthy of tenure in 20 years in Tennessee?
I like the starcraft analogy as well. In general when talking about fairness in politics people immediately fall back on rules set forth in games. Things like flat taxes are fair because, like in a game, they apply equally to all people. Sadly this only works in a world where equality already exists which any sociologist can tell you is not the case.
As a thought exercise I like to put forth the game Monopoly just for the sake of hitting people over the head with symbolism. During setup give one player 90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties. Design a rule set that makes this game fair. This is essentially the job of politicians.
AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success we can regulate them like a game and be truly fair. Sadly, without revolution or overwhelming consensus this is not something we will see in our lifetimes. AA is the compromise, if you care about this issue that is.
On November 02 2012 07:13 Deadlyhazard wrote: Affirmative action is incredibly racist. Merit is the only thing that should ever be judged in situations like this. I find it incredibly offensive that people of different skin color than me get scholarships to go to school just because of their skin, while I have to pay out my ass to go (I'm white). I would like to see scholarships and admittance go solely to people with merit. I don't see how it can be balanced in any other way. I can't believe policies like this even exist in modern society.
The problem with going merit alone is that many public school systems are inherently disadvantaged because of the lack of economic support. Someone can do really well at one of these schools and still get passed over for admission simply because doing well in a crappy school district does not mean you are as qualified strictly merit wise as someone who was able to attend school in an affluent area, who was able to gain access to a much better variety of courses and college preparation.
The problem with comparing AA to SC or Monopoly is that AA is like a relay race or a team SC match due to multiple generations.
Let's say two teams are playing in a StarCraft tourney. In game 1 one player can't build a CC for 10 minutes. The game ends. Next game what to do? Impose the restriction on the other team's new player? That won't be fair for him either. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
The best way would be to restart the tourney but what does that correspond to in the real world?
This is why I don't believe in any special treatment for "disadvantaged" minorities. Four generations ago my great-great-grandfather was a peasant in Buttfuck, Belarus. He scrounged up some money to send his kid for training as a skilled laborer in the nearby city, and then his kid had the money to bring up his kid in a more educated environment and eventually pull in sizable money as a rocket scientist. The point of all of this is that as the next player for the "advantaged" team it's not fair to limit my CC production because the "disadvantaged" seem to be complacent to live where they are instead of investing in the future and becoming "advantaged" themselves.
On November 05 2012 08:03 tree.hugger wrote: I too feel that this case will result in Grutter being overturned....
excellent post.
On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions.
yeah, probably not; your shitty arrogant attitude probably convinced them otherwise.
honestly Im glad we aren't in the 1950s where a person like you or me would get the job automatically.
pro tip: there is always someone better than you. always.
On November 05 2012 08:11 red4ce wrote: 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.
I agree, and that's a nice analogy.
A personal story of where I have seen institutionalized racism; I had a professor of business law who was fantastically intelligent, published tons of quality work and was very effective as a professor. Granted, many students didn't appreciate the fact that they had to do some actual work (shock), but honestly the guy was plenty good enough.
The University never offered him tenure. In fact, the business college hasn't offered a black professor tenure in 2 decades.
Now, had he been the only one I might have been able to see that as a personality issue, but honestly 2 decades? You can't find one black professor worthy of tenure in 20 years in Tennessee?
I like the starcraft analogy as well. In general when talking about fairness in politics people immediately fall back on rules set forth in games. Things like flat taxes are fair because, like in a game, they apply equally to all people. Sadly this only works in a world where equality already exists which any sociologist can tell you is not the case.
As a thought exercise I like to put forth the game Monopoly just for the sake of hitting people over the head with symbolism. During setup give one player 90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties. Design a rule set that makes this game fair. This is essentially the job of politicians.
AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success we can regulate them like a game and be truly fair. Sadly, without revolution or overwhelming consensus this is not something we will see in our lifetimes. AA is the compromise, if you care about this issue that is.
Your analogy is terribly racist. Why is it assumed someone has "90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties" because of their race?
If there is a problem with someone having too much money or too much property, then why would corrective measures target race (or "playing piece color") instead of targeting money or property?
On November 07 2012 02:16 Velocirapture wrote: AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success
I can see you are making the same mistake most supporters of Affirmative Action make. You are basing your beliefs on the false premise that all races have equal abilities, and therefore should have equal outcomes.
In reality there are inherent racial differences. For example Blacks are the fastest sprinters, whereas Asians have the highest levels of intelligence. Any system that tried to enforce equal outcomes between Blacks and Asians would be inherently unfair.
I will use an analogy of my own. Imagine a 100m sprinting race. Upon examining racial outcomes in this race it is discovered Black sprinters have faster average finish times than other races. For the sake of equal outcomes it is decided next time that Blacks have to run 110m, Whites 90m, and Asians only 80m. After adjusting track length based on ethnicity the different ethnic groups have the same average finish times. Success! Is it more fair now that rules are changed to favor certain ethnic groups?
To enforce equal outcomes among people with unequal abilities is incredibly unfair.
"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really." -- Nobel Prize winning scientist James Dewey Watson
Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics.
Yeah Asians generally get better grades because they have a culture where they work really fucking hard on shit.
Blacks generally are faster but thats because there is a culture of sports/athleticism being more important over education.
But still, EVEN IF there are genetic reasons for one race being better than the other IT SHOULDN'T MATTER. There is no SIGNIFICANT difference in speed/intelligence/attractiveness/coordination/interpersonal ability/whatever that we should just say "Oh no, all of these social issues that discriminate towards blacks isn't important, trust me, they're just genetically dumb"
Others, that bring up that people should be given affirmative action more based off of socio-economic status do have a good point, but this country has systematic racism that makes things unequal EVEN IF a comparative black/white person are at the same socio-economic level:
Which brings up some important points: 1. In early school blacks are targeted more than whites and others, and are labeled bad kids, criminals, this is not something you want to do to a kid this young. 2. Black family life more often than not, sucks. Single moms everywhere, dads in jail. 3. Blacks are criminalized far more often through the drug war than whites (whites just as much if not more drug selling/usage) 4. Blacks receive harsher sentences for crimes. 5. Blacks are much less likely to get loans/mortgages in nicer neighborhoods to attend better schools despite similar socio-economic status to a white person that could get the loan.
I'm not claiming that any of you are racist, or anyone is racist really. But the SYSTEM is racist. It started with blacks moving into inner cities and whites leaving them and segregating poor blacks from whites. Combine that with "tough on crime" policies along with the drug war, and you have created a generation and culture of criminality and poverty among blacks. Not because of racism now but just because that show the system works.
AA helps take into account all of these factors. You see that the college population of blacks is much less than whites, well I mean blacks are just stupid right!?!? NO, they've been fucked over by the system, and im proud that places of higher education like where I attend (University of Texas) are smart enough to realize that.
On November 08 2012 00:43 glabius wrote: Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics.
Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument.
Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared.
Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all.
On November 08 2012 00:43 glabius wrote: Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics.
Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument.
Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared.
Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all.
Yeah, they do score on average better on IQ tests? So fucking what? We should only give manual labor jobs to blacks, and the technical jobs to asians? These IQ tests have much more to do with environmental factors than innate ability.
What? Your last statement "There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all."
Is ill-informed for the situation. If we took NOTHING into account for admissions, my University (that this case is about) would be like 70% white and 25% asian and 5% everything else. This is not what I want at my Unviersity, and this is not a place that would be serving the interests of texas (as it is public)
Whatever floats Your boat, if You are ok with accepting inferior candidates to Your University for whatever reason thats Your privilage. I couldnt care less, I merly expressed my opinion that the argument discussed above is in fact very good, not stupid as You claim.
On November 08 2012 01:36 Silvanel wrote: Whatever floats Your boat, if You are ok with accepting inferior candidates to Your University for whatever reason thats Your privilage. I couldnt care less, I merly expressed my opinion that the argument discussed above is in fact very good, not stupid as You claim.
You should probably have a clue before you start talking about things. IQ tests are complete nonsense, and no one takes them seriously.
The whole blacks are the dumbest thing is so ingrained in our mindsets in America that a lot of blacks just give up because they believe themselves to be inferior.
On November 08 2012 01:36 Silvanel wrote: Whatever floats Your boat, if You are ok with accepting inferior candidates to Your University for whatever reason thats Your privilage. I couldnt care less, I merly expressed my opinion that the argument discussed above is in fact very good, not stupid as You claim.
The problem is that this is not a private institution. The University of Texas receives federal funding, meaning taxpayers pay to the college. Title VI of the civil rights act states:
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.
Also, discrimination can be prosecuted against even in private institutions.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
Quite a good illustration of how the nature vs nurture argument works on this forum. I have had history lectures where the question of "how many angels could dance on the point of a pin" was mocked, yet there is nothing in Medieval theology comparable to the stretches of science fiction we invent to satisfy our moral fantasies here. It's enough to coin a new slate of jargon under the general title of "opinionism," which I suppose is our substitute for what used to be called good works.
Not to sit on the fence, I'll just depart by saying that nurture is of course the ethically superior opinion. Unfortunately that secret is only known to ourselves, and the other few daydreamers who suffer from the same mass delirium.
For the rest of the world, it is utterly inconsequential by what -ology or -ism blacks are generally supposed to have traits X, Y, Z. As inconsequential anyhow, as why Cats are always charging furiously at nothing.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics.
Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
On November 08 2012 00:43 glabius wrote: Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics.
Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument.
Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared.
Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all.
Yeah, they do score on average better on IQ tests? So fucking what? We should only give manual labor jobs to blacks, and the technical jobs to asians?
No, we shouldn't do that. We should give out jobs based on individual capacity. An Asian person isn't automatically smarter than a black person. But after we give out those jobs based on individual capacity, then we shouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there are more Asians than blacks with technical jobs.
These IQ tests have much more to do with environmental factors than innate ability.
On November 09 2012 02:05 oneofthem wrote: iq correlation with environmental and historical factors is well established. particularly early childhood stimulation
the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors.
On November 09 2012 02:05 oneofthem wrote: iq correlation with environmental and historical factors is well established. particularly early childhood stimulation
the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors.
To go from "within the realm of possibility" to the contextual meaning of "possible" in this sentence is an enormous leap of reasoning. The quantity of evidence for environmental influence on brain function of all kinds is staggering. Everything from environmental enrichment studies to sociology, from fishes to mice to humans, take your pick.
That's a huge chasm to leap over to say, "Blacks are just fucking stupid, there's nothing to be done."
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics.
Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
When they are not qualified as the person that is passed over they are an inferior option.
What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races.
The link you have posted have no explanatory power bar the 10% longer prison sentence terms. The 30% more likely to be incarcerated statistic could also likely be due to having 30% chance of comitting a crime.
A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger).
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological. 2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents. 3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation.
So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No.
I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily).
The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics.
Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races.
It should be applicable to all races in any academic situation. Sports is irrelevant to future socioeconomic status of the individuals in question here. That's a fairly bad analogy.
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote: A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger).
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological. 2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents. 3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation.
So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No.
I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily).
The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself.
I think the big question is whether or not AA is actually effective in doing so. If your whole life has been shitty to the point you're dumb as a rock and then you're given an opportunity to go to college, can you really take advantage of it? I would argue that it makes more sense to just reform primary education given your early years make a huge difference later on rather than trying to fix it after things have gotten fucked up.
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote: A lot of people here seem to miss the point of affirmative action (and I did when I was younger).
1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological. 2. One of the primary sociological factors in the development of any child is their parents. 3. By using affirmative action today in colleges, you take today's youths and make them vastly better parents for tomorrow. They in turn will raise a better and brighter generation.
So the entire point of affirmative action is to attempt to course correct the sociological imbalances between the different races. Is it fair from the perspective of a white student who is just above the borderline for entry but passed up for a black student slightly below them? No.
I'm sorry life isn't fair for that person at that moment, but life is more often not fair for African Americans (this can be supported by data easily).
The whole strategy of "oppress a population of people for 150 years then when you can't oppress them any longer, just pretend they don't exist instead" doesn't work and is a form of bigotry on to itself.
On November 02 2012 05:59 sevencck wrote: I think what the University is doing is morally OK, but they may need to rearrange the numbers. For example, perhaps more than the top 10% should have guaranteed admission based on academic excellence. I think they're right when they say that creating an environment where different cultures/races are represented is valuable at a university, but guaranteed admission based on academic merit should play a larger role than 10%.
In other words, academic excellence should be far better represented at a university than culture/race should be, but I'd argue both are important.
No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it.
that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal.
but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be
It works both ways. You could argue that Asians has an disproportional representation in the NBA because of cultural upbringing, genetics, etcetc. and thus they started on an non even playing field.
I wouldn't support AA in this environment where Asians are clearly disadvantaged due to upbringing or genetics because it would be awful if more qualified people got shafted and people have to watch inferior people playing. Same with employment and education where having the inferior candidate building our infrastructure, administrating us medicine, handling our portfolios just does not sit right with me.
They weren't shafted because they were inferior, they were given a privilege by their situation and grew up in a better place. If a black or hispanic grew up like that then they would be in the same situation. That's the point. It's a lot easier for whites and asians, and we need to help allievate te discrimination by giving more oppurtunities to blacks and hispanics.
Yes, blacks and hispanics are racially discriminated against, I have links/proof in previous posts. Yes whites or asians might be more qualified, but were a lot more privlidged, its not as easy as you think growing up being systematically discriminated against and being expected to fail from age 5 in elementary school because of your race.
What about access to sporting teams or is equal opportunity for all not applicable to all races.
It should be applicable to all races in any academic situation. Sports is irrelevant to future socioeconomic status of the individuals in question here. That's a fairly bad analogy.
Why consider race then? Why not just consider a persons socioeconomic background? Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote: Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
I don't see the relevance of this. The black kid is not going into a job or uni interview in a hoodie so this is completely irrelevant. All races have stereotypes, if I crashed my car into a white dude's who do you most people will think is at fault? Doesn't mean I should get preferences in education and employment.
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote: Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
On November 09 2012 02:05 oneofthem wrote: iq correlation with environmental and historical factors is well established. particularly early childhood stimulation
Adoption studies have shown childhood environment to have almost no effect on intelligence. IQ of a child is related to their biological parents, and almost completely unaffected by environment.
I recommend watching Brainwash Episode Two so you can learn more. It is a television series which exposes bad science done in the name of egalitarianism. Jump to 16:55 to see an interview where Plomin discusses what I mentioned.
On November 09 2012 02:05 oneofthem wrote: iq correlation with environmental and historical factors is well established. particularly early childhood stimulation
the counter argument is, people that are brought up in an environment more fostering to their intelligence are more likely to have intelligent parents. Genetics and IQ is well established, so it's possible these very real correlations are simply caused by the underlying genetic factors.
To go from "within the realm of possibility" to the contextual meaning of "possible" in this sentence is an enormous leap of reasoning. The quantity of evidence for environmental influence on brain function of all kinds is staggering. Everything from environmental enrichment studies to sociology, from fishes to mice to humans, take your pick.
That's a huge chasm to leap over to say, "Blacks are just fucking stupid, there's nothing to be done."
DNA markers associated with high versus low IQ: the IQ Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Project.
General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions.
On November 09 2012 10:30 dcemuser wrote: 1. There is a vast amount of data showing that racial differences are almost completely sociological.
I must admit I am a bit surprised anyone would make such an outrageously inaccurate claim. What you say is completely wrong. Sadly I have come to expect this level of ignorance from people who support racial discrimination against Asians and Whites.
Discoveries using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (.44) between brain size and IQ (see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for a review). And there is more. The National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 53,000 children by Sarah Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter at birth significantly predicts head perimeter at 7 years — and head perimeter at seven years predicts IQ. It also shows that Asian children average a larger head perimeter at birth than do White children who average a larger head perimeter than do Black children.
Racial differences in brain size have been established using a variety of modern methods. Using endocranial volume, for example, Beals et al. (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians averaged 1,415 cm3 , Europeans averaged 1,362 cm3, and Africans averaged 1,268 cm3 . Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets and found that Asian Americans averaged 1,416 cm3, European Americans 1,380 cm3, and African Americans 1,359 cm3. Finally, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (again see Rushton & Ankney, 1996, for review).
As discussed in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell Curve, and Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, the heritability of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption, twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the genetic contributions of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart. And most transracial adoption studies provide evidence for the heritability of racial differences in IQ. For instance, Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes were examined in studies by E.A. Clark and J. Hanisee, by M. Frydman and R. Lynn, and by M. Winick et al. Many had been hospitalized for malnutrition. But they went on to develop IQs ten or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study marked black/white differences emerged by age 17 even though the black children had been reared in white middle-class families (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992).
read the flynn effect. white cohorts show drastic iq increase by era. from that, you conclude either the environment, or the dna led to the effect. only one of which has changed significantly.
and next time don't keep this stuff saved up on your computer.
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote: Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
This. This is what pisses me off. We don't have flat tax rates, the more you earn the more tax you pay and that makes sense. You don't say "white people are more likely to be rich so we tax all white people slightly more" because that would be insanely stupid.
It's the same with AA. Although I personally believe when it comes to academics it should be based on test scores and nothing else if there is some kind of obligation from a public university to admit lesser qualified individuals purely because they are disadvantaged then, I guess, fine, but saying "most of the time that's a black person" and then giving them special treatment based on race is just wrong.
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote: Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
In a study published in 2003, sociologist Deirdre A. Royster compared black and white males who graduated from the same school with the same skills. In looking at their success with school-work transition and working experiences, she found that white graduates were more often employed in skilled trades, earned more, held higher status positions, received more promotions and experienced shorter periods of unemployment. Since all other factors were similar, the differences in employment experiences were attributed to race.
Discrimination based on wealth does solve most of the problems, but not all of them.
On November 09 2012 23:48 oneofthem wrote: read the flynn effect. white cohorts show drastic iq increase by era. from that, you conclude either the environment, or the dna led to the effect. only one of which has changed significantly.
and next time don't keep this stuff saved up on your computer.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). Editorial. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap. Intelligence, 38, 213-219.
In this Editorial we correct the false claim that g loadings and inbreeding depression scores correlate with the secular gains in IQ. This claim has been used to render the logic of heritable g a "red herring" and an "absurdity" as an explanation of Black–White differences because secular gains are environmental in origin. In point of fact, while g loadings and inbreeding depression scores on the 11 subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children correlate significantly positively with Black–White differences (0.61 and 0.48,Pb0.001), they correlate significantly negatively(or not at all) with the secular gains (meanr=-0.33,Pb0.001; and 0.13,ns, respectively). Moreover, heritabilities calculated from twins also correlate with the g loadings (r=0.99,Pb0.001 for the estimated true correlation), providing biological evidence for a true genetic g, as opposed to a mere statistical g.
On November 09 2012 16:39 Nightfall.589 wrote: Every single person is privileged in some areas, and disadvantaged in others, given his or her racial, ethnic, cultural background. And some of us end up with more disadvantages then others.
Since we don't seem to be too keen on getting rid of all disadvantages minorities suffer, affirmative action just evens the playing field.
Why should a rich privileged black kid from Orange county have an advantage when applying to colleges over some white kid who grew up in some LA slum, raised by a single mother, constantly in poverty, getting straight A's and working jobs after school to help care for his siblings?
Put that rich privileged black kid in a hoodie, and a Florida suburb, and watch him become 'suspicious.' Are you going to do anything about that kind of discrimination? If not, don't be so quick to rail against affirmative action - especially from a position of privilege.
That's neither here nor there. My point is discrimination based on wealth, and other factors, rather than discrimination based on race, would more efficiently address the problems you outlined. Not all black people grew up in the hood, and not all white people are privileged. You're saying its about social classes and then making it about race. It doesn't make sense.
In a study published in 2003, sociologist Deirdre A. Royster compared black and white males who graduated from the same school with the same skills. In looking at their success with school-work transition and working experiences, she found that white graduates were more often employed in skilled trades, earned more, held higher status positions, received more promotions and experienced shorter periods of unemployment. Since all other factors were similar, the differences in employment experiences were attributed to race.
Discrimination based on wealth does solve most of the problems, but not all of them.
The article you linked has no actual studies listed, and the author fails to realize that the concept of white privilege is applicable on a sociological scale, not an individual one. He makes a number of emotional appeals, but says really says nothing of substance. Hell, he outright says himself that you can't trust academia:
Put "white privilege" into a search engine and no small number of results will be for ".edu" URLs, which means that our mental institutions of higher learning are busy teaching "critical race theory" and ideas such as "Whites are taught not to recognize white privilege" and that, as this University of Dayton site informs, white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]"
If you think our universities can't be trusted to find truths about society, or that sociology isn't a science, then there's not much else to say is there?
@ReginaldRogers: It's funny that two of the pictures you use should raise a big question mark to your argument but apparently don't: One shows blacks in America having average IQ of 93 and the other shows that people from so called "black countries" having an average of just below 70. Do you seriously believe that this huge jump came from some biological effect (because of some mixed marriages or whatever)? Because it seems to be obvious that the nurture part plays a much bigger part in this. This makes sense as well since the IQ test was developed with a certain set of cognitive skills in mind that just might not be all that important in other societies (e.g. compare cramming Asian kids to kids from the countryside in Ghana). Btw do you believe men to be inherently smarter than women based on brain size (probably you do but I just wanted to be sure)? How do the studies you cite control for socioeconomic situations and do they try to control for institutional racism (that does not go away even after adoption), if so how?
On November 11 2012 22:02 Dracid wrote: The article you linked has no actual studies listed, and the author fails to realize that the concept of white privilege is applicable on a sociological scale, not an individual one. He makes a number of emotional appeals, but says really says nothing of substance. Hell, he outright says himself that you can't trust academia:
Put "white privilege" into a search engine and no small number of results will be for ".edu" URLs, which means that our mental institutions of higher learning are busy teaching "critical race theory" and ideas such as "Whites are taught not to recognize white privilege" and that, as this University of Dayton site informs, white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]"
If you think our universities can't be trusted to find truths about society, or that sociology isn't a science, then there's not much else to say is there?
The article I linked makes a sound logical argument. So sound you were unable to refute a single point made. The "article" you linked is an absurd collection of anti-White ramblings with no coherent argument. Here is some more reading for you:
Disparate Impact Realism
Moreover, blacks lag behind whites in actual on-the-job performance, which indicates that employers are not unfairly excluding minorities from the workforce but rather bending over backwards to include them.
"White privilege" is a disgusting lie. White people are the most discriminated against and poorly treated race in modern Western nations. You yourself are here right now defending racial discrimination against Whites. You are a shining example of the callous disregard people have for the human rights of White people.
You also failed to answer: What supposed problems can only be solved by racial discrimination against Whites and Asians?
On November 11 2012 22:12 silynxer wrote: @ReginaldRogers: It's funny that two of the pictures you use should raise a big question mark to your argument but apparently don't: One shows blacks in America having average IQ of 93 and the other shows that people from so called "black countries" having an average of just below 70. Do you seriously believe that this huge jump came from some biological effect (because of some mixed marriages or whatever)? Because it seems to be obvious that the nurture part plays a much bigger part in this. This makes sense as well since the IQ test was developed with a certain set of cognitive skills in mind that just might not be all that important in other societies (e.g. compare cramming Asian kids to kids from the countryside in Ghana). Btw do you believe men to be inherently smarter than women based on brain size (probably you do but I just wanted to be sure)? How do the studies you cite control for socioeconomic situations and do they try to control for institutional racism (that does not go away even after adoption), if so how?
One is a chart showing the average IQs of African blacks in their home countries. The other shows an averaged IQ of American black children in adopted families. There is no question mark when you understand the difference.
It is well known that American blacks have an average IQ ~85, one standard deviation below Whites. Their intelligence is above the IQ of African blacks--surprisingly, if you believe slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination somehow lowered the IQ of American blacks--partially due to improved environment and partially due to admixture with white DNA.
Furthermore you can see the children's IQs are all a fair bit above their racial average. Not all IQ scores are on exactly the same scale, and heritability of intelligence increases with age. Tested at 21 on the same scale as the Africans they would have approximately 85 IQ for Blacks and 100 for Whites.
Something interesting to note is the mixed black/white children score between the black and white children. This would be quite bizarre if the IQ difference were purely environmental. Mixed race children in the USA are culturally considered Black. Obama the first Black president is in fact mixed race himself. Of course it is readily explained and indeed quite obvious when viewed from the genetic perspective.
I was under the impression that UT dropped there admission point to top 7%. Too many people from the top 10 percent were making up their college campus. Source: my highschool teacher, so it may not be correct.
Wait, I remember this topic coming up a while ago, and some racist prick was repeatedly making an argument that essentially boiled down to black people are intellectually inferior to white people and asians, backed up by pages and pages of disreputable sources and pseudoscience.
And that's basically your argument isn't it? I'd be surprised if you aren't the same prick as before, and hell if I'm going to waste any more time arguing with your fucked up world views.
Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor. Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects. It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability: Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything. You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Professor-in-training here: I got a PhD a large state school (a great place, btw), and taught all the way through; now I'm a postdoctoral researcher at a small university on the east coast (full of the extremely wealthy), and have some experience with teaching and the students here.
The problem with affirmative action in college admissions, as applied quite often, is that a college spot isn't some goodie given out to the deserving, and by giving more of these goodies to blacks (or whoever) we can reverse historical impacts of racism.
Folks are admitted to college because the admissions board thinks that they are good enough to meet the academic standards of the university. The better the students, the better the courses can be; a first-year physics course at MIT is more rigorous than one at my large state school, which in turn is more rigorous than the snobby east coast place, just because as an instructor you do what you need to do for the students in front of you.
Admitting kids to the university for some reason other than academic merit means that we wind up with students in classes that hold everyone else back -- or that get left behind by instructors and flunk out. I've had these kids in my classes. In one case, someone from the astronomy department comes to me and says 'So, we've been wanting to give a scholarship to a member of XYZ minority ethnic group, but we couldn't find one that was anywhere near qualified. We finally found one, but it turns out he's not doing too well, and we've been getting various people to tutor him in his classes since we want this scholarship program for members of his group to succeed (and for us not to look like idiots). I'm the tutor for your class, and I've been a little worried since he's not showed me any of his grades. How is he doing?" I check, and the guy's not turned a thing in! So we have a little conference with the student's permission, and it turns out the student had barely done any work all semester, and had no clue about what was going on. (I hadn't picked up on this because I had my hands full with the students who were working hard and learning and always bashing down my office door and flooding my inbox with fantastic questions -- the TA was behind on grading, and we didn't have exams because of the nature of the course.)
I had another student from this guy's same ethnic group in a similar class. He wasn't there for any special reason based on his race; he was there because he convinced everyone he ought to be there, and was a great student.
In that same class I had a kid who was the son of a wealthy and well-connected guy who was the singularly dumbest kid I've ever encountered on a college classroom; there was no way he belonged there. So it goes both ways and isn't in any way a race thing (although it's often done for racial reasons, as here); admitting folks to university (or to programs within the university) for reasons other than merit is no fun for anyone. It's no fun for their instructors who have to figure out what to do with them; it's no fun for them as they get in over their heads, and either cheat (which happens way too often), flunk out (wasting their time), or get passed through by their instructors... and then get hired by someone after they graduate who realizes to their surprise that this guy they hired with a degree doesn't actually know anything.
If we want to throw money at closing the educational performance gap then the way to do it is to fix failing neighborhood schools -- I have some ideas about how to do that, having volunteered at both good and bad ghetto schools, but that's not the point -- so that on average the students of whatever racial group are more qualified to enter university. The way to do it is NOT to admit kids into university who shouldn't be there, and then give jobs to folks who aren't really qualified. That just further reinforces stereotypes of whatever the minority group is; I've been in work situations (at a NASA facility) where there are a bunch of folks of various "non-disadvantaged groups" around who are good at their jobs, and then there are the folks hired just to fill a racial-preference quota who everyone else just tries to shunt away to positions where they can play Minesweeper and not cause too much trouble.
Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term.
Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut
President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote: Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor. Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects. It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability: Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything. You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly.
Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important.
IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability.
If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote: Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term.
Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut
President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote: Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term.
Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut
President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
what? So what are credit card companies suppose to do, calculate black people's credit scores differently than white people's? This is ridiculous.
Sounds like a new recipe for the next mortgage crisis.
That is fucking scary considering how many ways it could be implemented. On the other hand it will be interesting to see the NBA teams sued due to their physical requirements that shun Asians. Maybe if one racial group is less likely to pass the physical examination for the army we can sue them as well.
On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote: Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor. Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects. It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability: Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything. You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly.
Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important.
IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability.
If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
First of all the cultural effects are very obvious at least if you believe the graphics of ReginaldRogers as I explained in the post above. A freaking 8 point gain just from being adopted into white middle class families, it does not get more obvious than that. Then there is also the fact that IQ averages have been steadily going up now, which can only be explained through culture in any meaningful way. This is no myth. So the cultural effects are exceedingly obvious even if I don't offer any quantitative explanation for them (which is very common for all kinds of phenomena, see gravity) and while I agree that we are bad at explaining differences in groups, if your point of view is going to discriminate whole continents then you better have a water tight case (not meaning you but speaking hypothetical). You will note that I never tried to prove that there is no genetic component to intelligence and only showed that the alleged "proof" was insufficient.
Our cultural privilege in this is that we may define what intelligence means and apparently we went for a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, that are rarely used outside of our academic institutions (yay reductionism that can make you feel superior!). As an example, I remember faintly some IQ test I once did where you had to cross out all the O's or something in jumble of letters. I wonder why people who seldomly read might fare worse in this test! I can only hope that in international tests they account for these glaring biases. Then there is the stuff that the whole test is on paper or something comparable like a computer, why oh why would people who are used from early age to these settings do better than kids who mainly help their family with the Yaks in Nepal? I'm quite certain that if you test people on cognitive skills they actually need, they will do generally better than people who don't need them. And I'm also quite certain that no matter how you live you need some cognitive skills but it might be that there is no good test for those skills with pen and paper.
It is not important that the test was invented by white people but that it was invented with the set of cognitive skills in mind that you need in our society which we then call intelligence (with the implication that anybody who doesn't have them is dumb).
[EDIT]: One little addition, I for one would be interested in some self referential measures like how good a person is at assessing his own biases because I think this is as close as we can come to a universal intelligence (but to make an interculturally comparable test looks again very difficult). It's quite an interesting field because there is stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect but then there are also effects where so called experts don't do better in predicting but are a great deal more sure about their predictions (the source can be found in Taleb's The Black Swan, which I unfortunately don't have flying around right now).
On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote: Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor. Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects. It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability: Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything. You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly.
Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important.
IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability.
If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
First of all the cultural effects are very obvious at least if you believe the graphics of ReginaldRogers as I explained in the post above. A freaking 8 point gain just from being adopted into white middle class families, it does not get more obvious than that. Then there is also the fact that IQ averages have been steadily going up now, which can only be explained through culture in any meaningful way. This is no myth. So the cultural effects are exceedingly obvious even if I don't offer any quantitative explanation for them (which is very common for all kinds of phenomena, see gravity) and while I agree that we are bad at explaining differences in groups, if your point of view is going to discriminate whole continents then you better have a water tight case (not meaning you but speaking hypothetical). You will note that I never tried to prove that there is no genetic component to intelligence and only showed that the alleged "proof" was insufficient.
Our cultural privilege in this is that we may define what intelligence means and apparently we went for a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, that are rarely used outside of our academic institutions (yay reductionism that can make you feel superior!). As an example, I remember faintly some IQ test I once did where you had to cross out all the O's or something in jumble of letters. I wonder why people who seldomly read might fare worse in this test! I can only hope that in international tests they account for these glaring biases. Then there is the stuff that the whole test is on paper or something comparable like a computer, why oh why would people who are used from early age to these settings do better than kids who mainly help their family with the Yaks in Nepal? I'm quite certain that if you test people on cognitive skills they actually need, they will do generally better than people who don't need them. And I'm also quite certain that no matter how you live you need some cognitive skills but it might be that there is no good test for those skills with pen and paper.
It is not important that the test was invented by white people but that it was invented with the set of cognitive skills in mind that you need in our society which we then call intelligence (with the implication that anybody who doesn't have them is dumb).
[EDIT]: One little addition, I for one would be interested in some self referential measures like how good a person is at assessing his own biases because I think this is as close as we can come to a universal intelligence (but to make an interculturally comparable test looks again very difficult). It's quite an interesting field because there is stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect but then there are also effects where so called experts don't do better in predicting but are a great deal more sure about their predictions (the source can be found in Taleb's The Black Swan, which I unfortunately don't have flying around right now).
please don't use your experience taking online IQ tests to make sweeping generalizations about IQ tests
so it is possible to see a divergence of intelligence between two populations. disparate impact automatically assumes that there is a problem with the standardized test if there is a disparity between minorities.
interesting to note that when people use race to demonstrate differences, people love to use the "there is no such thing as race" excuse. however, when using race to give them an advantage with job quotas and affirmative action, minorities have no problem with stratifying themselves according to race.
I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote: I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way.
if you were black, and 80% of the country were black, the college would not be able to afford to provide you with scholarship. on the other hand, if you were black (which means your parents and grandparents were black) you would probably be out in some ghetto right now.
i don't think race is the primary decider for grants.
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote: I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way.
First off the if I was black life would be easier argument is stupid to use for a variety of reasons. Second hundreds of thousands is quite the number. There are probably not even hundreds of thousands of minority students across all of the colleges. So by pulling that gynormously huge number out of your ass am I to assume that you're saying every minority student is taking a spot away from a better qualified non-minority? Cause thats the only way it would make sense.
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote: I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
Same way how abuse of power or corruption annoys some people despite the fact that it generally didn't effect them directly. It's the principle.
If you were a college student applying for hundreds of graduate programs with each program attracting a few hundreds applicants chances are AA has effected you in some minute way.
but a recognition of the irrationality of that resentment on the parts of whites etc should in itself be enough to dissuade one from participating in that resentment.
On November 13 2012 12:48 oneofthem wrote: but a recognition of the irrationality of that resentment on the parts of whites etc should in itself be enough to dissuade one from participating in that resentment.
It's irrational for Whites to resent racial discrimination against Whites?
Was it irrational when Blacks resented racial discrimination against Blacks?
Racial discrimination against minorities is codified into society. Even with AA policies in place, it's still objectively better to be white than black in America.
Nonsense. Racial discrimination happens in favor of minorities. (Asians excluded)
The idea there is some phantom "societal racism" is a fallacy based on the incorrect premise that in a non-racist society all races would have equal outcomes.
So prove it. Show me some studies that conclude that white people are disadvantaged in America. I'll start by showing you one where whites are still advantaged:
On November 13 2012 16:29 Huyugu wrote: Nonsense. Racial discrimination happens in favor of minorities. (Asians excluded)
The idea there is some phantom "societal racism" is a fallacy based on the incorrect premise that in a non-racist society all races would have equal outcomes.
Don't you find that hilarious though? AA is a policy meant to help minorities succeed, yet when one minority puts itself in a position to effectively utilize its advantage, it turns around and begins to work against that minority.
On November 13 2012 16:38 Dracid wrote: So prove it. Show me some studies that conclude that white people are disadvantaged in America. I'll start by showing you one where whites are still advantaged:
See, again you have jumped to a conclusion based on an incorrect premise. Races do not have exactly the same rate of crime.
When a judge passes sentence, he considers such things as previous convictions and characteristics of the crime. The gray bars in Figure 6 show what happens when criminal background is controlled. When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites, and Hispanic defendants are about half a percent more likely.
Why does controlling for these factors make a difference? Because among these defendants blacks were 37 percent more likely than whites to have a prior felony conviction and 58 percent more likely to have a prior conviction for a violent crime.
On November 13 2012 16:38 Dracid wrote: So prove it. Show me some studies that conclude that white people are disadvantaged in America. I'll start by showing you one where whites are still advantaged:
See, again you have jumped to a conclusion based on an incorrect premise. Races do not have exactly the same rate of crime.
When a judge passes sentence, he considers such things as previous convictions and characteristics of the crime. The gray bars in Figure 6 show what happens when criminal background is controlled. When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites, and Hispanic defendants are about half a percent more likely.
Why does controlling for these factors make a difference? Because among these defendants blacks were 37 percent more likely than whites to have a prior felony conviction and 58 percent more likely to have a prior conviction for a violent crime.
The New Century Foundation is nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund,[1][2][3] and has been described as a white supremacist group.[4]
He [Jared Taylor, founder of NCF] sees Japan as an exemplar of a racially homogenous society, and views Asians generally as genetically superior in intelligence to whites. He also view whites as genetically superior in intelligence to blacks.[5][6]
So we're back to the argument that black people are genetically inferior to white people. I'm sure you can make a great argument for that supported by mountains of sketchy sources, but I'm really not interested in having that argument and I'm starting to suspect that you're ReginaldRogers under yet another new account.
White supremacist? What a ridiculous ad hominem. The statistics are from the US government.
Interestingly I read the study linked in the article you provided. It doesn't prove what the article you linked claims it does. Your article is an outrageous lie. No wonder, it was written by a "guest blogger" on a trash website.
One important limitation of our work is that while we show that race appears to play a role in judicial decision-making, we cannot make statements about its optimality. That is, we can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination. It is theoretically possible that the heterogeneity in the racial gap in incarceration reflects favoritism by some judges towards African-American defendants.
As you can see from the Color of Crime graph, this bias is in favor of black defendants. When you control for criminal history there is favoritism towards Blacks. This is not surprising considering someone's life can be ruined over perceived racism.
On November 12 2012 00:05 silynxer wrote: Oh you are right I missed the "adopted" in the first picture which only makes a better argument for me since now you can see the direct effect of culture even more strongly. An effect of over 15 points (~8 points alone by being adopted into a white middle class family!). This is a huge effect, especially if you want to explain it by biology (lets be honest here, admixture is very limited and the time scale is extremely short, this "intelligence gene" would have to have some strange hereditary qualities to explain this huge difference). Probably a good time to apply Occam's razor. Obviously you said it's only explained in part by biology and that might even be right but it looks like any biological effect is miniscule compared to obviously cultural effects. It baffles me that in the face of these OBVIOUS cultural effects you discount other cultural effects that are not that obvious quite so easily.
And no you can believe that slavery and discrimination have an adverse effect on IQ without being surprised that blacks in America have a higher IQ than in African countries, it's not even a hard problem if you don't lack basic critical thinking ability: Black slaves or discriminated black people from today are confronted by the society that developed the IQ test (and like I said the test is directly related to what is deemed important in our society). It is obvious that they would fare better than their brethren in Africa for whom this set of cognitive skills is of less importance.
Saying "mixed race children are culturally considered black", doesn't make it true and I suspect the identity question for mixed children (together with the obvious statistical socioeconomic bias that is introduced by them being mixed children) is again a bit more complicated than your simplistic argument wants to make believe.
The last bit about the president is just hilarious and akin to me talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson as proof for anything. You could also argue that if Obama had been "blacker" he would not have become president simply because of racism...
Btw what about women? And you didn't answer how institutional (and other) discrimination is considered if at all.
[EDIT]: What's really astonishing when reading through these reports on brain size and intelligence that the concept of race is never discussed, especially when arguing about genetics. It's just taken to mean people from a certain continent.
Nobody thinks there is a single intelligence gene. Don't be silly.
Why do you find it important white people came up with IQ tests? East Asians outscore white people on them. IQ tests do not measure what we find important specific to our society. I don't even know where you would begin with things like that. Should it include driving tests? Driving is important.
IQ tests measure basic cognitive functions like pattern recognition, working memory, spatial reasoning, and so on. IQ tests are widely accepted as good measures of intelligence with decent predictive capability.
If these cultural effects are so obvious, would you care to quantify and precisely explain them? That is the problem. These cultural effects are a popular myth, just like much racism, and not soundly based on anything. The truth is we are awfully bad at explaining differences between groups of humans because the problem is so complicated and to a lesser extend ideological.
First of all the cultural effects are very obvious at least if you believe the graphics of ReginaldRogers as I explained in the post above. A freaking 8 point gain just from being adopted into white middle class families, it does not get more obvious than that. Then there is also the fact that IQ averages have been steadily going up now, which can only be explained through culture in any meaningful way. This is no myth. So the cultural effects are exceedingly obvious even if I don't offer any quantitative explanation for them (which is very common for all kinds of phenomena, see gravity) and while I agree that we are bad at explaining differences in groups, if your point of view is going to discriminate whole continents then you better have a water tight case (not meaning you but speaking hypothetical). You will note that I never tried to prove that there is no genetic component to intelligence and only showed that the alleged "proof" was insufficient.
Our cultural privilege in this is that we may define what intelligence means and apparently we went for a very narrow set of cognitive abilities, that are rarely used outside of our academic institutions (yay reductionism that can make you feel superior!). As an example, I remember faintly some IQ test I once did where you had to cross out all the O's or something in jumble of letters. I wonder why people who seldomly read might fare worse in this test! I can only hope that in international tests they account for these glaring biases. Then there is the stuff that the whole test is on paper or something comparable like a computer, why oh why would people who are used from early age to these settings do better than kids who mainly help their family with the Yaks in Nepal? I'm quite certain that if you test people on cognitive skills they actually need, they will do generally better than people who don't need them. And I'm also quite certain that no matter how you live you need some cognitive skills but it might be that there is no good test for those skills with pen and paper.
It is not important that the test was invented by white people but that it was invented with the set of cognitive skills in mind that you need in our society which we then call intelligence (with the implication that anybody who doesn't have them is dumb).
[EDIT]: One little addition, I for one would be interested in some self referential measures like how good a person is at assessing his own biases because I think this is as close as we can come to a universal intelligence (but to make an interculturally comparable test looks again very difficult). It's quite an interesting field because there is stuff like the Dunning-Kruger effect but then there are also effects where so called experts don't do better in predicting but are a great deal more sure about their predictions (the source can be found in Taleb's The Black Swan, which I unfortunately don't have flying around right now).
please don't use your experience taking online IQ tests to make sweeping generalizations about IQ tests
so it is possible to see a divergence of intelligence between two populations. disparate impact automatically assumes that there is a problem with the standardized test if there is a disparity between minorities.
interesting to note that when people use race to demonstrate differences, people love to use the "there is no such thing as race" excuse. however, when using race to give them an advantage with job quotas and affirmative action, minorities have no problem with stratifying themselves according to race.
I don't even doubt that intelligence is in part based on your genes and I would be interested in reading more than the abstract but I'm not going to pay for it. As far as I can the study has nothing to do with so called race unless they show that the variations are correlated to race (but I might be wrong here since I'm in no way an expert for genetics). What I wonder is how they measured intelligence. It's easy for you to say I shouldn't generalize my experience with IQ tests and you are free to show me how a proper IQ test is done. I will probably be able to explain why at least some part of this test is culturally biased. Btw it's interesting to note that you don't address the question of which cognitive skills should be called intelligence. And I really don't understand why you struggle with the idea that race is a culturally existing phenomena (e.g. blacks are treated different) but "black" is not a race in the biological sense.
And last, the OBVIOUS culturally existing problems with IQ tests and minorities (see above) are why I will always first try to explain the disparity between minorities in this way.
[EDIT]: Even if there should be a correlation between some race and IQ results in something like the study above they would need to control for the existing cultural influences (and I doubt anybody can do that properly). Because even if race has no biological influence on IQ their findings would be that there is a correlation because of systemic problems with said population groups. [BONUS EDIT]: A simple example: There are cultures who don't use relative directions. In turn they have the ability (a cognitive skill) to use their frame of reference (for example cardinal directions) even if they go into a dark windowless room and spin around. If you test for this skill you will find that they are awesome at it and pretty much everybody else sucks. Considering these tribes are usually isolated they will have some unique genetic variation, the correlation of this skill and this variation will be extremely high and yet we would be dumb to conclude anything about the genetic nature of that ability from this.
Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
Ad hominem only works as a fallacy if the person's character is irrelevant to the topic. In this case, you're citing studies from white supremacist groups, which is pretty damned relevant if you're going to talk about racial discrimination. The guy in charge believes that Asians are genetically superior to white people who are genetically superior to black people. They get most of their funding from the Pioneer Fund, which itself is a SPLC designated hate group and has more than a few connections with neo-nazis and other white supremacist groups. Fuck all of that.
Also, the study states that it's theoretically possible that the judges are biased towards black people, but uses an absurd example to demonstrate how it would be. They are simply stating the limitations of their research, but their findings that there exists a significant racial gap in incarceration gaps is still sound. Unless you're willing to make a conjecture as to what those "unobservable case characteristics" might be, I think it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't exist a racial gap in sentencing, and the existence of said gap should be proof enough of racial discrimination in our judicial system.
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
On November 13 2012 18:31 Dracid wrote: Ad hominem only works as a fallacy if the person's character is irrelevant to the topic. In this case, you're citing studies from white supremacist groups, which is pretty damned relevant if you're going to talk about racial discrimination. The guy in charge believes that Asians are genetically superior to white people who are genetically superior to black people. They get most of their funding from the Pioneer Fund, which itself is a SPLC designated hate group and has more than a few connections with neo-nazis and other white supremacist groups. Fuck all of that.
Also, the study states that it's theoretically possible that the judges are biased towards black people, but uses an absurd example to demonstrate how it would be. They are simply stating the limitations of their research, but their findings that there exists a significant racial gap in incarceration gaps is still sound. Unless you're willing to make a conjecture as to what those "unobservable case characteristics" might be, I think it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't exist a racial gap in sentencing, and the existence of said gap should be proof enough of racial discrimination in our judicial system.
No, ad hominem fallacy happens any time you try to use personal attacks to avoid addressing an argument. That is exactly what you are doing.
It's not even true that they are White supremacists. Color of Crime shows Asians are the most law abiding. Their stats are entirely from US government stats, are 100% true and verifiable. You resort to petty name calling because you cannot refute them.
The study states (as I quoted):
"[W]e can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination.
The article you linked outright lied and claimed it was evidence of discrimination against Blacks. The data shown in Color of Crime demonstrates that the discrimination is against white people.
"When their circumstances are the same, black defendants are slightly less likely to be sentenced to prison than whites.
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess.
But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it?
There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the analysis is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel.
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess.
But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it?
There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel.
Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents.
I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views.
You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot.
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess.
But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it?
There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel.
Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents.
I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views.
You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot (sc related pun there to lighten the mood).
Did you really read the study?
We find evidence of significant inter-judge disparity in the racial gap in incarceration rates, providing support for the model where at least some judges treat defendants differently based on their race. The magnitude of this effect is substantial.
So where's your explanation for why that racial gap occurs? The study has no explanation. That's outside the scope of their research, hence why they acknowledge that as a limitation. Fact is a gap exists, and the obvious explanation would be inherent biases within the judges. The study does nothing to prove that, but in the absence of a better explanation that's the one I'd go with.
Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power.
Taylor's decision to simply ignore these well-documented criminological findings is not his report's only flaw. Another major error — a cardinal sin in the science of statistics — is "selection bias." Although Taylor wants crime patterns to be explained by the mere presence of black people, only a contorted analysis based on a small subset of crime data is able to produce such "evidence."
He recently appeared at the National Press Club with three other "researchers" to hawk the idea that crime is highest among blacks worldwide, and that that is correlated to their allegedly smaller brains. (These ideas are roundly dismissed by mainstream researchers.)
Jared Taylor's a racist fucking whackjob. Citing him as a reliable source really shows your colors.
On November 13 2012 18:26 plogamer wrote: Stats relating to population almost always follow the Normal distribution in stats, for ex: body height - when genetic background are controlled for.
There is no reason to accept that Blacks are more likely to commit crimes if they live in the same society as Whites. Unless you believe that Blacks are genetically predisposed to committing crime; of course you'd have to find that gene and win a Nobel Prize by curing the world of 'crime'.
Slavery and then segregation have left huge scars that still plague the Black communities to this day. And that is my explanation for the higher crime rates. Segregation, though milder, still exists to this day.
"About four out of five rural offenders are white, and about one offender in eight is black. Three percent are Native Americans and one percent are Asian. In contrast, arrests in the suburbs and cities show a lower rate of white arrests - 21 percent (suburbs) and 32 percent (city), than black arrests - 78 percent (suburbs) and 66 percent (city)." Source
Note how the urban ghetto (ie. modern-day segregation) can be linked very strongly to crime rate. Otherwise, rural offense rate would be similar to urban rates. Ironic that there are white people so scared, I mean concerned, about black crime rate, most victims of black violence are other blacks. Source
ps. I am not entirely satisfied with my research. I want to find out percentages that controls out only for black, ie. crime rate in urban blacks versus rural blacks, rather than blanket population rate. If anyone can help in this thread, I would love to learn more; maybe change my notions as of now.
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with your "research", what you have linked is completely meaningless! All it shows is the arrests reflect the makeup of the population. And in China most arrests would be Chinese. It is meaningless other than who lives in that area.
"Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.
"In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman's terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area's violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."
To dismiss black crimes against whites so readily is quite disgusting of you, and proves my point about how deeply rooted in society discrimination and racism against whites has become. If whites committed crimes anywhere near the rate or category as blacks against whites you would be having candle light vigils, protests, marches, etc.
"... In fact, whereas blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003, the NCVS samples did not pick up a single "white"-on-black gang rape. Overall, blacks committed an average of 251,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against whites per year between 2001 and 2003, and "whites" committed 32,000, which means blacks were the perpetrators 89 percent of the time.
"... [O]f all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods, and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites."
Yeah, parroting one source, nice research yourself. I think I just happened upon a fanatic here. Nothing to see here I guess.
But what, if anything, is incorrect about any of it?
There's nothing wrong with the statistics, but the person doing the statistics is a known white supremacist meaning the conclusions drawn are biased. I haven't looked at any of your color of crime studies, because a quick glance at wikipedia reveals it all to be stormfront level white nationalist drivel.
Wow, you haven't looked at them and you argue against them anyways! I shouldn't be surprised, apparently you didn't even read the study your article was citing either. If you had, you would have seen the article was lying about the contents.
I suppose that is the difference between you and I. When I get linked contrary opinions (as you just linked me to) I read them fully. I even checked their sources and read them as well. Then I consider all available evidence when forming my views.
You do so little reading you didn't even check what you were linking people to. You're just a blind zealot (sc related pun there to lighten the mood).
Did you really read the study?
We find evidence of significant inter-judge disparity in the racial gap in incarceration rates, providing support for the model where at least some judges treat defendants differently based on their race. The magnitude of this effect is substantial.
So where's your explanation for why that racial gap occurs? The study has no explanation. That's outside the scope of their research, hence why they acknowledge that as a limitation. Fact is a gap exists, and the obvious explanation would be inherent biases within the judges. The study does nothing to prove that, but in the absence of a better explanation that's the one I'd go with.
Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power.
Taylor's decision to simply ignore these well-documented criminological findings is not his report's only flaw. Another major error — a cardinal sin in the science of statistics — is "selection bias." Although Taylor wants crime patterns to be explained by the mere presence of black people, only a contorted analysis based on a small subset of crime data is able to produce such "evidence."
He recently appeared at the National Press Club with three other "researchers" to hawk the idea that crime is highest among blacks worldwide, and that that is correlated to their allegedly smaller brains. (These ideas are roundly dismissed by mainstream researchers.)
Jared Taylor's a racist fucking whackjob. Citing him as a reliable source really shows your colors
The study says very, very, very clearly:
"[W]e can say that judges vary in their treatment of race, but not whether this is evidence of discrimination or reverse discrimination.
As for an explanation for why this discrimination exists, I can only speculate it is because of people like you who advocate racial discrimination against White people to bring about the same outcomes among people with different abilities. Or perhaps judges are afraid of losing their jobs over false accusations of racism, so they are more lax on the specially privileged minority groups.
As for your continued ad hominem, you linked to a smear against Color of Crime 1999. I am referencing Color of Crime 2005. I read the outdated SPLC (credible? haha) article anyways because I have an open mind, and found it of very little substance. They admit Color of Crime's data is correct, and make a few minor quibbles which don't apply to the 2005 Color of Crime I have been referencing.
Furthermore nothing it it addresses the sentencing bias against whites, which you incorrectly claimed was against blacks. To reiterate: you are just using the ad hominem fallacy, not addressing the argument.
at the end of the day, this girl had to make a very small sacrifice that could have had a real positive impact on someone's life.
what seems to be lost in all of this is that life is very rarely a zero sum proposition and rather than prove that she had legitimately been harmed Fisher demonstrated only that these programs do not substantially harm privileged groups when a larger perspective is taken.
I shared my story in this thread already; I lived what she did and I don't hold any bitterness. Why so many people who aren't personally touched by this issue feel the need to step in and argue that I should have received further privilege is beyond my comprehension.
On November 13 2012 07:41 Huyugu wrote: Looks like racist discrimination against whites is going to be ramped up for Obama's second term.
Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut
President Obama intends to close "persistent gaps" between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on "disparate impact" complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
what? So what are credit card companies suppose to do, calculate black people's credit scores differently than white people's? This is ridiculous.
Yes, actually. My mother is a teacher in the gifted/talented program in a city in Alabama. The gifted program is targeted at the top 2% of children, so the way they tested children was to get a professional psychometrist to give them an IQ test, and those that scored above 130 (the 98th percentile) were put into the program.
Someone said that there were too few blacks, some lawyers got involved, and then for a while they just gave black children +15 points on the IQ test (so IQ 115 was the cutoff for blacks and 130 for whites).
Now they've abandoned using IQ as a sole measure of giftedness (which is probably a good idea), but race still gets you points in their decision rubric.
Not only does Affirmative Action discriminate against people based purely on their membership to a certain race, class, gender, religion, and/or sexual orientation (and thus by definition is unconstitutional), but Affirmative Action doesn't even help the people it is intended to help.
On November 13 2012 11:47 antelope591 wrote: I don't think AA is as bad as people make it out to be. Racism is obviously still around...you can easily see it every day on the internet where people's true feelings come out due to anonymity. Sometimes its not implemented in the best of ways but think on this....AA affects millions of people every year but all we hear about is random negative stories like this one where one person was negatively "affected" by AA but then in the end came out OK anyway. So has AA really affected your life in any negative life changing manner? I think not. What we don't see stories about is thousands of people who got a chance with AA they might not have otherwise gotten. Maybe they would have succeeded without AA but either way the program has not affected the vast majority of the population in any meaningful negative way so to get so worked up about it seems pretty silly to me.
AA effects people every day. How are you suppose to know if you were effected by AA? Are you just going to call up every college that declined you and asked them if you would have been accepted if you were black? I know for a fact the University I'm attending would have given me a full ride if I was black, so in a sense AA is costing me thousands of dollars because of differences in how students are treated based purely on race. I can't stress enough, hundreds of thousands of people are effected by AA in some way.
First off the if I was black life would be easier argument is stupid to use for a variety of reasons. Second hundreds of thousands is quite the number. There are probably not even hundreds of thousands of minority students across all of the colleges. So by pulling that gynormously huge number out of your ass am I to assume that you're saying every minority student is taking a spot away from a better qualified non-minority? Cause thats the only way it would make sense.
okay, so you're countering by saying "my argument is stupid" yet you haven't addressed one simple fact. If I was black I would get more preferential scholarship treatment and I wouldn't be paying as much to go to college. However, because I'm not black, I am not granted as generous of a scholarship. Also, if I were black I would have better job offers, and therefore better pay, but because I'm not black I don't get this preferential treatment. How can you rationalize that as being an acceptable practice?
Secondly, I was referring to the hundreds of thousands of white and Asian students who get denied from their top choice, get discriminatory scholarship treatment, and get denied from jobs simply because the organization is forced to accept less qualified black individuals in their place.
My prediction is that the court will reject the "critical mass" theory it previously endorsed. I think they will not ban affirmative action outright but severely curtail its operation... I don't see them going on business as usual.
Can we say AA is just another example of collectivized nonsense without being racists yet? Or is it still too soon. . .that is to say the notion of AA is racist itself, and therefore morally dogshit.
This case just got sent back from the Supreme Court to a federal appeals court, link
By a 7-1 vote on Monday, the Supreme Court told an appeals court that it misinterpreted the justices' precedent when reviewing the University of Texas at Austin's affirmative action policy.
The decision is a provisional victory for Abigail Fisher, a white woman who claimed that UT-Austin unconstitutionally discriminated against her after the state's flagship university rejected her application in 2008 under its race-conscious admissions program. UT-Austin will now have a much more difficult job of proving its program constitutional under the standard the Supreme Court clarified on Monday.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, endorsed the Supreme Court's prior decisions establishing affirmative action as constitutional to further states' compelling interest in fostering a diverse student body. But the majority maintained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not give a hard enough look at UT-Austin's race-conscious admissions program.
"The University must prove that the means chosen by the University to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal. On this point, the University receives no deference," Kennedy wrote. "Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact."
The decision is basically a non-decision. The Court said that the lower courts failed to properly apply a strict scrutiny analysis and remanded the case to be reconsidered. This case will be back up to the Supreme Court in a few years. That said, the University is going to have a harder time justifying its policies now.
On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote: Meh, not what I had hoped for
What were you hoping for?
Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote: Meh, not what I had hoped for
What were you hoping for?
Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
Well, I understand why the Court sent it back. Making a decision based upon an incomplete or inadequate record is always a bad idea. It's an invitation to make bad law. On a more practical note, I promise you that there was some wheeling and dealing done in a back room to create this majority and this result.
On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote: Meh, not what I had hoped for
What were you hoping for?
Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
Well, I understand why the Court sent it back. Making a decision based upon an incomplete or inadequate record is always a bad idea. It's an invitation to make bad law. On a more practical note, I promise you that there was some wheeling and dealing done in a back room to create this majority and this result.
I mean I'm ok with the decision that they sent it back per se, I just don't like that the process of getting it back for the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter is going to take at least a few years. A few months or even a year I could understand because of the necessity of making sure the second time through the precedent is 100% solid and everything is considered, but there's still a lot of under-the-table, as you say, wheeling and dealing, to slow down (and maybe if one side is very unsatisfied, obstruct as much as they can) the passage of the decision.
On June 25 2013 00:22 Ghostcom wrote: Meh, not what I had hoped for
What were you hoping for?
Personally I'd've wanted the court to rule in favor of Fisher, but either decision is more favorable compared to the Supreme Court sending the decision back so they can diddle themselves some more. It's like Congress except you can't even vote these guys out of office.
This. Our government is a culture of lazy fucks who will do nothing.
Hell, even if it is right for justices to do this based on the spirit of what it is to be the SCOTUS (only apply your power when absolutely needed), it's frustrating to live in a country where your only hope for seeing the government actually getting shit done is SCOTUS, and then they don't rule on things.
No one in the government has any balls to do anything unless someone is getting a suit of armor made of money from corporations or security of other elected officers. No one stands for what they believe is right anymore. Sellouts.
On June 25 2013 03:27 Vestige wrote: No one in the government has any balls to do anything unless someone is getting a suit of armor made of money from corporations or security of other elected officers. No one stands for what they believe is right anymore. Sellouts.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
On November 02 2012 06:27 aRyuujin wrote: as a high schooler in Texas from the same city as Fisher, this case hits especially close to home. One problem that a lot of people don't recognize is the effects upon Asians, though. It's been proven multiple times that Asians have to do significantly better than white people, and vastly better than the equivalent black student, just to get in to college. If Fisher wins, I think i'll have a lot easier time getting admitted.
Have you ever been to UT campus? It's freaking Asian central over there..
That's why it's harder for Asians, they're over-represented in higher education as compared to their total representation in society. A huge % of Asian highschoolers make it to college, likely due to their cultural pressure for academic success. That is one major reason why racial quotas and AA is ridiculous- admission should be performance-based only.
Now, it is very apparent that socioeconomic upbringing is important to school performance, which is why the 10% rule works really well. Students only have to be in the top 10% at their OWN school, not 10% for all highschoolers. It wouldn't be fair for students at a socioeconomically disadvantaged school to compete with students from a rich school.
I hate affirmative action. Luckily I don't have to deal with college admissions again. I gotta feel bad for the poor white kids though. They don't get just the tip here, they get a massive shaft too.
Clearly the way to deal with a history of discrimination is to just flip it around so now its unfair in the opposite manner.
The worst part of all this forced diversity though in my opinion is international students. Yeah, lets promote diversity and cut down discrimination in our country by letting someone from another country spend 4-8 years here then leave once they've got what they came for.
As someone who is about to enter his final semester as an engineering undergrad I can safely say that having groups of different minorities speaking their own language to each other in no way improved the quality of my education.
Not all Asians, while the various South-Asians and North East Asians do quite well for themselves in university admissions, South East Asians lag behind, some even below white people level. The most logical way to deal with affirmative action is to make it based on socio-economic factors and not just on race. When I went to law school the contrast between some of my black classmates (Penn or Morehouse graduates from upper class families) with others (state schools, clearly taking out massive loans) was stark
On June 25 2013 04:18 Greggle wrote: I hate affirmative action. Luckily I don't have to deal with college admissions again. I gotta feel bad for the poor white kids though. They don't get just the tip here, they get a massive shaft too.
Clearly the way to deal with a history of discrimination is to just flip it around so now its unfair in the opposite manner.
The worst part of all this forced diversity though in my opinion is international students. Yeah, lets promote diversity and cut down discrimination in our country by letting someone from another country spend 4-8 years here then leave once they've got what they came for.
As someone who is about to enter his final semester as an engineering undergrad I can safely say that having groups of different minorities speaking their own language to each other in no way improved the quality of my education.
1) International students pay higher tuition, so chances are they are subsiding other students 2) I am sure that most international students would gladly stay in the good old US of A but are kept out by a poorly designed immigration system.
On June 25 2013 04:18 Greggle wrote: I hate affirmative action. Luckily I don't have to deal with college admissions again. I gotta feel bad for the poor white kids though. They don't get just the tip here, they get a massive shaft too.
Clearly the way to deal with a history of discrimination is to just flip it around so now its unfair in the opposite manner.
The worst part of all this forced diversity though in my opinion is international students. Yeah, lets promote diversity and cut down discrimination in our country by letting someone from another country spend 4-8 years here then leave once they've got what they came for.
As someone who is about to enter his final semester as an engineering undergrad I can safely say that having groups of different minorities speaking their own language to each other in no way improved the quality of my education.
1) International students pay higher tuition, so chances are they are subsiding other students 2) I am sure 100% sure that most international students would gladly stay in the good old US of A but are kept out by a poorly designed immigration system.
1) I'm well aware of this and it is a load of bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of American students that would be happy to pay a bit more for the ability to actually get in over an international student who got in through financial incentives and affirmative action.
2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
On June 25 2013 04:18 Greggle wrote: I hate affirmative action. Luckily I don't have to deal with college admissions again. I gotta feel bad for the poor white kids though. They don't get just the tip here, they get a massive shaft too.
Clearly the way to deal with a history of discrimination is to just flip it around so now its unfair in the opposite manner.
The worst part of all this forced diversity though in my opinion is international students. Yeah, lets promote diversity and cut down discrimination in our country by letting someone from another country spend 4-8 years here then leave once they've got what they came for.
As someone who is about to enter his final semester as an engineering undergrad I can safely say that having groups of different minorities speaking their own language to each other in no way improved the quality of my education.
1) International students pay higher tuition, so chances are they are subsiding other students 2) I am sure 100% sure that most international students would gladly stay in the good old US of A but are kept out by a poorly designed immigration system.
1) I'm well aware of this and it is a load of bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of American students that would be happy to pay a bit more for the ability to actually get in over an international student who got in through financial incentives and affirmative action.
2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
There is no affirmative action for international students. And obviously most Americans simply cant compete intellectually with foreigners in top science and engineering programs, which is why so many foreigners are there in the first place, which is why your government and your big corporations are pissing and moning about how there arent enough engineers and scientists in the first place
There may not be any legal affirmative action, but there is a common desire among universities to force diversity and promote themselves internationally by admitting foreign students. There are of course plenty of them who are better in many regards, but after spending nearly 4 years with them I can honestly say there are plenty of international students at the rock bottom of my class, and the few white people around have at least as many representatives towards the top as they do the bottom.
Saying most Americans can't compete is a pretty stupid generalization. The problem isn't any latent lack of ability. It's a stupid culture here that promotes doing whatever the hell you want with your college experience. Internationals have a much better sense of which degrees are worth monetary investment. Plenty of American students just switch to easier majors that don't offer tangible benefits to themselves or society because there is very little pressure here to get a return on your investment.
On June 25 2013 04:18 Greggle wrote: I hate affirmative action. Luckily I don't have to deal with college admissions again. I gotta feel bad for the poor white kids though. They don't get just the tip here, they get a massive shaft too.
Clearly the way to deal with a history of discrimination is to just flip it around so now its unfair in the opposite manner.
The worst part of all this forced diversity though in my opinion is international students. Yeah, lets promote diversity and cut down discrimination in our country by letting someone from another country spend 4-8 years here then leave once they've got what they came for.
As someone who is about to enter his final semester as an engineering undergrad I can safely say that having groups of different minorities speaking their own language to each other in no way improved the quality of my education.
1) International students pay higher tuition, so chances are they are subsiding other students 2) I am sure 100% sure that most international students would gladly stay in the good old US of A but are kept out by a poorly designed immigration system.
1) I'm well aware of this and it is a load of bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of American students that would be happy to pay a bit more for the ability to actually get in over an international student who got in through financial incentives and affirmative action.
2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
There is no affirmative action for international students. And obviously most Americans simply cant compete intellectually with foreigners in top science and engineering programs, which is why so many foreigners are there in the first place, which is why your government and your big corporations are pissing and moning about how there arent enough engineers and scientists in the first place
This is stated over and over again but the numbers don't back it up. There is high unemployment amongst stem majors as well and its just bullshit companies tout so they can pay a foreigner less money. There are qualified Americans, lots in fact.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
Most places require that you're linked to an official NA tribe/organization, and that in turn requires you to have some kind of evidence to be a part of the tribe/organization.
For instance, it is well-accepted on my dad's side of the family that we are part Cherokee and that is why my paternal grandmother is dark as can be and looks like you plucked her right off a reservation. That said, we have little to no family records going past her parents (my great-grandparents), so we can't give any Cherokee tribes the evidence they require to be a part of the organization. Top that off with the fact that I look like a quintessential German (which is most of my heritage) and I can't put down that I'm Native American for any type of application for race-related scholarships/admissions/etc.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
Most places require that you're linked to an official NA tribe/organization, and that in turn requires you to have some kind of evidence to be a part of the tribe/organization.
For instance, it is well-accepted on my dad's side of the family that we are part Cherokee and that is why my paternal grandmother is dark as can be and looks like you plucked her right off a reservation. That said, we have little to no family records going past her parents (my great-grandparents), so we can't give any Cherokee tribes the evidence they require to be a part of the organization. Top that off with the fact that I look like a quintessential German (which is most of my heritage) and I can't put down that I'm Native American for any type of application for race-related scholarships/admissions/etc.
I was talking about African-American (and I guess Latino) ancestry. I don't know how they do it with Native American ancestry, so no comment on that.
Must be nice to be on the Supreme Court. You're allowed to push a ruling back, make no ruling and turn it back to the States, and no one can ever fire you.
On June 25 2013 04:41 Greggle wrote: 2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
Only to really make the analogy, the 2 or 7 or 100 people are not only eating but also making the pizzas. 100 people can make way more than just 7, so amount of pizza per person stays about the same, perhaps slightly increases due to economies of scale.
On June 25 2013 04:41 Greggle wrote: 2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
Only to really make the analogy, the 2 or 7 or 100 people are not only eating but also making the pizzas. 100 people can make way more than just 7, so amount of pizza per person stays about the same, perhaps slightly increases due to economies of scale.
I think all analogies break down at some point, but if you want to talk economics then lets bring in diminishing marginal returns. Adding more and more chefs to the kitchen will only produce more pizzas until a certain point where the production actually decreases.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
Yeah, that's the reason. Don't be ignorant please. Most of the spending is wasted because curriculum and lesson planning are terribly implemented. The problem lies not with the students (seriously what kind of dumb logic is that?) but how "solutions" are implemented.
But cool, let's throw money at the situation and blame the students when they're given tools but no instruction.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
Yeah, that's the reason. Don't be ignorant please. Most of the spending is wasted because curriculum and lesson planning are terribly implemented. The problem lies not with the students (seriously what kind of dumb logic is that?) but how "solutions" are implemented.
But cool, let's throw money at the situation and blame the students when they're given tools but no instruction.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
Most places require that you're linked to an official NA tribe/organization, and that in turn requires you to have some kind of evidence to be a part of the tribe/organization.
For instance, it is well-accepted on my dad's side of the family that we are part Cherokee and that is why my paternal grandmother is dark as can be and looks like you plucked her right off a reservation. That said, we have little to no family records going past her parents (my great-grandparents), so we can't give any Cherokee tribes the evidence they require to be a part of the organization. Top that off with the fact that I look like a quintessential German (which is most of my heritage) and I can't put down that I'm Native American for any type of application for race-related scholarships/admissions/etc.
I was talking about African-American (and I guess Latino) ancestry. I don't know how they do it with Native American ancestry, so no comment on that.
My bad, misread your post.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
Yea, forgive us if we don't believe some 2-post forum lurker that presents zero proof and then claims that it's solely based on "student potential" (implying that black students don't have as much potential as whites, which is an inherently racist claim). If you want us to believe you and take your racist-at-face-value claims seriously, give us some hard evidence.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
Yeah, that's the reason. Don't be ignorant please. Most of the spending is wasted because curriculum and lesson planning are terribly implemented. The problem lies not with the students (seriously what kind of dumb logic is that?) but how "solutions" are implemented.
But cool, let's throw money at the situation and blame the students when they're given tools but no instruction.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
You are ignorant as hell if you think potential is what's keeping people from failing out of high school. Instruction? You honestly think that single version instruction is suitable for every student each with a different learning style? You aren't asking people to build the space shuttle, you are asking them to graduate high school, so calm down with potential.
For example, in an attempt to incorporate technology into their course work, schools have gone to the "use a computer" to do assignments to educate students on the use of computers since you can't be competitive in the job market if you don't have computer skills. Yet, somehow they expect the same students who probably can't afford a computer to be able to afford things like internet access on top of not having computers in schools that are easily accessible. So how the hell do you expect the students are you suppose to be helping to finish the assignment away from the classroom?
Also, please stop talking out of your ass, you clearly have done 0 research on the topic, and just spitting BS based on how you feel. That funding gap myth was disproved only exposed how stupidly terrible the American public education system was on handling issues. It's not (always) the amount of money being spent, but it was how it was being spent.
Edit:
How do I know all of this? I work in a federally funded program on a college campus that helps first generation/under represented students, helping someone put together their literature for their thesis regarding retainment among groups of students, and actually sit in on meetings regarding these topics.
I keep losing more and more respect for SCOTUS. Can't remember the last supreme court decision I actually agreed with. Even the decisions I agreed with, I hated the rationale given. And all these huge policies determined 5-4, seems so flimsy and arbitrary.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
Most places require that you're linked to an official NA tribe/organization, and that in turn requires you to have some kind of evidence to be a part of the tribe/organization.
For instance, it is well-accepted on my dad's side of the family that we are part Cherokee and that is why my paternal grandmother is dark as can be and looks like you plucked her right off a reservation. That said, we have little to no family records going past her parents (my great-grandparents), so we can't give any Cherokee tribes the evidence they require to be a part of the organization. Top that off with the fact that I look like a quintessential German (which is most of my heritage) and I can't put down that I'm Native American for any type of application for race-related scholarships/admissions/etc.
I was talking about African-American (and I guess Latino) ancestry. I don't know how they do it with Native American ancestry, so no comment on that.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
Yea, forgive us if we don't believe some 2-post forum lurker that presents zero proof and then claims that it's solely based on "student potential" (implying that black students don't have as much potential as whites, which is an inherently racist claim). If you want us to believe you and take your racist-at-face-value claims seriously, give us some hard evidence.
"Those sibling differences [in IQ] are due mostly to the genetic differences among siblings, because their genotypes correlate only 0.5 on average... [The exceptions are identical twins. Their IQ's are much more similar because their genomes are the same.] Large IQ differences among siblings in turn produce large differences among them in school achievement and life outcomes. Those differences, in fact, are almost as large as those found between strangers whose IQs differ to the same degree."
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
Yeah, that's the reason. Don't be ignorant please. Most of the spending is wasted because curriculum and lesson planning are terribly implemented. The problem lies not with the students (seriously what kind of dumb logic is that?) but how "solutions" are implemented.
But cool, let's throw money at the situation and blame the students when they're given tools but no instruction.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
You are ignorant as hell if you think potential is what's keeping people from failing out of high school. Instruction? You honestly think that single version instruction is suitable for every student each with a different learning style? You aren't asking people to build the space shuttle, you are asking them to graduate high school, so calm down with potential.
For example, in an attempt to incorporate technology into their course work, schools have gone to the "use a computer" to do assignments to educate students on the use of computers since you can't be competitive in the job market if you don't have computer skills. Yet, somehow they expect the same students who probably can't afford a computer to be able to afford things like internet access on top of not having computers in schools that are easily accessible. So how the hell do you expect the students are you suppose to be helping to finish the assignment away from the classroom?
Also, please stop talking out of your ass, you clearly have done 0 research on the topic, and just spitting BS based on how you feel. That funding gap myth was disproved only exposed how stupidly terrible the American public education system was on handling issues. It's not (always) the amount of money being spent, but it was how it was being spent.
Edit:
How do I know all of this? I work in a federally funded program on a college campus that helps first generation/under represented students, helping someone put together their literature for their thesis regarding retainment among groups of students, and actually sit in on meetings regarding these topics.
"How do [you] explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes?
"How do [you] explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black-White achievement gap by a third?
"Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results."
A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic.
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic.
"Is discrimination on the basis of race justified or beneficial for society?"
Doesn't sound like a valid question to me. The answer is "no".
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic.
I wouldn't blame people for thinking that it's bullshit that they were denied entry to a school or a job simply because they have the wrong skin color. It really isn't better than when whites universally discriminated against other races in scholastic admissions and employment. The only difference is the reason for the policy. Affirmative action exists to make up for a historical wrong, and nothing more. This "good intention" doesn't change the fact that it is a rather shitty policy for those who get screwed by it.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
I can't say that I buy the funding argument, at least not in MA. One of the best education systems in the world too, according to TIMSS (for example). Here social issues seem to be the bigger challenge.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
I can't say that I buy the funding argument, at least not in MA. One of the best education systems in the world too, according to TIMSS (for example). Here social issues seem to be the bigger challenge.
It's not as much as social issues, but how the education system sometimes make 0 fucking sense.
@Bugser Did you actually read that pretty awful article? It refused to cite the stuff you posted despite citing everything else. Then using African studies where education is probably not that high on the priorities list all the time. Then on top of suggesting from limited studies that there's an 80-20 split. It doesn't look at the methods of any of the studies and assumes they're well designed studies. I have no clue how robust the social sciences statistics are, but it seems to be especially loose in that article which makes me question how the hell anyone can draw any kind of conclusions from what they're looking at.
- Strict scrutiny is the standard of review (most difficult standard for govt to show validity of law) - Race may be used as a factor (per precedent), but it may not be a quota or ratio, and it must meet strict scrutiny in both practice and implementation - The 5th Cir. Ct. App. erred in its decision by "deferring" to the University's expertise and good faith, when it should have required a strict scrutiny analysis - The Court may be hinting that it is open to striking down Grutter, but it needs a petitioner who actually asks the right questions
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT POINT: Many (many!) media outlets have reported that the Court "punted" on affirmative action by vacating the 5th Cir. opinion and remanding this case. This shows a lack of understanding on behalf of the media. The Supreme Court will almost always rule as narrowly as possible - if they can avoid a broad constitutional issue and strike at a technical one, they will do it. In this case, the standard of review was incorrect, and that gave the Court the narrow decision it typically looks for.
The "case" at hand is actually the result of cross-motions for summary judgment - that is to say, both parties told the district court that the other side 'has no case' and is substantially unlikely to prevail at trial. The district court agreed with the University of Texas, e.g. the defendant (district court), e.g. the respondent (Supreme Court), and dismissed the plaintiff's (Fisher) case. This case has never gone to trial on the merits.
The result of the remand is that a lower court will now be obliged to rule on the facts of the case and make a determination based on the standard articulated in the Supreme Court's opinion - a standard of strict scrutiny. Let me be very clear: strict scrutiny is an incredibly difficult standard for the government to meet.
Grutter made clear that racial “classifications are consti- tutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further com- pelling governmental interests.” 539 U. S., at 326. And Grutter endorsed Justice Powell’s conclusion in Bakke that “the attainment of a diverse student body . . . is a consti- tutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education.” 438 U.S., at 311–312 (separate opinion). Thus, under Grutter, strict scrutiny must be applied to any admissions program using racial categories or classifications.
pg 10
Narrow tailoring also requires that the reviewing court verify that it is “necessary” for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. Bakke, supra, at 305. This involves a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications. Although “[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative,” strict scrutiny does require a court to examine with care, and not defer to, a university’s “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”
pg 11
The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the edu- cational benefits of diversity. If “‘a nonracial approach . . . could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense,’” Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6 (1986) (quoting Greenawalt, Judicial Scrutiny of “Benign” Racial Prefer- ence in Law School Admissions, 75 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 578–579 (1975)), then the university may not consider race.
pg 11
Rather than perform this searching examination, how- ever, the Court of Appeals held petitioner could challenge only “whether [the University’s] decision to reintroduce race as a factor in admissions was made in good faith.” 631 F. 3d, at 236. And in considering such a challenge, the court would “presume the University acted in good faith” and place on petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption. Id., at 231–232. The Court of Appeals held that to “second-guess the merits” of this aspect of the University’s decision was a task it was “ill-equipped to perform” and that it would attempt only to “ensure that [the University’s] decision to adopt a race-conscious ad- missions policy followed from [a process of] good faith consideration.” Id., at 231. The Court of Appeals thus concluded that “the narrow-tailoring inquiry—like the compelling-interest inquiry—is undertaken with a degree of deference to the Universit[y].” Id., at 232. Because “the efforts of the University have been studied, serious, and of high purpose,” the Court of Appeals held that the use of race in the admissions program fell within “a constitution- ally protected zone of discretion.” Id., at 231.
pg 12
In Grutter, the Court approved the plan at issue upon concluding that it was not a quota, was sufficiently flexible, was limited in time, and followed “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” 539 U. S., at 339. As noted above, see supra, at 1, the parties do not challenge, and the Court therefore does not consider, the correctness of that determination. (emphasis added)
pg 12
The District Court and Court of Appeals confined the strict scrutiny inquiry in too narrow a way by deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifica- tions and affirming the grant of summary judgment on that basis. The Court vacates that judgment, but fairness to the litigants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a correct analysis. See Adarand, supra, at 237. Unlike Grutter, which was decided after trial, this case arises from cross-motions for sum- mary judgment. In this case, as in similar cases, in de- termining whether summary judgment in favor of the University would be appropriate, the Court of Appeals must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence that would prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity. (emphasis added) Whether this record—and not “simple . . . as- surances of good intention,” Croson, supra, at 500—is sufficient is a question for the Court of Appeals in the first instance.
pg 13
Strict scrutiny must not be “ ‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact,’” Adarand, supra, at 237; see also Grutter, supra, at 326. But the opposite is also true. Strict scrutiny must not be strict in theory but feeble in fact. In order for judi- cial review to be meaningful, a university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that “encompasses a . . . broa[d] array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though im- portant element.” Bakke, 438 U. S., at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is va- cated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic.
I wouldn't blame people for thinking that it's bullshit that they were denied entry to a school or a job simply because they have the wrong skin color. It really isn't better than when whites universally discriminated against other races in scholastic admissions and employment. The only difference is the reason for the policy. Affirmative action exists to make up for a historical wrong, and nothing more. This "good intention" doesn't change the fact that it is a rather shitty policy for those who get screwed by it.
This isn't true... Affirmative action exists to also have a representative sample of an area.
On June 25 2013 03:52 Mauldo wrote: I was really wishing that they would at least curtail/mitigate the use of affirmative action when it comes college admittance. :/ I grew up in a very poor town in Arkansas, and I was the only one out of all of my (rather smart, actually) friends to get a scholarship and manage to attend the University of Arkansas on a full ride. The others, though they had stellar GPAs and test scores, were looked over because I had nabbed one of the five "white" scholarships for my region. The scholarship office lady told my best friend's mother, point blank, "Unless you have some Native or African American ancestry you can claim, I can't help you."
These are POOR AS FUCK people in Arkansas trying to get a degree and get ourselves out of the abject poverty that was our trailer park lives, and I was the only one who managed it without $100,000 in student loan debt.
I was hoping beyond hope that the Supreme Court would take a stance that would limit events such as the above and force scholarships to take into account purely academic and economic circumstances, but alas, they bought themselves a few years on a technicality. Too busy allowing companies with monopolistic power to protect themselves from lawsuits using mitigation clauses in their monopoly-powered contracts, apparently (I'm looking at you, AMEX decision).
Afaik they can't dispute it if you claim to have African-American ancestry, so you can say you do and suddenly you are in a much better place in terms of scholarships and admissions.
Most places require that you're linked to an official NA tribe/organization, and that in turn requires you to have some kind of evidence to be a part of the tribe/organization.
For instance, it is well-accepted on my dad's side of the family that we are part Cherokee and that is why my paternal grandmother is dark as can be and looks like you plucked her right off a reservation. That said, we have little to no family records going past her parents (my great-grandparents), so we can't give any Cherokee tribes the evidence they require to be a part of the organization. Top that off with the fact that I look like a quintessential German (which is most of my heritage) and I can't put down that I'm Native American for any type of application for race-related scholarships/admissions/etc.
I was talking about African-American (and I guess Latino) ancestry. I don't know how they do it with Native American ancestry, so no comment on that.
My bad, misread your post.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
Yea, forgive us if we don't believe some 2-post forum lurker that presents zero proof and then claims that it's solely based on "student potential" (implying that black students don't have as much potential as whites, which is an inherently racist claim). If you want us to believe you and take your racist-at-face-value claims seriously, give us some hard evidence.
"Those sibling differences [in IQ] are due mostly to the genetic differences among siblings, because their genotypes correlate only 0.5 on average... [The exceptions are identical twins. Their IQ's are much more similar because their genomes are the same.] Large IQ differences among siblings in turn produce large differences among them in school achievement and life outcomes. Those differences, in fact, are almost as large as those found between strangers whose IQs differ to the same degree."
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
Yeah, that's the reason. Don't be ignorant please. Most of the spending is wasted because curriculum and lesson planning are terribly implemented. The problem lies not with the students (seriously what kind of dumb logic is that?) but how "solutions" are implemented.
But cool, let's throw money at the situation and blame the students when they're given tools but no instruction.
They are given instruction. That is what the school is for.
The problem is that different people have different potential. It is foolish (albeit heartwarming) to pretend that everyone can do anything if only they get enough love, hugs, guidance, and money.
You are ignorant as hell if you think potential is what's keeping people from failing out of high school. Instruction? You honestly think that single version instruction is suitable for every student each with a different learning style? You aren't asking people to build the space shuttle, you are asking them to graduate high school, so calm down with potential.
For example, in an attempt to incorporate technology into their course work, schools have gone to the "use a computer" to do assignments to educate students on the use of computers since you can't be competitive in the job market if you don't have computer skills. Yet, somehow they expect the same students who probably can't afford a computer to be able to afford things like internet access on top of not having computers in schools that are easily accessible. So how the hell do you expect the students are you suppose to be helping to finish the assignment away from the classroom?
Also, please stop talking out of your ass, you clearly have done 0 research on the topic, and just spitting BS based on how you feel. That funding gap myth was disproved only exposed how stupidly terrible the American public education system was on handling issues. It's not (always) the amount of money being spent, but it was how it was being spent.
Edit:
How do I know all of this? I work in a federally funded program on a college campus that helps first generation/under represented students, helping someone put together their literature for their thesis regarding retainment among groups of students, and actually sit in on meetings regarding these topics.
"How do [you] explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes?
"How do [you] explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black-White achievement gap by a third?
"Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results."
wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. There are plenty of geniuses from any given race, just like there are plenty of idiots of any given race.
There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be?
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be?
It is however, one of the best possible defining signals that one can go off of, and at the same time is probably the most economically feasible. You expect a one on one interview with each applicant or something?
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be?
That's why there's a whole bunch of other requirements when filling out a college application. The personal statement/essay, recommendations, SAT scores, etc. I know that if I were to have applied with only my grades as proof of my intelligence, I'd have been denied from almost every school I apped to.
anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. There are plenty of geniuses from any given race, just like there are plenty of idiots of any given race.
There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Well, this is only anecdotal data, but I think it's somewhat relevant. I TA'd for four years in the College of Engineering @ UC Berkeley, arguably the top engineering university in the world (well, right up there with MIT & CalTech at least), and of the few hundred students we accepted each year, I'd at least (visually) see about 90% of them.
In those 4 years and thousands of the brightest students in the world, I met exactly one black kid - he actually was in my class - and he flunked out after the first semester.
Logically, I recognize that there may be outliers for any sample of data, and maybe I was just (un)lucky enough to never have met a black genius, but the school would have been much poorer if there were a quota of the number of blacks required to be admitted. Why should standards be lowered for a specific race, just because they tend to perform poorly? The baskets in NBA games don't get lowered automatically when an Asian is in possession of the ball, and the 100 meter dash doesn't get shortened to 95 meters for white competitors. Why is school so different?
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be?
The impossibility of perfection is no excuse for awfulness. The current system is literally whoever can bullshit the best wins.
Part of the problem is that, especially for Liberal Arts, there is no way to differentiate yourself. You are forced to participate in useless activities like Model U.N. and Student Council to beef up your resume. Who cares if you're read every Faulkner book? The school can't fail everyone who can barely stagger through To Kill a Mockingbird to make you look comparatively better.
On June 25 2013 08:10 harlock78 wrote: A lot of the crying about affirmative action I am reading sounds like balance whine in gold league. If you were good enough, you would get into the university you wish. The world is quite unfair, for most people, and being bitter about it won't help you. Now whether or not affirmative action is justified or beneficial for society is a valid question. The answer would differ depending on the country, how it deals with inequalities of life chances, and how society is structured. But personal resentment is quite pathetic.
I wouldn't blame people for thinking that it's bullshit that they were denied entry to a school or a job simply because they have the wrong skin color. It really isn't better than when whites universally discriminated against other races in scholastic admissions and employment. The only difference is the reason for the policy. Affirmative action exists to make up for a historical wrong, and nothing more. This "good intention" doesn't change the fact that it is a rather shitty policy for those who get screwed by it.
This isn't true... Affirmative action exists to also have a representative sample of an area.
No, that's the more recent cop out (more accurately, the cop out is that affirmative action exists for the sake of ensuring diversity -- not even representative diversity -- in an academic environment). Affirmative action started as a social justice tool and continues to exist as a social justice tool.
EDIT: What I am saying isn't any big secret. Anyone who has a graduate education or has otherwise spent a lot of time with the smug assholes running higher academia know all of this to be self-evident. They brag about it openly. They think that they are doing something good, so they go out of their way to pat each other on the back. It's really sick.
On June 25 2013 09:37 Jerubaal wrote: It's easy to look at this as strictly a racial issue, but really it points to the horribleness of the college admission process. Admission should be based on academic merit and dedication, not who can concoct the best sob story for their admissions essay.
Why? The kids with the best grades aren't always the most successful. No other thing in life is purely objective so why should college admissions be?
That's why there's a whole bunch of other requirements when filling out a college application. The personal statement/essay, recommendations, SAT scores, etc. I know that if I were to have applied with only my grades as proof of my intelligence, I'd have been denied from almost every school I apped to.
anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race. There are plenty of geniuses from any given race, just like there are plenty of idiots of any given race.
There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household. Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Well, this is only anecdotal data, but I think it's somewhat relevant. I TA'd for four years in the College of Engineering @ UC Berkeley, arguably the top engineering university in the world (well, right up there with MIT & CalTech at least), and of the few hundred students we accepted each year, I'd at least (visually) see about 90% of them.
In those 4 years and thousands of the brightest students in the world, I met exactly one black kid - he actually was in my class - and he flunked out after the first semester.
Logically, I recognize that there may be outliers for any sample of data, and maybe I was just (un)lucky enough to never have met a black genius, but the school would have been much poorer if there were a quota of the number of blacks required to be admitted. Why should standards be lowered for a specific race, just because they tend to perform poorly? The baskets in NBA games don't get lowered automatically when an Asian is in possession of the ball, and the 100 meter dash doesn't get shortened to 95 meters for white competitors. Why is school so different?
Because minorities have been raging about being oppressed by evil white people for a long time now, and colleges want to look good by showing how philanthropic they are by representing said minorities.
Giving opportunities to minorities is a great idea, but assimilation and removal of ghettos is a far better option than this.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
some people are born into shit circumstances, and they need help to level the playing field. Going off race is indefensible, but going off socioeconomic background is justified.
On June 25 2013 10:27 biology]major wrote: some people are born into shit circumstances, and they need help to level the playing field. Going off race is indefensible, but going off socioeconomic background is justified.
See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
On June 25 2013 04:41 Greggle wrote: 2) Sorry, America is not a never-ending fountain of giving. We can't let everyone in. If you split a pizza with a friend its great. If you split a pizza with 7 friends its okay. If you split a pizza between 100 people there was no point in even having it.
Only to really make the analogy, the 2 or 7 or 100 people are not only eating but also making the pizzas. 100 people can make way more than just 7, so amount of pizza per person stays about the same, perhaps slightly increases due to economies of scale.
I think all analogies break down at some point, but if you want to talk economics then lets bring in diminishing marginal returns. Adding more and more chefs to the kitchen will only produce more pizzas until a certain point where the production actually decreases.
True, but with regards to population, we aren't even at the point where we'd expect per capita GDP to decrease with increased population. And I imagine the entire continent would have to have NYC's density before aggregate GDP started to fall.
If we were in such a scenario (even the more plausible one where more population harms per capita GDP) then I imagine there would be proposals to cap the number of children that any couple is allowed to have.
On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote: See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
First of all, I never alluded to any extracurricular activities. Secondly, yes, of course rich kids are going to be more advantaged than poorer kids, that's how the world works. The question is though, are poor kids and their families are given enough of an opportunity to succeed? and my answer is overwhelmingly - yes.
My parents are immigrants. Until I was in high school, my dad worked as a post doc for about $20k a year. My mom can't speak English and it's fairly difficult to get a job as anything other than a salary-less waitress at a Chinese restaurant. They worked hard enough to afford a half million dollar house in one of the better school districts by the time I hit high school to give me the opportunity there.
In that school district, I've had friends whose parents made even less, as free-lance janitors/handymen. We're talking way-below-poverty level, as in the entire family probably brought in under $10k a year. They somehow managed to scrounge and save enough to afford an overpriced apartment in the area, and could send their kid to $2000 SAT classes.
This requires hard work and dedication on the behalf of the entire family. Your one line of "The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels" completely invalidates all this hard work. I mean, WTF? "sure, lets help out the people who could do it but were too lazy to try, and screw those who worked their asses off for it."
I don't have a problem with allowing everyone who wants to go to college, go to college. I'm almost certain that if you wanted to go to school, you can. I took community college classes in high school for $10 a semester at the local CC. The problem starts to occur when you're giving limited positions to those who are unqualified for them at elite schools.
The reason I support affirmative action is to remove the families and background from the equation in regards to determining what college someone goes to. Apparently you believe that a kid's parents should be a contributing factor in whether they get into a certain college. I disagree. A parents "laziness" should be all the more reason one kid gets admitted because of what they had to overcome. Some underrepresented minority isn't not qualified by getting into a certain school whether you believe it or not. There are more qualified people than there are spots. Harvard has stated before that it could make 5 classes that would be just as good as the class that it assembles. I don't understand how people in society can defend subjective criteria when it applies to rich kids but not generally disadvantage kids.
On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote: See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
I partially agree with you, but I really disagree with the bolded part. We want to reward people for making good choices, working hard, etc. If two families come from the same socioeconomic background but in one the children study/focus on school, in the other they don't, I don't see why this is a problem that the kids in the first case have a better chance to succeed. If it is actually the case that some subcultures in this country don't value education or hard work or whatever as much as others even after correcting for socioeconomic disparities, I don't think the answer to that is to try to equalize outcomes at the end.
Aside from that, it's stereotyping to say Asians focus on education more... but supporting or refuting that isn't my point. Even if it is true, consider three children: the poor Asian kid whose parents focus on education vs the poor Asian kid whose parents don't focus on education vs the poor [white/black/whatever type of non-Asian] kid whose parents don't focus on education. Why should kid #3 get a boost for being from a non-Asian racial group but not kid #2, when both kids suffered from the same disadvantage (parents not focusing on education)?
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
I have read fairly reliable sources making roughly the same claims he does. To me, it seems he has done his research, and you haven't.
On June 25 2013 11:11 Livelovedie wrote: The reason I support affirmative action is to remove the families and background from the equation in regards to determining what college someone goes to. Apparently you believe that a kid's parents should be a contributing factor in whether they get into a certain college. I disagree. A parents "laziness" should be all the more reason one kid gets admitted because of what they had to overcome. Some underrepresented minority isn't not qualified by getting into a certain school whether you believe it or not. There are more qualified people than there are spots. Harvard has stated before that it could make 5 classes that would be just as good as the class that it assembles. I don't understand how people in society can defend subjective criteria when it applies to rich kids but not generally disadvantage kids.
I don't see how this can really work. If you remove a person's parents and their socioeconomics, what's left to differentiate people with? Probably all differences in achievement ultimately come down to some combination of those factors. (well genes also, but you get those from your parents)
The poor asian kid that doesn't have any family influence is the kid that suffers on this I admit, but I did say I support socioeconomic affirmative action. I just don't think socioeconomic affirmative action corrects for cultural differences that causes certain subgroups to focus on education. Would I rather fix the underlying problem, sure, but to just change affirmative action would cause a lot of hispanic and african americans kids who have had to overcome become barely present at any selective college.
By doing what I said you are removing a lot of unfair influence based upon family. Sure you can't remove it all admittedly.
Edit: You aren't really removing, more like adjusting for discrepancies.
We probably just won't totally agree, which is fine.
I am curious what factors/influences you think it is okay to differentiate people based upon? Surely, even it we could adjust for discrepancies caused from all unfair influences, it would be illogical to have a system that gives all applicants the same rating.
Or do you not agree with the statement "all differences in achievement can ultimately be traced back to differences in genes/family/economics/culture/etc that were not chosen by the individual"?
On June 25 2013 11:30 Signet wrote: We probably just won't totally agree, which is fine.
I am curious what factors/influences you think it is okay to differentiate people based upon? Surely, even it we could remove all unfair influences, it would be illogical to have a system that gives all applicants the same rating.
Or do you not agree with the statement "all differences in achievement can ultimately be traced back to differences in genes/family/economics/culture/etc that were not chosen by the individual"?
As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I think one thing that affirmative action doesn't account for is whether or not said minorities are even prepared for the colleges they are attending. If there is such an educational disparity, you're not going to fix it by shoving the unprepared minority kid into Harvard and then having him drop out 2 years later. I mean, college drop out rates for minorities have been shown to be significantly higher than for whites, and affirmative action may be the cause of that.
Also, I completely disagree with LiveLoveDie. I think that way of thinking stereotypes Asians, discriminates based on race, and punishes a culture we would prefer to support/cultivate. We want our kids to be educated and focus on education, yet we're punishing the one minority group which supports that? That's retarded.
On June 25 2013 10:27 biology]major wrote: some people are born into shit circumstances, and they need help to level the playing field. Going off race is indefensible, but going off socioeconomic background is justified.
Bullshit. Its not the Governments right or capacity to tell us what the equitable distribution of resources are, nor should anyone be robbed to subsidize anothers life.
On June 25 2013 11:46 ghrur wrote: I think one thing that affirmative action doesn't account for is whether or not said minorities are even prepared for the colleges they are attending. If there is such an educational disparity, you're not going to fix it by shoving the unprepared minority kid into Harvard and then having him drop out 2 years later. I mean, college drop out rates for minorities have been shown to be significantly higher than for whites, and affirmative action may be the cause of that.
Also, I completely disagree with LiveLoveDie. I think that way of thinking stereotypes Asians, discriminates based on race, and punishes a culture we would prefer to support/cultivate. We want our kids to be educated and focus on education, yet we're punishing the one minority group which supports that? That's retarded.
Thomas Sowell actually did a study showing that it was often the case, that minorities who benefited from A.A would be placed into colleges beyond their level. An example if I recall was that Black students in M.I.T were at the bottom 20% of their class, and something like 80% failed to graduate, but were in the top 10% nationally in related subjects like math.
By not doing that you are punishing the children of the culture that don't have that advantage and continuing the cycle of ignorance.
*Googles Thomas Sowell* see's that he is the Milton Friedman fellow at stanford, immediately disregards study you posted. No one is being robbed of anything. There was a study from UMich law showing that students that were underrepresented minorities that were admitted wound up having no difference in success rate than white students.
On June 25 2013 11:11 Livelovedie wrote: The reason I support affirmative action is to remove the families and background from the equation in regards to determining what college someone goes to. Apparently you believe that a kid's parents should be a contributing factor in whether they get into a certain college. I disagree. A parents "laziness" should be all the more reason one kid gets admitted because of what they had to overcome. Some underrepresented minority isn't not qualified by getting into a certain school whether you believe it or not. There are more qualified people than there are spots. Harvard has stated before that it could make 5 classes that would be just as good as the class that it assembles. I don't understand how people in society can defend subjective criteria when it applies to rich kids but not generally disadvantage kids.
The reality is that very substandard unqualified people do get admitted under affirmative action. Not only are admittance standards lowered for them, the standards for graduation have consistently been lowered to accommodate them. It's scary to think these people actually end up practicing in their fields despite their subpar performance, and employers are obligated to hire them due to government mandated racial preferences.
There is absolutely no logical justification for racial discrimination. People should be admitted based on competence. The reason some people wouldn't be admitted without racial preferences is simply because they shouldn't be there.
Racial and Ethnic Preferences and Consequences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine
• Black enrollees generally have much greater difficulty in medical school than do whites, Asians, and Hispanics, despite UMSM’s massive program of academic intervention and remediation specifically for “underrepresented minorities.” • The median medical school GPA in the first two years was 2.50 for blacks, 3.00 for Hispanics, and 3.17 for Asians and for whites. • The median medical school GPA for the third and fourth years is 3.29 for blacks, 3.50 for Hispanics, 3.50 for Asians, and 3.38 for whites. • UMSM black enrollees perform considerably worse on the medical licensing exams than do their Hispanic, Asian, and white counterparts, again despite UMSM’s academic intervention and remediation for underrepresented minorities. • More than a quarter of the black enrollees (7 out of 27) failed “Step 1” of the medical licensing exam on their first try. Two whites, one Hispanic, and no Asians failed. The median Step 1 score for black enrollees was roughly the same as that for Hispanics, but lower than that for 75 percent of Asian and white enrollees. • About a quarter of the black enrollees (4 out of 15) taking “Step 2” of the medical licensing exam failed it on their first try. No student from another group failed. • The four-year graduation rate for blacks was 68 percent. Blacks graduated at a higher rate than do Asians (63 percent), but at a much lower rate as compared with whites (82 percent). Hispanic graduation rates are not reported.
Increasing underrepresented minority (URM) admissions to medical schools has been a major project of the academic medical establishment for many years. The late Bernard D. Davis, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Medical School, recounts his firsthand experience of how Harvard began to award racial and ethnic preferences in admissions to medical school. Davis pointed out that, after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Harvard Medical School decided to admit a substantial number of black students who otherwise lacked the requisite qualifications. Not surprisingly, they performed poorly. Rather than abandoning preferences, Harvard Medical School chose to lower classroom standards. The decision was made with no open faculty debate. Departments were required to allow failing students to retake exams until everyone passed, letter grades were replaced by a pass/incomplete system (and, once a student had passed, he or she retained no trace of the incompletes), the number of required courses was reduced while the number of electives was substantially increased, passing scores on the national licensing exams were lowered, and one minority student was even allowed to graduate from Harvard after having failed the required medical licensing exam five times.
On June 25 2013 11:11 Livelovedie wrote: The reason I support affirmative action is to remove the families and background from the equation in regards to determining what college someone goes to. Apparently you believe that a kid's parents should be a contributing factor in whether they get into a certain college. I disagree. A parents "laziness" should be all the more reason one kid gets admitted because of what they had to overcome. Some underrepresented minority isn't not qualified by getting into a certain school whether you believe it or not. There are more qualified people than there are spots. Harvard has stated before that it could make 5 classes that would be just as good as the class that it assembles. I don't understand how people in society can defend subjective criteria when it applies to rich kids but not generally disadvantage kids.
The reality is that very substandard unqualified people do get admitted under affirmative action. Not only are admittance standards lowered for them, the standards for graduation have consistently been lowered to accommodate them. It's scary to think these people actually end up practicing in their fields despite their subpar performance, and employers are obligated to hire them due to government mandated racial preferences.
There is absolutely no logical justification for racial discrimination. People should be admitted based on competence. The reason some people wouldn't be admitted without racial preferences is simply because they shouldn't be there.
Racial and Ethnic Preferences and Consequences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine
• Black enrollees generally have much greater difficulty in medical school than do whites, Asians, and Hispanics, despite UMSM’s massive program of academic intervention and remediation specifically for “underrepresented minorities.” • The median medical school GPA in the first two years was 2.50 for blacks, 3.00 for Hispanics, and 3.17 for Asians and for whites. • The median medical school GPA for the third and fourth years is 3.29 for blacks, 3.50 for Hispanics, 3.50 for Asians, and 3.38 for whites. • UMSM black enrollees perform considerably worse on the medical licensing exams than do their Hispanic, Asian, and white counterparts, again despite UMSM’s academic intervention and remediation for underrepresented minorities. • More than a quarter of the black enrollees (7 out of 27) failed “Step 1” of the medical licensing exam on their first try. Two whites, one Hispanic, and no Asians failed. The median Step 1 score for black enrollees was roughly the same as that for Hispanics, but lower than that for 75 percent of Asian and white enrollees. • About a quarter of the black enrollees (4 out of 15) taking “Step 2” of the medical licensing exam failed it on their first try. No student from another group failed. • The four-year graduation rate for blacks was 68 percent. Blacks graduated at a higher rate than do Asians (63 percent), but at a much lower rate as compared with whites (82 percent). Hispanic graduation rates are not reported.
Increasing underrepresented minority (URM) admissions to medical schools has been a major project of the academic medical establishment for many years. The late Bernard D. Davis, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Medical School, recounts his firsthand experience of how Harvard began to award racial and ethnic preferences in admissions to medical school. Davis pointed out that, after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Harvard Medical School decided to admit a substantial number of black students who otherwise lacked the requisite qualifications. Not surprisingly, they performed poorly. Rather than abandoning preferences, Harvard Medical School chose to lower classroom standards. The decision was made with no open faculty debate. Departments were required to allow failing students to retake exams until everyone passed, letter grades were replaced by a pass/incomplete system (and, once a student had passed, he or she retained no trace of the incompletes), the number of required courses was reduced while the number of electives was substantially increased, passing scores on the national licensing exams were lowered, and one minority student was even allowed to graduate from Harvard after having failed the required medical licensing exam five times.
I don't see any normalization for socioeconomic factors. I am also more interested in how they wound up performing as doctors as opposed to what their gpa is. The sample size is also way to small to draw any meaningful conclusion from.
On June 25 2013 10:02 S:klogW wrote: Any updates on this case?
They basically punted it. They sent it back to the federal court and ruled that affirmative action should only be used if there are no other options available for fostering diversity.
On June 25 2013 11:37 Livelovedie wrote: As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I agree with your last statement though.
Yeah I was more interested in the philosophical than the practical
My philosophy is that we should try to take into account as many things as possible that can be fixed by their college (or whatever) going forward. So if, say, family income correlates highly with high school achievements, but when poor kids get into college they have similar success rates as rich kids, then economic factors should be taken into account. But if it were the case that, after getting into college, those poor kids performed roughly as badly as rich kids who had similarly low high school achievements (that is, they didn't do well), then it shouldn't be taken into account.
Using med school as a specific example, the goal should be to produce the best pool of physicians possible. Since it is almost surely the case that some of the people who would go on to become high-quality physicians were stuck in situations that artificially deflated their college resumes, it makes sense for med schools to try to adjust people's resumes to take this into account. On the other hand, while it isn't fair and sucks, it is true that a 22 year old who has had a life of advantages may not have been ideally more suited to become a physician than some other 22 year old who had a disadvantaged childhood, it is nevertheless the case that the first person might be so far ahead of the second by that point in their lives that he would go on to make a more effective doctor as a result of his cumulative years of advantaged upbringing.
If I had the power to do it, I'd have them do this via a massive applicant database creating a statistically sound model regressing actual future success against whatever relevant characteristics can be put on an application (including achievements/scores and socioeconomic/demographic). Since we now have several decades of affirmative action in admissions, we should have a large number of poor/minority/etc people getting preferenced admission... so, such a model would create a way to evaluate people that takes into account their disadvantages, but does so in a way that ensures that these are things which a preferenced admission would allow them to overcome.
Of course that is unfair because it means people's life outcomes are dependent on their starting conditions, but that is why we have social safety nets. Meritocracy is a good thing, but even if we were to achieve total meritocracy with minimal unfair influences, we still want less-productive people to have a decent life, right?
I also think we should seriously consider that the vast inequality of childhood experiences creates a horribly inefficient use of our nation's "human resources" that cannot be totally solved by applying adjustment measures later in life. There should be a much more urgent focus on creating a minimum standard for the developmental environment that our children grow up in. It would be a pretty crappy outcome if somebody's brain could have unlocked the cure for cancer, and he becomes a low-level worker as a result of a disadvantaged upbringing. (I realize this is politically unlikely in the near future.)
On June 25 2013 11:37 Livelovedie wrote: As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I agree with your last statement though.
Yeah I was more interested in the philosophical than the practical
My philosophy is that we should try to take into account as many things as possible that can be fixed by their college (or whatever) going forward. So if, say, family income correlates highly with high school achievements, but when poor kids get into college they have similar success rates as rich kids, then economic factors should be taken into account. But if it were the case that, after getting into college, those poor kids performed roughly as badly as rich kids who had similarly low high school achievements (that is, they didn't do well), then it shouldn't be taken into account.
Using med school as a specific example, the goal should be to produce the best pool of physicians possible. Since it is almost surely the case that some of the people who would go on to become high-quality physicians were stuck in situations that artificially deflated their college resumes, it makes sense for med schools to try to adjust people's resumes to take this into account. On the other hand, while it isn't fair and sucks, it is true that a 22 year old who has had a life of advantages may not have been ideally more suited to become a physician than some other 22 year old who had a disadvantaged childhood, it is nevertheless the case that the first person might be so far ahead of the second by that point in their lives that he would go on to make a more effective doctor as a result of his cumulative years of advantaged upbringing.
If I had the power to do it, I'd have them do this via a massive applicant database creating a statistically sound model regressing actual future success against whatever relevant characteristics can be put on an application (including achievements/scores and socioeconomic/demographic). Since we now have several decades of affirmative action in admissions, we should have a large number of poor/minority/etc people getting preferenced admission... so, such a model would create a way to evaluate people that takes into account their disadvantages, but does so in a way that ensures that these are things which a preferenced admission would allow them to overcome.
Of course that is unfair because it means people's life outcomes are dependent on their starting conditions, but that is why we have social safety nets. Meritocracy is a good thing, but even if we were to achieve total meritocracy with minimal unfair influences, we still want less-productive people to have a decent life, right?
I also think we should seriously consider that the vast inequality of childhood experiences creates a horribly inefficient use of our nation's "human resources" that cannot be totally solved by applying adjustment measures later in life. There should be a much more urgent focus on creating a minimum standard for the developmental environment that our children grow up in. It would be a pretty crappy outcome if somebody's brain could have unlocked the cure for cancer, and he becomes a low-level worker as a result of a disadvantaged upbringing. (I realize this is politically unlikely in the near future.)
Very OT sorry...
Good post, I will try to reflect on it and my views to determine if social mobility is more important in my eyes or putting out the best professionals. There probably should be more studies to show which disadvantages can be overcame and use those but I just hate the idea that people would be confined to a second class status due to no fault of there own based off being born to the wrong family. I am a lot more interested in the real world outcomes after school is out and how the disadvantage did that were given that chance versus what their gpa was in college.
On June 25 2013 11:37 Livelovedie wrote: As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I agree with your last statement though.
Yeah I was more interested in the philosophical than the practical
My philosophy is that we should try to take into account as many things as possible that can be fixed by their college (or whatever) going forward. So if, say, family income correlates highly with high school achievements, but when poor kids get into college they have similar success rates as rich kids, then economic factors should be taken into account. But if it were the case that, after getting into college, those poor kids performed roughly as badly as rich kids who had similarly low high school achievements (that is, they didn't do well), then it shouldn't be taken into account.
Using med school as a specific example, the goal should be to produce the best pool of physicians possible. Since it is almost surely the case that some of the people who would go on to become high-quality physicians were stuck in situations that artificially deflated their college resumes, it makes sense for med schools to try to adjust people's resumes to take this into account. On the other hand, while it isn't fair and sucks, it is true that a 22 year old who has had a life of advantages may not have been ideally more suited to become a physician than some other 22 year old who had a disadvantaged childhood, it is nevertheless the case that the first person might be so far ahead of the second by that point in their lives that he would go on to make a more effective doctor as a result of his cumulative years of advantaged upbringing.
If I had the power to do it, I'd have them do this via a massive applicant database creating a statistically sound model regressing actual future success against whatever relevant characteristics can be put on an application (including achievements/scores and socioeconomic/demographic). Since we now have several decades of affirmative action in admissions, we should have a large number of poor/minority/etc people getting preferenced admission... so, such a model would create a way to evaluate people that takes into account their disadvantages, but does so in a way that ensures that these are things which a preferenced admission would allow them to overcome.
Of course that is unfair because it means people's life outcomes are dependent on their starting conditions, but that is why we have social safety nets. Meritocracy is a good thing, but even if we were to achieve total meritocracy with minimal unfair influences, we still want less-productive people to have a decent life, right?
I also think we should seriously consider that the vast inequality of childhood experiences creates a horribly inefficient use of our nation's "human resources" that cannot be totally solved by applying adjustment measures later in life. There should be a much more urgent focus on creating a minimum standard for the developmental environment that our children grow up in. It would be a pretty crappy outcome if somebody's brain could have unlocked the cure for cancer, and he becomes a low-level worker as a result of a disadvantaged upbringing. (I realize this is politically unlikely in the near future.)
Very OT sorry...
Good post, I will try to reflect on it and my views to determine if social mobility is more important in my eyes or putting out the best professionals. There probably should be more studies to show which disadvantages can be overcame and use those but I just hate the idea that people would be confined to a second class status due to no fault of there own based off being born to the wrong family. I am a lot more interested in the real world outcomes after school is out and how the disadvantage did that were given that chance versus what their gpa was in college.
People are not equal. Those who are born fleet of foot, those who are born beautiful, those whose parents are poor, those who have weak bodies... Birth growth and talent, all humans are different. That's right, people are born to be different! That is why people fight and compete with one another; from there, evolution takes place. Inequality is not an evil, equality itself is evil.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
I have read fairly reliable sources making roughly the same claims he does. To me, it seems he has done his research, and you haven't.
Go for it, the heritability of IQ is a flawed argument simply because IQ is a questionable measurement of intelligence in the first place. Like I said before, the metric is a metric of necessity, and not efficacy. It's the best we got, but by no means is it free of problems. Testing itself is dumb as hell.
Also, I would highly recommend you actually read your sources. They're contradicting what he's claiming and the studies themselves leave much to be desired. The fundamental problem with these studies in the first place is handling of the counterfactual problem (really need to look at this) which is handled best by twin studies. Regardless of the outcomes/results (which doesn't support his claims once again) of those twin studies, you are basing your conclusions on an absolute scale which is problematic because most people don't reach their potential whatever that may be. In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Nobody's saying intelligence isn't gene-related, but bugsor's claiming that they're a huge, insurmountable determinant when we know next to shit about the biology of the human brain, then we are going to start making claims of how much gets passed on? Give me a break.
Like I said before, you aren't making these students into Einsteins, you are aiming to at the very least graduate high school...which bugsor seems to suggest that black people are incapable of doing due to their genes.
Edit:
As for unqualified people getting in because of AA, they don't last. Anyone who's been on academic probation/suspension would tell you that upper level education do not play when it comes to "qualifications". You can make the argument that they're taking the opportunity of a more qualified person, and I'll simply tell you that all of that means diddly squat unless you can see the future. The approach is prove to me you belong.
Edit 2:
@Signet, it's a good idea, but you'd be surprised how shitty some of those data is kept; some universities have absolute shit internal evaluation programs. Then you'd be hard pressed to actually process and analyze all of that data.
On June 25 2013 12:06 Livelovedie wrote: By not doing that you are punishing the children of the culture that don't have that advantage and continuing the cycle of ignorance. . *Googles Thomas Sowell* see's that he is the Milton Friedman fellow at stanford, immediately disregards study you posted No one is being robbed of anything. There was a study from UMich law showing that students that were underrepresented minorities that were admitted wound up having no difference in success rate than white students.
1) Its not punishment because they arent owed a superior or equatible position with anyone. 2) @Bold, nice intellectual honesty.
On June 25 2013 11:37 Livelovedie wrote: As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I agree with your last statement though.
Yeah I was more interested in the philosophical than the practical
My philosophy is that we should try to take into account as many things as possible that can be fixed by their college (or whatever) going forward. So if, say, family income correlates highly with high school achievements, but when poor kids get into college they have similar success rates as rich kids, then economic factors should be taken into account. But if it were the case that, after getting into college, those poor kids performed roughly as badly as rich kids who had similarly low high school achievements (that is, they didn't do well), then it shouldn't be taken into account.
Using med school as a specific example, the goal should be to produce the best pool of physicians possible. Since it is almost surely the case that some of the people who would go on to become high-quality physicians were stuck in situations that artificially deflated their college resumes, it makes sense for med schools to try to adjust people's resumes to take this into account. On the other hand, while it isn't fair and sucks, it is true that a 22 year old who has had a life of advantages may not have been ideally more suited to become a physician than some other 22 year old who had a disadvantaged childhood, it is nevertheless the case that the first person might be so far ahead of the second by that point in their lives that he would go on to make a more effective doctor as a result of his cumulative years of advantaged upbringing.
If I had the power to do it, I'd have them do this via a massive applicant database creating a statistically sound model regressing actual future success against whatever relevant characteristics can be put on an application (including achievements/scores and socioeconomic/demographic). Since we now have several decades of affirmative action in admissions, we should have a large number of poor/minority/etc people getting preferenced admission... so, such a model would create a way to evaluate people that takes into account their disadvantages, but does so in a way that ensures that these are things which a preferenced admission would allow them to overcome.
Of course that is unfair because it means people's life outcomes are dependent on their starting conditions, but that is why we have social safety nets. Meritocracy is a good thing, but even if we were to achieve total meritocracy with minimal unfair influences, we still want less-productive people to have a decent life, right?
I also think we should seriously consider that the vast inequality of childhood experiences creates a horribly inefficient use of our nation's "human resources" that cannot be totally solved by applying adjustment measures later in life. There should be a much more urgent focus on creating a minimum standard for the developmental environment that our children grow up in. It would be a pretty crappy outcome if somebody's brain could have unlocked the cure for cancer, and he becomes a low-level worker as a result of a disadvantaged upbringing. (I realize this is politically unlikely in the near future.)
Very OT sorry...
Good post, I will try to reflect on it and my views to determine if social mobility is more important in my eyes or putting out the best professionals. There probably should be more studies to show which disadvantages can be overcame and use those but I just hate the idea that people would be confined to a second class status due to no fault of there own based off being born to the wrong family. I am a lot more interested in the real world outcomes after school is out and how the disadvantage did that were given that chance versus what their gpa was in college.
People are not equal. Those who are born fleet of foot, those who are born beautiful, those whose parents are poor, those who have weak bodies... Birth growth and talent, all humans are different. That's right, people are born to be different! That is why people fight and compete with one another; from there, evolution takes place. Inequality is not an evil, equality itself is evil.
Its funny how the same people who ramble on about diversity actually want material homogeneity. How the hell is that diverse, and how does it engender continuing and future diversity within a society?
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
I have read fairly reliable sources making roughly the same claims he does. To me, it seems he has done his research, and you haven't.
Go for it, the heritability of IQ is a flawed argument simply because IQ is a questionable measurement of intelligence in the first place. Like I said before, the metric is a metric of necessity, and not efficacy. It's the best we got, but by no means is it free of problems. Testing itself is dumb as hell.
Also, I would highly recommend you actually read your sources. They're contradicting what he's claiming and the studies themselves leave much to be desired.
The post you directly quoted makes two factual claims, namely: - The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families. - Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
Both of these claims are somewhere in between entirely true and mostly true. He doesn't mention that the adoptive family affects the child's IQ in the early years, but that the correlation is mostly gone by adulthood
If you actually want to read sources - one would assume, seeing as you ask for them, but then again, you somehow failed to find all the sources on Wikipedia - check out “The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence,” by R. A. Weinberg, S. Scarr, and I. D. Waldman. It isn't even a twin study, it followed white, mixed black/white and black children adopted by white parents, and also Korean and Vietnamese children adopted by white parents.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Note that the source you accuse of me of not having read, already in the third paragraph, states this:
Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0). IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but it is unclear whether it stabilizes thereafter. A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[7] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9]
You're not only disagreeing with bugsor and his Rushton article, but you are also ridiculing the APA, peer reviewed publications and New York Times. Which is fine, but you should probably show your own scientific credentials first.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: The fundamental problem with these studies in the first place is handling of the counterfactual problem (really need to look at this) which is handled best by twin studies. Regardless of the outcomes/results (which doesn't support his claims once again) of those twin studies, you are basing your conclusions on an absolute scale which is problematic because most people don't reach their potential whatever that may be. In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Nobody's saying intelligence isn't gene-related, but bugsor's claiming that they're a huge, insurmountable determinant when we know next to shit about the biology of the human brain, then we are going to start making claims of how much gets passed on? Give me a break.
So, a few posts ago, you complained about a lack of sources and that his claims were in stark contradiction with the whole community of neuroscience. Now, you are simply refuting all serious research which has been done on this topic and claiming the topic is too complicated to trust the science. But - you're still throwing your personal opinion around as if though it carried any weight. Of course, without referencing any sort of sources yourself.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
I have read fairly reliable sources making roughly the same claims he does. To me, it seems he has done his research, and you haven't.
Go for it, the heritability of IQ is a flawed argument simply because IQ is a questionable measurement of intelligence in the first place. Like I said before, the metric is a metric of necessity, and not efficacy. It's the best we got, but by no means is it free of problems. Testing itself is dumb as hell.
Also, I would highly recommend you actually read your sources. They're contradicting what he's claiming and the studies themselves leave much to be desired.
The post you directly quoted makes two factual claims, namely: - The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families. - Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
Both of these claims are somewhere in between entirely true and mostly true. He doesn't mention that the adoptive family affects the child's IQ in the early years, but that the correlation is mostly gone by adulthood
If you actually want to read sources - one would assume, seeing as you ask for them, but then again, you somehow failed to find all the sources on Wikipedia - check out “The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence,” by R. A. Weinberg, S. Scarr, and I. D. Waldman. It isn't even a twin study, it followed white, mixed black/white and black children adopted by white parents, and also Korean and Vietnamese children adopted by white parents.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Note that the source you accuse of me of not having read, already in the third paragraph, states this:
Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0). IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but it is unclear whether it stabilizes thereafter. A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[7] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9]
You're not only disagreeing with bugsor and his Rushton article, but you are also ridiculing the APA, peer reviewed publications and New York Times. Which is fine, but you should probably show your own scientific credentials first.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: The fundamental problem with these studies in the first place is handling of the counterfactual problem (really need to look at this) which is handled best by twin studies. Regardless of the outcomes/results (which doesn't support his claims once again) of those twin studies, you are basing your conclusions on an absolute scale which is problematic because most people don't reach their potential whatever that may be. In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Nobody's saying intelligence isn't gene-related, but bugsor's claiming that they're a huge, insurmountable determinant when we know next to shit about the biology of the human brain, then we are going to start making claims of how much gets passed on? Give me a break.
So, a few posts ago, you complained about a lack of sources and that his claims were in stark contradiction with the whole community of neuroscience. Now, you are simply refuting all serious research which has been done on this topic and claiming the topic is too complicated to trust the science. But - you're still throwing your personal opinion around as if though it carried any weight. Of course, without referencing any sort of sources yourself.
I'll get to your points. First of all, APA-reviewed (or any other peer-reviewed) means pretty much nothing post-publication. Get that notion out of your head, you judge a paper on its merits/methodology not its results. Look at some of the studies and the controls (aka probably the most important part) and you'll see why I am skeptical on its results. Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean much outside of a few prestigious journals and even then there can be some pretty shaky papers. Some of the more important papers in the past decade weren't published and subsequently cost lives.
As for the 3rd paragraph you quoted from the wikipedia, critical reading is fun. You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
Edit:
By the way, dont quote wikipedia as sources without looking at the sources, you have quoted. The bouchard piece clearly states their limitations of their meta-analysis which led to the 0.85 number, yet they clearly state the limitations as not for the poorer groups of people. Wait huh?
On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote: See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
First of all, I never alluded to any extracurricular activities. Secondly, yes, of course rich kids are going to be more advantaged than poorer kids, that's how the world works. The question is though, are poor kids and their families are given enough of an opportunity to succeed? and my answer is overwhelmingly - yes.
My parents are immigrants. Until I was in high school, my dad worked as a post doc for about $20k a year. My mom can't speak English and it's fairly difficult to get a job as anything other than a salary-less waitress at a Chinese restaurant. They worked hard enough to afford a half million dollar house in one of the better school districts by the time I hit high school to give me the opportunity there.
In that school district, I've had friends whose parents made even less, as free-lance janitors/handymen. We're talking way-below-poverty level, as in the entire family probably brought in under $10k a year. They somehow managed to scrounge and save enough to afford an overpriced apartment in the area, and could send their kid to $2000 SAT classes.
This requires hard work and dedication on the behalf of the entire family. Your one line of "The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels" completely invalidates all this hard work. I mean, WTF? "sure, lets help out the people who could do it but were too lazy to try, and screw those who worked their asses off for it."
I don't have a problem with allowing everyone who wants to go to college, go to college. I'm almost certain that if you wanted to go to school, you can. I took community college classes in high school for $10 a semester at the local CC. The problem starts to occur when you're giving limited positions to those who are unqualified for them at elite schools.
Your anecdote is great and all, but (and I'll put it more nicely than Manifesto does) using Anecdotal evidence to make a general point isn't a very strong argument. Just because you had dedicated parents that were able to raise you in a way that taught you to value hard work and dedication doesn't mean that everyone's parents do that. In fact, that goes contrary to a LOT of social scientific evidence. You're essentially advocating that we say, "Fuck off" to the children of lazy people (and generalizing them as lazy is incredibly disingenuous) and punishing their future for what their parents did to them.
Oh, and you are literally pulling numbers out of your ass. It is mathematically impossible for a family to make less than $10k a year and survive, let alone send their kid to school, have an overpriced apartment, pay for $2000 SAT classes, etc. A single individual would have an EXTREMELY hard time surviving off of less than $10k a year. That is less than the federal minimum wage, and to say that a FAMILY can survive on that is laughable. I'm extremely skeptical of your "20k a year family" affording a $500k house, let alone staying afloat on one $20k/year salary while saving money, and it just reeks of an individual trying to make his anecdotal evidence sound far more persuasive than the real story actually is.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
It makes me think of the fact that heritability is lower in childhood and raises by adulthood. But I guess that's just because I actually know something about the topic being discussed.
There are plenty of studies on this and they are more than enough to draw conclusions from. Some people do not like the results and want to pretend the ball is still up in the air, but that was played out decades ago.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
"A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations." (Vernon, 1981)
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
It makes me think of the fact that heritability is lower in childhood and raises by adulthood. But I guess that's just because I actually know something about the topic being discussed.
There are plenty of studies on this and they are more than enough to draw conclusions from. Some people do not like the results and want to pretend the ball is still up in the air, but that was played out decades ago.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
"A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations." (Vernon, 1981)
"Settled decades ago".
Yea, the actual academic and scientific communities (not the B.S. ones that you are claiming) would like to have a talk with you.
That's interesting, you put quotation marks around words nobody said. I think you fail to understand what quotation marks are for.
However I will humour you anyway:
Snyderman and Rothman discovered that experts were in agreement about the nature of intelligence.[6] "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.
The study also revealed that the majority (55%) of surveyed experts believed that genetic factors also help to explain socioeconomic differences in IQ.
In their analysis of the survey results, Snyderman and Rothman state that the experts who described themselves as agreeing with the "controversial" partial-genetic views of Arthur Jensen did so only on the understanding that their identity would remain unknown in the published report. This was due, claim the authors, to fears of suffering the same kind of castigation experienced by Jensen for publicly expressing views on the correlation between race and intelligence which are privately held in the wider academic community.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
It makes me think of the fact that heritability is lower in childhood and raises by adulthood. But I guess that's just because I actually know something about the topic being discussed.
There are plenty of studies on this and they are more than enough to draw conclusions from. Some people do not like the results and want to pretend the ball is still up in the air, but that was played out decades ago.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
"A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations." (Vernon, 1981)
Funny you would bring up cognitive operations as a measure of intelligence because I know there's enough debate in that field for people to disagree depending on their discipline. Hint, there's no consensus in cognitive science.
Plenty of studies? Like I said before, all of these studies have a major flaw, none of their methodologies are even discussed. I am seriously questioning their analytical methods. Why the hell would you even avoid looking at interaction and confounding in your analysis. Notice how everyone loves to report point estimates in their statistics when its pretty terrible to do so.
I am not in interested in some absurd amount of studies where their methods aren't scrutinized at all. Everyone's caught up with their conclusions which means shit if their methods suck, and I have looked at enough studies to know better than to trust their conclusions. Notice I quoted the meta-analysis regarding IQ heretibility and pointed out 2 major flaws with the study as is. Also notice I am not castigating those researchers at all. I just want to know what the hell they actually did in any of these studies since nobody remotely mentions it and I can think of 5 different things off the top of my head of problems that can cause so many shifts.
I have also been in academia enough to know that people misquote published works far more often than people would like to think.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
It makes me think of the fact that heritability is lower in childhood and raises by adulthood. But I guess that's just because I actually know something about the topic being discussed.
There are plenty of studies on this and they are more than enough to draw conclusions from. Some people do not like the results and want to pretend the ball is still up in the air, but that was played out decades ago.
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
"A person's intelligence can be defined in terms of the speed and efficiency with which he can execute a number of basic cognitive operations." (Vernon, 1981)
Funny you would bring up cognitive operations as a measure of intelligence because I know there's enough debate in that field for people to disagree depending on their discipline. Hint, there's no consensus in cognitive science.
Plenty of studies? Like I said before, all of these studies have a major flaw, none of their methodologies are even discussed. I am seriously questioning their analytical methods. Why the hell would you even avoid looking at interaction and confounding in your analysis. Notice how everyone loves to report point estimates in their statistics when its pretty terrible to do so.
I am not in interested in some absurd amount of studies where their methods aren't scrutinized at all. Everyone's caught up with their conclusions which means shit if their methods suck, and I have looked at enough studies to know better than to trust their conclusions. Notice I quoted the meta-analysis regarding IQ heretibility and pointed out 2 major flaws with the study as is. Also notice I am not castigating those researchers at all. I just want to know what the hell they actually did in any of these studies since nobody remotely mentions it and I can think of 5 different things off the top of my head of problems that can cause so many shifts.
I have also been in academia enough to know that people misquote published works far more often than people would like to think.
"Results indicate expert consensus that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias."
On June 25 2013 11:11 Livelovedie wrote: The reason I support affirmative action is to remove the families and background from the equation in regards to determining what college someone goes to. Apparently you believe that a kid's parents should be a contributing factor in whether they get into a certain college. I disagree. A parents "laziness" should be all the more reason one kid gets admitted because of what they had to overcome. Some underrepresented minority isn't not qualified by getting into a certain school whether you believe it or not. There are more qualified people than there are spots. Harvard has stated before that it could make 5 classes that would be just as good as the class that it assembles. I don't understand how people in society can defend subjective criteria when it applies to rich kids but not generally disadvantage kids.
The reality is that very substandard unqualified people do get admitted under affirmative action. Not only are admittance standards lowered for them, the standards for graduation have consistently been lowered to accommodate them. It's scary to think these people actually end up practicing in their fields despite their subpar performance, and employers are obligated to hire them due to government mandated racial preferences.
There is absolutely no logical justification for racial discrimination. People should be admitted based on competence. The reason some people wouldn't be admitted without racial preferences is simply because they shouldn't be there.
Racial and Ethnic Preferences and Consequences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine
• Black enrollees generally have much greater difficulty in medical school than do whites, Asians, and Hispanics, despite UMSM’s massive program of academic intervention and remediation specifically for “underrepresented minorities.” • The median medical school GPA in the first two years was 2.50 for blacks, 3.00 for Hispanics, and 3.17 for Asians and for whites. • The median medical school GPA for the third and fourth years is 3.29 for blacks, 3.50 for Hispanics, 3.50 for Asians, and 3.38 for whites. • UMSM black enrollees perform considerably worse on the medical licensing exams than do their Hispanic, Asian, and white counterparts, again despite UMSM’s academic intervention and remediation for underrepresented minorities. • More than a quarter of the black enrollees (7 out of 27) failed “Step 1” of the medical licensing exam on their first try. Two whites, one Hispanic, and no Asians failed. The median Step 1 score for black enrollees was roughly the same as that for Hispanics, but lower than that for 75 percent of Asian and white enrollees. • About a quarter of the black enrollees (4 out of 15) taking “Step 2” of the medical licensing exam failed it on their first try. No student from another group failed. • The four-year graduation rate for blacks was 68 percent. Blacks graduated at a higher rate than do Asians (63 percent), but at a much lower rate as compared with whites (82 percent). Hispanic graduation rates are not reported.
Increasing underrepresented minority (URM) admissions to medical schools has been a major project of the academic medical establishment for many years. The late Bernard D. Davis, Emeritus Professor at Harvard Medical School, recounts his firsthand experience of how Harvard began to award racial and ethnic preferences in admissions to medical school. Davis pointed out that, after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Harvard Medical School decided to admit a substantial number of black students who otherwise lacked the requisite qualifications. Not surprisingly, they performed poorly. Rather than abandoning preferences, Harvard Medical School chose to lower classroom standards. The decision was made with no open faculty debate. Departments were required to allow failing students to retake exams until everyone passed, letter grades were replaced by a pass/incomplete system (and, once a student had passed, he or she retained no trace of the incompletes), the number of required courses was reduced while the number of electives was substantially increased, passing scores on the national licensing exams were lowered, and one minority student was even allowed to graduate from Harvard after having failed the required medical licensing exam five times.
On June 25 2013 11:37 Livelovedie wrote: As I whole, I guess I don't mind differentiating people if we decide to allow all forms of subjective criteria. Race, socioeconomic background and extracurriculars are all fair game in my opinion but I have a problem when society decides to arbitrarily remove one of them especially when it harms the poor while keeping other subjective criteria that support the rich. I think extracirriculars are important to distinguish between people who have access to do certain things and either do or don't. In my perfect world those would be viewed holistically though to determine if hey this kid got this position because of his dad or something like that. I guess this is becoming philosophical instead of practical. I think race is important to differentiate between different cultural priorities that exist and it helps keep colleges representative of the population, and socioeconomic reasons are important because of the lack of access to resources such as private tutoring, more involved parenting, and extracurricular opportunities.
I agree with your last statement though.
Yeah I was more interested in the philosophical than the practical
My philosophy is that we should try to take into account as many things as possible that can be fixed by their college (or whatever) going forward. So if, say, family income correlates highly with high school achievements, but when poor kids get into college they have similar success rates as rich kids, then economic factors should be taken into account. But if it were the case that, after getting into college, those poor kids performed roughly as badly as rich kids who had similarly low high school achievements (that is, they didn't do well), then it shouldn't be taken into account.
Using med school as a specific example, the goal should be to produce the best pool of physicians possible. Since it is almost surely the case that some of the people who would go on to become high-quality physicians were stuck in situations that artificially deflated their college resumes, it makes sense for med schools to try to adjust people's resumes to take this into account. On the other hand, while it isn't fair and sucks, it is true that a 22 year old who has had a life of advantages may not have been ideally more suited to become a physician than some other 22 year old who had a disadvantaged childhood, it is nevertheless the case that the first person might be so far ahead of the second by that point in their lives that he would go on to make a more effective doctor as a result of his cumulative years of advantaged upbringing.
If I had the power to do it, I'd have them do this via a massive applicant database creating a statistically sound model regressing actual future success against whatever relevant characteristics can be put on an application (including achievements/scores and socioeconomic/demographic). Since we now have several decades of affirmative action in admissions, we should have a large number of poor/minority/etc people getting preferenced admission... so, such a model would create a way to evaluate people that takes into account their disadvantages, but does so in a way that ensures that these are things which a preferenced admission would allow them to overcome.
Of course that is unfair because it means people's life outcomes are dependent on their starting conditions, but that is why we have social safety nets. Meritocracy is a good thing, but even if we were to achieve total meritocracy with minimal unfair influences, we still want less-productive people to have a decent life, right?
I also think we should seriously consider that the vast inequality of childhood experiences creates a horribly inefficient use of our nation's "human resources" that cannot be totally solved by applying adjustment measures later in life. There should be a much more urgent focus on creating a minimum standard for the developmental environment that our children grow up in. It would be a pretty crappy outcome if somebody's brain could have unlocked the cure for cancer, and he becomes a low-level worker as a result of a disadvantaged upbringing. (I realize this is politically unlikely in the near future.)
Very OT sorry...
Good post, I will try to reflect on it and my views to determine if social mobility is more important in my eyes or putting out the best professionals. There probably should be more studies to show which disadvantages can be overcame and use those but I just hate the idea that people would be confined to a second class status due to no fault of there own based off being born to the wrong family. I am a lot more interested in the real world outcomes after school is out and how the disadvantage did that were given that chance versus what their gpa was in college.
People are not equal. Those who are born fleet of foot, those who are born beautiful, those whose parents are poor, those who have weak bodies... Birth growth and talent, all humans are different. That's right, people are born to be different! That is why people fight and compete with one another; from there, evolution takes place. Inequality is not an evil, equality itself is evil.
What??? How dare you say that Life will always be better than Idra!!!!!
On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote: See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
First of all, I never alluded to any extracurricular activities. Secondly, yes, of course rich kids are going to be more advantaged than poorer kids, that's how the world works. The question is though, are poor kids and their families are given enough of an opportunity to succeed? and my answer is overwhelmingly - yes.
My parents are immigrants. Until I was in high school, my dad worked as a post doc for about $20k a year. My mom can't speak English and it's fairly difficult to get a job as anything other than a salary-less waitress at a Chinese restaurant. They worked hard enough to afford a half million dollar house in one of the better school districts by the time I hit high school to give me the opportunity there.
In that school district, I've had friends whose parents made even less, as free-lance janitors/handymen. We're talking way-below-poverty level, as in the entire family probably brought in under $10k a year. They somehow managed to scrounge and save enough to afford an overpriced apartment in the area, and could send their kid to $2000 SAT classes.
This requires hard work and dedication on the behalf of the entire family. Your one line of "The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels" completely invalidates all this hard work. I mean, WTF? "sure, lets help out the people who could do it but were too lazy to try, and screw those who worked their asses off for it."
I don't have a problem with allowing everyone who wants to go to college, go to college. I'm almost certain that if you wanted to go to school, you can. I took community college classes in high school for $10 a semester at the local CC. The problem starts to occur when you're giving limited positions to those who are unqualified for them at elite schools.
Your anecdote is great and all, but (and I'll put it more nicely than Manifesto does) using Anecdotal evidence to make a general point isn't a very strong argument. Just because you had dedicated parents that were able to raise you in a way that taught you to value hard work and dedication doesn't mean that everyone's parents do that. In fact, that goes contrary to a LOT of social scientific evidence. You're essentially advocating that we say, "Fuck off" to the children of lazy people (and generalizing them as lazy is incredibly disingenuous) and punishing their future for what their parents did to them.
Oh, and you are literally pulling numbers out of your ass. It is mathematically impossible for a family to make less than $10k a year and survive, let alone send their kid to school, have an overpriced apartment, pay for $2000 SAT classes, etc. A single individual would have an EXTREMELY hard time surviving off of less than $10k a year. That is less than the federal minimum wage, and to say that a FAMILY can survive on that is laughable. I'm extremely skeptical of your "20k a year family" affording a $500k house, let alone staying afloat on one $20k/year salary while saving money, and it just reeks of an individual trying to make his anecdotal evidence sound far more persuasive than the real story actually is.
The point I was trying to make is: are disadvantaged (socioeconomic) families able to send their kids to an elite school? Yes. The existence of a single case validates the statement, which is what I've given. Am I saying "fuck off" to those children of lazy parents? They have a bigger hurdle to overcome, but it's not insurmountable. Before high school, I lived among the poorest communities with the worst schools. My elementary/middle school days were spent in the ghettoest schools. I still managed to pull off a Mathcounts state championship, if that means anything.
The point is, while unlikely, there is no room for people to say "you must be this rich to be that successful" because the presence of one counterexample is enough to disprove the statement.
I am also not pulling numbers out of my ass. My family did subsist on roughly $500 a month - rent, gas, food, clothing combined ($300, $~40, $~150, ~$10 breakdowns) - for years and years, enough to save up for a down payment for a house during the booming economy so we were also able to get a loan. $10k is indeed less than the federal minimum wage. That family was illegal, so they can't exactly complain to anyone.
Asian families that earn below the national average and managing to spend an absurd amount on their children's education isn't that rare. It's generally achieved through a combination of sacrifices (parents giving up lunch or leisure activities), bargain shopping, and priorities. When a minority group is getting punished with higher entry barriers because they place a higher value on education then you know the system is completely messed up.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: wait wait wait, let's say this is correct and that your 2nd paragraph actually correlates to the first you are suggesting we should limit opportunities based on generalities? otherwise what is your purpose in posting this, to stir shit up?
I'm saying everyone should be treated fairly without regard to their race.
My purpose in posting evidence that equal outcomes wouldn't exist in a completely fair meritocratic society is to demonstrate just that.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: anyone who thinks there are no difference in the brain makeup of one race compared to another is naive and/or ignorant. however, that is incredibly poor justification for enacting or changing policy that limits the opportunities for an individual of that race.
I agree. Laws (such as affirmative action, or disparate impact) which permit or even mandate racial discrimination are completely indefensible.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: There are countless potentially exceptional black kids from the ghetto who maybe could have done a little bit better in school if they were brought up in a different household.
Regardless of how heartwarming it is to imagine such a thing--or even watch hollywood movies with a fictional portrayal of it--reality does not bear this out. The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families.
Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
I know how disheartening this can be to some people. I myself grappled with the disappointment that comes from learning about genetics and heritability. It's like the difference between believing that you live forever in paradise after you die (wishful thinking) and accepting that you just decay and stop functioning (reality).
No matter how unfortunate or disappointing reality is, we should tackle it head on. Basing policy on fantasy is awful. Imagine how you would feel if a politician advocated killing people on the basis that they "go to a better place" (heaven). That is how I feel when I see people advocate racial discrimination (affirmative action, disparate impact) on the basis that we should have equal outcomes.
On June 25 2013 09:35 travis wrote: Affirmative action is about opportunity. The question is about whether or not the 're-balancing' of opportunity is fair. This racist crap you are talking about is irrelevant.
Affirmative action is about outcomes. Fair treatment is about opportunity.
So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
I have read fairly reliable sources making roughly the same claims he does. To me, it seems he has done his research, and you haven't.
Go for it, the heritability of IQ is a flawed argument simply because IQ is a questionable measurement of intelligence in the first place. Like I said before, the metric is a metric of necessity, and not efficacy. It's the best we got, but by no means is it free of problems. Testing itself is dumb as hell.
Also, I would highly recommend you actually read your sources. They're contradicting what he's claiming and the studies themselves leave much to be desired.
The post you directly quoted makes two factual claims, namely: - The IQ of African-Americans does not improve at all when adopted by middle class White families. - Adopted children actually have no correlation at all to their adoptive parents. Their correlation to their genetic parents is just as strong as it would be if they were actually raised by them.
Both of these claims are somewhere in between entirely true and mostly true. He doesn't mention that the adoptive family affects the child's IQ in the early years, but that the correlation is mostly gone by adulthood
If you actually want to read sources - one would assume, seeing as you ask for them, but then again, you somehow failed to find all the sources on Wikipedia - check out “The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence,” by R. A. Weinberg, S. Scarr, and I. D. Waldman. It isn't even a twin study, it followed white, mixed black/white and black children adopted by white parents, and also Korean and Vietnamese children adopted by white parents.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Note that the source you accuse of me of not having read, already in the third paragraph, states this:
Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9 (of a maximum of 1.0). IQ heritability increases during early childhood, but it is unclear whether it stabilizes thereafter. A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[7] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[8] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[9]
You're not only disagreeing with bugsor and his Rushton article, but you are also ridiculing the APA, peer reviewed publications and New York Times. Which is fine, but you should probably show your own scientific credentials first.
On June 25 2013 13:47 Judicator wrote: The fundamental problem with these studies in the first place is handling of the counterfactual problem (really need to look at this) which is handled best by twin studies. Regardless of the outcomes/results (which doesn't support his claims once again) of those twin studies, you are basing your conclusions on an absolute scale which is problematic because most people don't reach their potential whatever that may be. In either case, the numbers are FAR lower than the numbers suggested by that bullshit Rushton article that bugsor posted, where the authors were throwing out 80/20 splits of genes/environment effect on IQ (jokes?).
Nobody's saying intelligence isn't gene-related, but bugsor's claiming that they're a huge, insurmountable determinant when we know next to shit about the biology of the human brain, then we are going to start making claims of how much gets passed on? Give me a break.
So, a few posts ago, you complained about a lack of sources and that his claims were in stark contradiction with the whole community of neuroscience. Now, you are simply refuting all serious research which has been done on this topic and claiming the topic is too complicated to trust the science. But - you're still throwing your personal opinion around as if though it carried any weight. Of course, without referencing any sort of sources yourself.
I'll get to your points. First of all, APA-reviewed (or any other peer-reviewed) means pretty much nothing post-publication. Get that notion out of your head, you judge a paper on its merits/methodology not its results. Look at some of the studies and the controls (aka probably the most important part) and you'll see why I am skeptical on its results. Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean much outside of a few prestigious journals and even then there can be some pretty shaky papers. Some of the more important papers in the past decade weren't published and subsequently cost lives.
As for the 3rd paragraph you quoted from the wikipedia, critical reading is fun. You know what anyone thinks of when the variability between studies goes from below 50% to 90%? That nobody actually knows what's going on or at the very least the entire thing needs far more studies to figure out. The meta-analysis performed by Bouchard...makes me wonder. Using univariate analysis but admitting that multivariate is more useful to find interaction terms makes me wonder whether the results would be different if the latter was performed.
Lastly, the general consensus in the neurobio field is that intelligence/behavior/learning is a combination of both. The reason I am skeptical of the evidence simply because the biological mechanism is pretty poorly understood since we have difficulty defining intelligence/cognition in the first damn place. Thus it stands to say any study or even group of studies can be overturned until we know. I find it quite hilarious that we can claim genetic heretibility and attach a number to it based when we don't know what is actually going on.
Edit:
By the way, dont quote wikipedia as sources without looking at the sources, you have quoted. The bouchard piece clearly states their limitations of their meta-analysis which led to the 0.85 number, yet they clearly state the limitations as not for the poorer groups of people. Wait huh?
I will check the other publications a some point.
Your intellectual dishonesty is getting ridiculous.
We also have a really poor understanding of the biological mechanisms of how genetics ultimately determines the height of an adult. That doesn't prevent us from: - measuring height accurately - finding that the dominant predictor of height is parents' and grandparents' (..) height - also finding some additional apparently random variation on the side - concluding that, given the environment in the western world, the variation in height between individuals is largely determined by genetics
In the 1500s, people did not know that there was anything called genes, but that still did not prevent them from selectively breeding their livestock, with good results.
You cannot obfuscate these simple facts behind a wall of feigned ignorance. When it comes to intelligence, which is indeed a more complicated matter than height - you being skeptical of the evidence because the biological mechanism is poorly understood is a cop-out. You need to explain, preferably with some sources other than your own ignorance at this point, why - the measurements, mostly IQ tests but also a battery of assorted cognitive benchmarks, do not measure intelligence well enough, despite these tests having very significant predictive power of future socioeconomic status - the factor analysis is wrong - not by sowing uncertainty with some nonsense about flawed methodology, but by actually showing positive results to the contrary
On June 25 2013 22:24 Judicator wrote: APA-reviewed (or any other peer-reviewed) means pretty much nothing post-publication
Not that any of this matters at this point - the real questions is why you ask for sources when you are going to discard them, not by quoting other, more reliable sources, but merely on basis of your own, ignorant opinion? Just state it straight up next time - there is no sort of evidence which trumps your personal opinion, and asking for sources is just cheap rhetoric you use to discredit others, not something you actually care about, nor something you care to provide for your own arguments.
Note how you have now gone from ridiculing the original 80/20-figure as obviously false and laughable in the scientific community, to merely sowing doubt about whether the mainstream, scientific view is completely accurate. I am going to agree, without hesitation, that our current understanding intelligence and heredity is limited. But I'm not going to let you get away with nonsense like this:
Judicator wrote:So, yeah. You should do some research before making claims about genetics and heritable traits. The stuff your spewing is pretty laughable among neurobiologists. Whatever revolutionary breakthrough you underwent while discovering behaviorism is what everyone already went through with Skinner, you aren't breaking any new ground, so slow down there.
Also, it would be wise to post actual decent evidence and not that pretty flimsy piece you posted earlier.
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
do you know what the mushroom cloud next to his name means?
On November 02 2012 06:49 ZeaL. wrote: As an Asian I am split about this. Remove AA and my brethren will have a much easier time getting into college (Can look at the UC schools where race was removed from admission criteria and how many asians there are at Berkeley vs say Harvard where its ~20%). On the other hand, I did benefit greatly from having a diverse student body from which different backgrounds and ideas could merge, I doubt I would gain as much social/culturally from a 100% asian or 100% white student body. On a moral basis AA is definitely wrong, on the other hand I think all should have an equal chance of getting to college. Targeting the root of the problem which is heterogeneous education quality would be a much better solution to that than post-hoc preference.
Why?
It boils down to the fact that you are treating groups differentially based on their skin color, i.e. you're force all asians to work harder to get in your school than white kids simply because they're asian and other asians do well. By simply being born into a certain race a criteria is placed on you where it isn't placed on others and that is wrong. Blacks/hispanics do suffer disproportionately from lower socioeconomic status and on average gain poorer quality education but I know plenty of Asians who are poor as fuck too. Should they have to settle for a lower quality school or no college than their black friends simply because of color?
Edit: If the goal is to bring more opportunity to those races which are historically underperforming in school, treat the disease at the cause, not through awkward things like AA.
This is the primary issue with AA. It tries to treat a symptom without addressing the real problem. The real issue is that schools are grossly disproportionate in level of funding due to the primary source of funding coming from the local level. Low income neighborhoods have low income schools, which have underfunded education programs. The education system is "going to hell in a hand basket" in the US. And it will continue to get worse until we change how public schools are funded.
It's actually a myth that the achievement gap is caused by school funding.
In fact some of the highest spending per student in America happens in majority black schools. Yet this spending doesn't reduce the dismal failure rates.
Eventually people are going to have to accept that not everyone has equal potential.
It doesn't matter how much money someone has to spend on education if they lack the brains to be educated.
We're okay with flagrant racism here at TL.net....? Surely this was overlooked? Shocking post
It's not really that bad of a post if it's true. I'm not saying it is however.
On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote: Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism.
I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago.
And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that.
On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote: Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism.
I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago.
And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that.
The main issue with affirmative action is that no one made a system to check if it was necessary with a specific case or group. Because of that, it is an endlessly debated issue with no end. The one side claims that any attempt to limit it is racism and the other side claims that they are put at an unfair disadvantage because of affirmative action.
There are also majorities that don't get equal opportunities. There are plenty of poor white people in America. Affirmative action should be more about a person's economic status instead of the racial status, so it can help out those poorer majorities and the poorer minorities, and also not give a free pass to upper class minorities.
On June 26 2013 00:02 Yorke wrote: Affirmative action is racism, pure and simple.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not. The argument is that it is necessary racism.
I think many people would say the same about segregation just about less than 100 years ago.
And their arguments would be based on shoddy science and probably some religious text. The "racism" involved in affirmative action is based on verifiable data showing that minorities are not given equal opportunities. Affirmative action seeks to correct that by institutionalizing racism.
Fixed that for you. 2 wrongs does not make a right. It is a disgrace for a modern society to violate basic human rights of any group, majority or minority.
On June 25 2013 10:38 Livelovedie wrote: See but the problem if you allow these extracirriculars that are subjective then you are automatically allowing people of higher economic classes to get an advantage over lower income students (who are more likely to be minorities). The student from a more privileged background has the ability to connect with people like doctors for shadowing and internships, work for their dads company, or do research at a school. The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels, though I would support some sort of socioeconomic affirmative action boast. Affirmative action may have been used to account for past wrongs but now it has another purpose that the courts and I personally deem legitimate.
First of all, I never alluded to any extracurricular activities. Secondly, yes, of course rich kids are going to be more advantaged than poorer kids, that's how the world works. The question is though, are poor kids and their families are given enough of an opportunity to succeed? and my answer is overwhelmingly - yes.
My parents are immigrants. Until I was in high school, my dad worked as a post doc for about $20k a year. My mom can't speak English and it's fairly difficult to get a job as anything other than a salary-less waitress at a Chinese restaurant. They worked hard enough to afford a half million dollar house in one of the better school districts by the time I hit high school to give me the opportunity there.
In that school district, I've had friends whose parents made even less, as free-lance janitors/handymen. We're talking way-below-poverty level, as in the entire family probably brought in under $10k a year. They somehow managed to scrounge and save enough to afford an overpriced apartment in the area, and could send their kid to $2000 SAT classes.
This requires hard work and dedication on the behalf of the entire family. Your one line of "The problem with just going on different socioeconomic backgrounds alone is it does not take into cultural considerations like Asian parent's focus on education even in poorer income levels" completely invalidates all this hard work. I mean, WTF? "sure, lets help out the people who could do it but were too lazy to try, and screw those who worked their asses off for it."
I don't have a problem with allowing everyone who wants to go to college, go to college. I'm almost certain that if you wanted to go to school, you can. I took community college classes in high school for $10 a semester at the local CC. The problem starts to occur when you're giving limited positions to those who are unqualified for them at elite schools.
Your anecdote is great and all, but (and I'll put it more nicely than Manifesto does) using Anecdotal evidence to make a general point isn't a very strong argument. Just because you had dedicated parents that were able to raise you in a way that taught you to value hard work and dedication doesn't mean that everyone's parents do that. In fact, that goes contrary to a LOT of social scientific evidence. You're essentially advocating that we say, "Fuck off" to the children of lazy people (and generalizing them as lazy is incredibly disingenuous) and punishing their future for what their parents did to them.
Oh, and you are literally pulling numbers out of your ass. It is mathematically impossible for a family to make less than $10k a year and survive, let alone send their kid to school, have an overpriced apartment, pay for $2000 SAT classes, etc. A single individual would have an EXTREMELY hard time surviving off of less than $10k a year. That is less than the federal minimum wage, and to say that a FAMILY can survive on that is laughable. I'm extremely skeptical of your "20k a year family" affording a $500k house, let alone staying afloat on one $20k/year salary while saving money, and it just reeks of an individual trying to make his anecdotal evidence sound far more persuasive than the real story actually is.
The point I was trying to make is: are disadvantaged (socioeconomic) families able to send their kids to an elite school? Yes. The existence of a single case validates the statement, which is what I've given. Am I saying "fuck off" to those children of lazy parents? They have a bigger hurdle to overcome, but it's not insurmountable. Before high school, I lived among the poorest communities with the worst schools. My elementary/middle school days were spent in the ghettoest schools. I still managed to pull off a Mathcounts state championship, if that means anything.
The point is, while unlikely, there is no room for people to say "you must be this rich to be that successful" because the presence of one counterexample is enough to disprove the statement.
I am also not pulling numbers out of my ass. My family did subsist on roughly $500 a month - rent, gas, food, clothing combined ($300, $~40, $~150, ~$10 breakdowns) - for years and years, enough to save up for a down payment for a house during the booming economy so we were also able to get a loan. $10k is indeed less than the federal minimum wage. That family was illegal, so they can't exactly complain to anyone.
I'm not sure what kind of job your parents were working. I make $8/hr in a research lab (the janitors make more than I do) and I work about 35 hours a week. I get paid biweekly, and my paychecks have been around $500 after taxes. I spend around $20-30 on food a week.
I don't know what bank would be willing to give a 500K mortgage/ loan to a family that made 20K a year. I know they approved some pretty crazy loans before the bubble burst, but that's ridiculous. Besides, a 500K house in 99%+ of this country's neighborhoods is really nice. My family's house in one of the *nicer* parts of my city was purchased 200K, thought the tax people like to pretend it's worth twice that.
Out of curiosity, what state and what year? I did Mathcounts when I was in middle school-- I'm a little surprised you would cite that as the pinnacle of your academic career when you could have done MAO, AMC, ARML or any other high school level things.
I don't think anyone disputed the fact that you can start from the very bottom and have your kids end up at the very top. We hear success stories in the news, from friends, etc. etc. Still, the reason we're like "omg that's so cool and great" is because it's so rare. For every guy who made it to Harvard from some ghetto in Chicago, there's a thousand who never got more than a couple hours away from where they were born.
Nuking affirmative action could really only help me, haha. I'm already semi-screwed because of all the other Asians, but if AA was gone at least a few of the URM's that are currently in front of me would be booted out.
I mentioned Mathcounts because my dad gave up on research and sold out to a semiconductor company by high school, so my "dirt poor ghetto" conditions only really applied up to that point. I did qualify for a few USAMOs but never made the IMO team - more of a science than pure math guy - did much better in science bowls. Also, California, '98, iirc.
My family made more than $500 a month - like $2000 - but we only spent a quarter of that for a decade so there was enough saved and a good enough history to prove that we were careful with finances to get the loan, I guess?
I'm saying that socioeconomic reasons are not the limiting factors on whether you go to a good college or not. It's much more about drive, goals, peer pressure, and perception. The general idea that I get from interacting with the black people I meet is that they idolize gangsters and entertainment stars. They laugh at kids who want to get better at academics. Changing that culture will be orders of magnitude more valuable than any amount of planting underperforming students into environments that they aren't prepared for while simultaneously stealing the opportunity of more qualified applicants.
On June 28 2013 07:40 Phael wrote: I mentioned Mathcounts because my dad gave up on research and sold out to a semiconductor company by high school, so my "dirt poor ghetto" conditions only really applied up to that point. I did qualify for a few USAMOs but never made the IMO team - more of a science than pure math guy - did much better in science bowls. Also, California, '98, iirc.
My family made more than $500 a month - like $2000 - but we only spent a quarter of that for a decade so there was enough saved and a good enough history to prove that we were careful with finances to get the loan, I guess?
I'm saying that socioeconomic reasons are not the limiting factors on whether you go to a good college or not. It's much more about drive, goals, peer pressure, and perception. The general idea that I get from interacting with the black people I meet is that they idolize gangsters and entertainment stars. They laugh at kids who want to get better at academics. Changing that culture will be orders of magnitude more valuable than any amount of planting underperforming students into environments that they aren't prepared for while simultaneously stealing the opportunity of more qualified applicants.
I think from your story the real issue is made clear. It isn't really a matter of race, and even to an extent it doesn't depend on socioeconomic status. You said that your dad gave up on research and began working for a semiconductor company. I would assume that he was someone who was an academic and instilled a strong value on learning and science.
What made you successful was not where you were placed in life or what color your skin was, but it was what you valued. You valued academics; this is what led to you being successful. Obviously there are exceptions, but I think this is the general trend. You really have to be at rock bottom for you to not have a chance to succeed. Sure it may be harder depending on whether you are black, white, or asian, but it can happen. After all, how many things that are worth doing are easy?
I agree that a big detriment to blacks in general is the value that they place on "gangsters and entertainment stars." I remember my brother saying that if blacks memorized and put the emphasis on school work that they did on rap lyrics, they would be the smartest people on the planet. I have to agree with him. In the end though, I am just thankful that my father also instilled the importance of science and learning into me. That is really why I am doing somewhat alright.
It isn't really "a matter of" one specific factor to the exclusion of all others. Race (as a proxy for cultural environment, as well as the possibility of discrimination), socioeconomics, natural ability/genetics, internal factors (eg willpower), developmental environment all have an impact on the final outcome.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
Affirmative action is 100% racism. Just because it only hinders white people doesn't change this fact. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and nation of birth should NEVER be used as a means of determining anything. The best should get in regardless of those criteria.
UT's top 10% of highs chool students get admission is fine. Be the best, you're in. Simple and fair. The secondary process is however very unfair. I'm kinda surprised the SC just threw it back down...that should have been shot up to peices
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
On July 16 2014 14:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: Affirmative action is 100% racism. Just because it only hinders white people doesn't change this fact. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and nation of birth should NEVER be used as a means of determining anything. The best should get in regardless of those criteria.
UT's top 10% of highs chool students get admission is fine. Be the best, you're in. Simple and fair. The secondary process is however very unfair. I'm kinda surprised the SC just threw it back down...that should have been shot up to peices
at the highest tier of universities (ivy leagues), it hurts asians a lot more than white people.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
Fisher wasn't in the top 10 percent at her school, don't make it seem like Fisher was some highly qualified student because if she was she would have been autoadmit anyways. I agree its a blemish on the education system, an education system that has systemically provided poor populations who are overwhelmingly hispanic and black poor resources and receive a poor education because of it. Despite this, they are competitive applicants. UT is underwhelmingly Hispanic and Black, composing 17 and 4 percent of the university respectively, in a state that is 38 percent hispanic and 12 percent black. If Asian students were having the same problems getting into colleges that black students were then there would be need for affirmative action there, but there isn't.
You are totally disregarding the culture that enables certain students to succeed when you think the system should be based just on economics. In addition to this, even with affirmative action in the job market, people are more likely to hire people like themselves, so if you aren't getting minorities in some of these management companies in the positions then the cycle of poverty will continue.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
Because this trickles down into society creating a society where race and class are tied together.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
Because this trickles down into society to create a society where race and class are tied together.
And, assuming that's true, why should anyone care about that consequence?
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
Because this trickles down into society to create a society where race and class are tied together.
And, assuming that's true, why should anyone care about that consequence?
Well there are a lot of reasons. First, the representativeness of our democracy erodes. If a large minority of the population is disenfranchised then an extreme amount of ill-will accumulates. If these people believe they don't have a fair chance in this society then problems such as crime and discrimination will increase. Second, you are losing out on the members of that community that have the best potential. There are a lot of people who need the connections that some of these colleges have because they do not have them at home. Again this leads to things like that community being hired at all levels. Also, there is a benefit to the members of the majority community because of the perspective that these minorities bring that enhance their worldview, leading to more empathy for communities they aren't directly involved in.
I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
Fisher wasn't in the top 10 percent at her school, don't make it seem like Fisher was some highly qualified student because if she was she would have been autoadmit anyways..
I don't really have a strong opinion on the larger issue of using race in the non auto admit cases because I can see both sides of this. It's a tough situation for sure.
However, I don't agree that your assertion is necessarily true. If I understand correctly, this 10% is actually a form of affirmative action already. Otherwise, the richest, most competitive schools (predominantly white) would produce the most qualified students who would dominate the entrance criteria for the best colleges. Even if you account for that, the 10% can feel awfully arbitrary. Accounting for honors/AP classes, people transferring in between schools, different teachers grading of the same class, cheating... the number of factors outside of effort and ability that matter for this 10% are quite high. Not that she was, but plenty of excellent qualified candidates get turned down because of this rule.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
Fisher wasn't in the top 10 percent at her school, don't make it seem like Fisher was some highly qualified student because if she was she would have been autoadmit anyways..
I don't really have a strong opinion on the larger issue of using race in the non auto admit cases because I can see both sides of this. It's a tough situation for sure.
However, I don't agree that your assertion is necessarily true. If I understand correctly, this 10% is actually a form of affirmative action already. Otherwise, the richest, most competitive schools (predominantly white) would produce the most qualified students who would dominate the entrance criteria for the best colleges. Even if you account for that, the 10% can feel awfully arbitrary. Accounting for honors/AP classes, people transferring in between schools, different teachers grading of the same class, cheating... the number of factors outside of effort and ability that matter for this 10% are quite high. Not that she was, but plenty of excellent qualified candidates get turned down because of this rule.
The University of Texas has actually done a study on this. The students who are admitted via the top 10 percent rule who do worse on the SAT/ACT actually do better in school than the students not admitted under the rule with higher SAT/ACT scores. Essentially grades from high school are a better predictor of success in school compared to test scores.
The problem of rich, high test score not getting into UT could be solved if those parents didn't self-segregate based on income.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
Perhaps not racism but you can't preach equality and then enforce some form of arbitrary balancing measures. I think this is counter-productive because when you start giving privilages to people they get accustomed to it (which is bad in itself) and it's then really hard to take them away (when they're no longer required for example). You also teach people that they are suddenly eligible for something their peers are not because of something they have no influence on (you don't choose your parents after all). That's just not how the world works...
People are not equal and that's the beauty of it. There's no need for everyone to finish college, just like not everyone is suited to be an electrician or a plumber. Similar stuff has led to many problems in my country already, they've removed schools that taught you mechanics, cooking and other "mundane" stuff, they were shorter than highschool and you didn't get to take the SAT-equivalent after graduation (so you weren't eligible to study at the university) but you got a profession. Now everyone goes to highschool as there's no other option and we end up with a ton of educated unemployed and lack of specialist workers. They did something like that in Germany before but they've woken up already. I remember that there was a time when Germans offered kids from Poland to actually pay for their education, language lessons and other expenses as long as they would be willing to study in their technical schools and work in Germany afterwards.
The bottom line is: Not everyone needs a degree. And for the lower classes it's usually better if they start working at a younger age to help support the family (or start their own). I'm not even mentioning the loss for the entire community/population if there is no one to work. There should be no preference or special treatment during the application process for the college. Everyone should get the exact same chance of getting in, if they come from a poor family and can't support themselves that's the college's job to help them out with that (that's how it's done here, you can get numerous scholarships depending on how well you do and what's your family's situation, for the most part poor people actually get paid during their college instead of having to pay themselves), but during admissions it's fair game for everybody. Back in my day I had really bad scores in highschool, passed my SAT-equivalent with mediocre score at best and entered my chosen faculty at the university from the 6th spot on the list. But those were the beautiful days when unis didn't give a damn about your highschool performance (unless you won some nationwide scientific contests and such) or SAT and had their own internal exams based on which faculty you chose. It had more sense because they got who they wanted and now with standardized stuff it's a complete disaster.
Not sure what to think about this. I never understood why universities need to limit enrollment in the first place. Just admit everybody and drop the students who are not able to pass the exams. That system works in several countries (perhaps except some studies which are pretty expensive and pretty popular). So to me all this affirmative action vs no affirmative action discussion sounds like a discussion about which poison to choose.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
Isn't segregation based on income something that happens naturally?
For example, some hobbies are just more expensive than others and if I pursue those, I tend to only meet people who are also able to afford that hobby. And there is also the issue with the neighbourhood etc.
I mean, I'm not saying that segregation is good, however some people make it sound as if it was a deliberate choice.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that the University of Texas can continue using race as a factor in undergraduate admissions as a way of promoting diversity on campus, the latest in an ongoing case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court last year only to be sent back to lower courts for further review.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that barring the university from using race would ultimately lead to a less diverse student body in defiance of previous legal precedent that promoting diversity was an important part of education.
"We are persuaded that to deny UT Austin its limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity would hobble the richness of the educational experience," the opinion stated.
The case began in 2008 when Abigail Fisher, who is white, was denied admission to the University of Texas's flagship Austin campus because she did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her high school class — the criterion for 75 percent of the school's admissions. The university also passed her over for a position among the remaining 25 percent, which is reserved for special scholarships and people who meet a formula for personal achievement that includes race as a factor.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013. But rather than issue a landmark decision on affirmative action, it voted 7-1 to tell a lower appeals court to take another look at Fisher's lawsuit. That meant the university's admissions policies remained unchanged.
In November, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit held a rare hearing in Austin where it again listened to arguments on both sides of the case.
University of Texas President Bill Powers called it "a great day for higher education nationwide."
"As a teacher and as president of this university I know the value of diversity of all kinds," Powers said at a news conference. "And our state and our nation won't advance unless we're training leaders in all parts of our society."
Between 2000 and 2010, Texas' population increased by more than 4 million with minorities, especially Hispanics, accounting for nearly nine out every 10 new residents, according to census figures.
The University of Texas has become more-diverse — but much more slowly. It's percentage of white students declined from 53.5 percent in 2009 to 47.7 percent last fall. The percentage of Hispanic students increased from 18.5 percent to 21.7 percent over the same period, but lags the 38.4 percent of the Texas population which is Hispanic. Black student enrollment has declined slightly since 2009 and was 4.3 percent last year, compared with 12.4 percent of the Texas population who are black.
Edward Blum, one of the attorneys representing Fisher, called the ruling "disappointing but not unexpected." He said the legal team could next appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit, or directly back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think we need a little more time to more carefully study the opinion and weight the pluses and minuses of both avenues," Blum said by phone.
Fisher said in a statement that she too was disappointed "that the judges hearing my case are not following the Supreme Court's ruling last summer."
"I remain committed to continuing this lawsuit even if it means we appeal to the Supreme Court once again," she added.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the groups that helped argue in favor of the University of Texas and its admissions policies. It called the ruling a victory but conceded that the disputes over affirmative action are not over.
"It's going to be a conversation that we need to continue and a difficult one," said Janai Nelson, associate director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. "But what this decision emphasizes is that there are ways in which we can use race in a positive and progressive manner."
Very happy with this ruling. As a country that continues to go down the road of pretending that racism doesn't exist anymore, and as our primary education system becomes more and more segregated, I'm glad that Fisher lost. While Affirmative action doesn't completely draw lines amongst the classes, the connection between race and class is heavily correlated. One day affirmative action won't be needed, we aren't at that day.
From current discussion on "that day," I know it will never come. Utopia isn't for this world, and that's exactly what is demanded for race and class before we can "move on" in their words. If different modes of behavior, some of which are cultural and predominant in some ethnicities rather than others, didn't lead to different results ... why even have freedom at all? If it all had the same results then bring in the engineered society at once, baby, since it's all the same at the end of the day.
I don't know if our society will ever be free of intellectuals and their destructive meddling in the lives of others. It was the white man's burden in Africa and now its the white man's guilt in America. That guilt might just lead the superiority complex of the few to triumph over the healthy dose of common sense that used to be the curse of the many. It comes up in beautiful schemes like forced busing and the campaigns against charter schools. It destroyed inner city schools that at one time graduated skilled students. It will keep advancing minorities into tougher schools they are unprepared for, whose academic success did not warrant their admission, and then their glimmering success scrapes by with low grades or drops out, another successful failure and reason enough to claim again that minorities can't make it on their own. The cycle continues, whites feeling good about themselves while others suffer.
You are delusional if you even think we are moving towards that day. We have said screw the day let's go back to before the 60's. White flight destroyed inner-city schools along with our stupid property tax based system where the richest schools get the bulk of the funding. If you want to talk about perpetuating a cycle of poverty this is where the discussion starts. Our schools are more segregated now than ever with the erosion of the civil rights act, but hey, let's get rid of affirmative action so the poor inner city black or hispanic student doesn't have a chance in college either.
Who cares that they are black or hispanic? Sounds like poverty is the issue at hand, use that as a metric, not race.
Major step backwards for the U.S.
Stating race plays any true factor is just a slap in the face anyways by insinuating legitimate inferiority, while not addressing the root cause. To state Fisher is less valuable because the color of her skin is white is a blemish on the U.S. education system. To deny her entrance compared to another student who may have had the same marks, but had a more difficult struggle due to socioeconomic status is legitimate.
Today, many black children still attend schools in racially and economically isolated neighborhoods, while their families still reside in lonely islands of poverty: 39 percent of black children are from families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with 12 percent of white children (U.S. Census Bureau(a)); 28 percent of black children live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared with 4 percent of white children (Casey 2013).
If blacks truly are held back because of such an environment, they still would have an advantage because of that and be admitted in higher proportions.
Maybe Asians coming from a poor family wouldn't be denied entrance because they are Asian - they suffered segregation as well, yet are at an even more significant disadvantage than whites in California. What a joke.
Fisher wasn't in the top 10 percent at her school, don't make it seem like Fisher was some highly qualified student because if she was she would have been autoadmit anyways. I agree its a blemish on the education system, an education system that has systemically provided poor populations who are overwhelmingly hispanic and black poor resources and receive a poor education because of it. Despite this, they are competitive applicants. UT is underwhelmingly Hispanic and Black, composing 17 and 4 percent of the university respectively, in a state that is 38 percent hispanic and 12 percent black. If Asian students were having the same problems getting into colleges that black students were then there would be need for affirmative action there, but there isn't.
You are totally disregarding the culture that enables certain students to succeed when you think the system should be based just on economics. In addition to this, even with affirmative action in the job market, people are more likely to hire people like themselves, so if you aren't getting minorities in some of these management companies in the positions then the cycle of poverty will continue.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
First, I would like to comment you are correct, and I was unaware CA had enacted a specific law.
That aside, I find it highly irrelevant if Fisher was a highly qualified student or not. What is relevant is whether the fact her race made it disadvantageous to be admitted into the school. You then go on to state that it's "provided poor populations who are overwhelmingly hispanic and black poor resources."
The entire point is that if economic played a heftier role, it would indirectly benefit the hispanics and blacks as you are stating, alleviating the issue. If your goal is to have heavier hispanic/black representation, simply make this a significantly more important factor than it is currently in the evaluation process and you can achieve near identical results. It is only a matter of tweaking the variables.
You state that UT is underwhemingly black but fail to point out the benefit in having more blacks for the simple sake of having black people. This is utter nonsense, in my opinion. I do not think being black in itself has any merit, in the slightest, above being white, hispanic, or anything else. Affirmative action is stating it is a superior factor [because they are currently underrepresented]. Straight up racism.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
We had some irony problems with relatively rich, expensive areas not being able to raise enough taxes to make ends meet because the extra money would be automatically diverted to poorer districts.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
What are you even talking about? California outlawed affirmative action. Look at UCLA's demographics, its overwhelmingly Asian, and underwhelmingly black.
Why should anyone care if Universities have a preponderance of one race or another?
State funded schools should be spending state taxes according to the wishes of those that live in the states. That was the initial idea anyway. I doubt it works like that anymore.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset.
You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset.
You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
I know the more I look into the whole race debate, the less I am convinced that things are even corrected for by things like affirmative action. So much rolls down to the next generation, and knowing that legal segregation was only 50 years ago, it's much easier to imagine that the damage that was done back then is still felt today. We spent generations legally creating socioeconomic despair on a single race of people, and it's not going to magically disappear because we stopped 1 generation ago. We're not THAT great of a country...
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
Perhaps not racism but you can't preach equality and then enforce some form of arbitrary balancing measures. I think this is counter-productive because when you start giving privilages to people they get accustomed to it (which is bad in itself) and it's then really hard to take them away (when they're no longer required for example). You also teach people that they are suddenly eligible for something their peers are not because of something they have no influence on (you don't choose your parents after all). That's just not how the world works...
Prove that this is happening. That these "privileges" are being are coddling these people into laziness. When this ACTUALLY happens, we will see it very noticeably and it will be VERY easy to take away due to how damaging it is to everybody else. You sound just like the people that justify taking away welfare because "when people aren't starving, they aren't willing to work an awful job for absolutely awful pay!"
People are not equal and that's the beauty of it. There's no need for everyone to finish college, just like not everyone is suited to be an electrician or a plumber. Similar stuff has led to many problems in my country already, they've removed schools that taught you mechanics, cooking and other "mundane" stuff, they were shorter than highschool and you didn't get to take the SAT-equivalent after graduation (so you weren't eligible to study at the university) but you got a profession. Now everyone goes to highschool as there's no other option and we end up with a ton of educated unemployed and lack of specialist workers. They did something like that in Germany before but they've woken up already. I remember that there was a time when Germans offered kids from Poland to actually pay for their education, language lessons and other expenses as long as they would be willing to study in their technical schools and work in Germany afterwards.
As for this part, college isn't something that should be reserved for families that are already educated or "rich." Everybody SHOULD strive to go to college, not because we need more sociologist majors, but because we need more machinists with CAD and materials experience. We need more welders with chemistry and physics understanding. We need more business and IT specialists with SQL experience. You don't learn these things in a 6 month vocational school, but you can learn them in a 2-4 year college. College education is a way to raise all boats, not just those that do go. Sending "poor" people to vocational training is a way to raise their boat above those other "poor" people around them, and make them vulnerable and replaceable by the next technological surge.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
An interesting study, which I can see being believable. However that study is in regards to employment and I really do think that at this point in time the results of such a study would be a bit different with schools than with employment. Diversity is very desirable to schools, and the kind of people in charge of admissions tend to have that kind of mindset.
You do make me think, though. Maybe I am wrong. I am less confident than I was coming in.
That's why I bolded the part about people who are trying to be equal opportunity employers (or admissions) still showing unintentional bias. Most people aren't intentionally or overtly racist/prejudiced, but just because one doesn't think race/gender/economic standing/etc... influence your decisions doesn't mean they don't.
Don't get me wrong affirmative action is a clunky old piece of legislation but the problems it was intended to resolve have improved but still remain. Also in practice it isn't supposed to help a lesser candidate get a spot over a better one. It's supposed to be used in a way where if you have 2 otherwise equal candidates academically and so on and you are choosing one, you would choose the one from a more disadvantaged background and/or brings ethnic diversity to institutions, many of which would not have let black people sit in their classrooms at all, no matter how overqualified, prior to laws like AA being written.
Where it tends to have the most unintended consequences is when you have wealthy minorities pushing out disadvantaged whites. And or when you have people using it for a justification for practices it was never intended for.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
All names are 'made up' haha? I presume you mean unique. If so, yes. But see how even you can inadvertently debase one group of people over another just based on name preference (suggesting that poorer black mothers 'make up' names as if that's not how all names came into being). And if we are going to talk about the historical nature of a name like Mary or John you can bet 'Tangilique' wouldn't be any better off if her name was 'Funmilayo' or 'Deshaun' as 'Olaudah'.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
All names are 'made up' haha? I presume you mean unique. If so, yes. But see how even you can inadvertently debase one group of people over another just based on name preference (suggesting that poorer black mothers 'make up' names as if that's not how all names came into being). And if we are going to talk about the historical nature of a name like Mary or John you can bet 'Tangilique' wouldn't be any better off if her name was 'Funmilayo' or 'Deshaun' as 'Olaudah'.
The only way around this is to not use names in official paperwork. Only use an I.D. number of some kind. Maybe a social security number, or part of an SSN combined with birthdate.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
AA does a poor job of balancing legacy because then poor and middle class whites get the shaft.
Is there any reason we don't just look at income for affirmative action? What if a particular student had a replaced name and no listed race, but his parents' income and non-retirement assets? Seems more fair
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
AA does a poor job of balancing legacy because then poor and middle class whites get the shaft.
Is there any reason we don't just look at income for affirmative action? What if a particular student had a replaced name and no listed race, but his parents' income and non-retirement assets? Seems more fair
AA isn't really about balancing legacies. The purpose is to have a semi-representative cross section of society at the school and has been historically used to correct past injustices.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
AA does a poor job of balancing legacy because then poor and middle class whites get the shaft.
Is there any reason we don't just look at income for affirmative action? What if a particular student had a replaced name and no listed race, but his parents' income and non-retirement assets? Seems more fair
AA isn't really about balancing legacies. The purpose is to have a semi-representative cross section of society at the school and has been historically used to correct past injustices.
I don't really think it is about having a semi-representative cross section of society though. Rather, I think it's more about the diversity (and only one or two very specific applications of it) buzzword. Not only do universities commonly have commissions and departments on diversity, but for whatever reason society sees fit to complain when certain definitions are not met. Recently: see USA today making a fuss over big software companies not hiring a lot of women and non-asian/whites.
Also, is there any research done that actually shows that diversity benefits a student population more than it hinders it (when diversity is reached at the expense of the overall merit of the student body)? I can only tangentially think of that one study where they put people in broken elevators.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
AA does a poor job of balancing legacy because then poor and middle class whites get the shaft.
Is there any reason we don't just look at income for affirmative action? What if a particular student had a replaced name and no listed race, but his parents' income and non-retirement assets? Seems more fair
AA isn't really about balancing legacies. The purpose is to have a semi-representative cross section of society at the school and has been historically used to correct past injustices.
I don't really think it is about having a semi-representative cross section of society though. Rather, I think it's more about the diversity (and only one or two very specific applications of it) buzzword. Not only do universities commonly have commissions and departments on diversity, but for whatever reason society sees fit to complain when certain definitions are not met. Recently: see USA today making a fuss over big software companies not hiring a lot of women and non-asian/whites.
Also, is there any research done that actually shows that diversity benefits a student population more than it hinders it (when diversity is reached at the expense of the overall merit of the student body)? I can only tangentially think of that one study where they put people in broken elevators.
I would think there is some importance of having students who come from different backgrounds who can share their experiences living in their respective community. In addition, these communities will more likely be represented in the higher levels of academia, the workforce, and politics after college.
Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
That isn't an option, the options are end affirmative action and have shitty inner city schools or continue having affirmative action and have shitty inner city schools.
But yes, in general first-generation college students fare much worse in schools, and a lot of those students are URM's. Schools who provide special resources, which is what a lot of schools are starting to do, to these students can help change this.
On July 17 2014 06:43 Yourmomsbasement wrote: I fear the racism that is bred by these type of laws. If someone not white gets a +1, is that not that same as it used to be in USA following the end of slavery? Majority privileges replaced by minority privileges. If you give something to one group and take from another, you breed animosity between the two.
How can you breed animosity when a disportionate percentage of the white and asian populations are still being represented by these colleges? The African American population is still represented at 1/3 of what it should be based on population, the hispanic population is represented by less than 1/2 of its population. Racism is bred when the US distributes tax resources for schools based on income, yet I don't see anyone rallying around equitable funding for schools.
if african americans aren't getting into college, they probably aren't performing as well in school. so instead of unfairly putting them into colleges over students with more merit, maybe we should be focusing on helping these communities perform better in school.
I don't even understand the logic for affirmative action anyways. Does anyone actually think it's common for schools to give white people preference? Anyone?
The first part sounds about right. As for the second part yes it absolutely is. It's not always hey lets help this white guy instead of this non-white person. The hardest part about affirmative action is it's trying to correct intentional and unintentional behavior.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.
Legacy admissions and other issues play a role in white preference too. I think how some people get lost is that they think all discrimination has to be malicious and intentional in order to need correction.
I agree with you about legacy admissions. In a way, affirmative action balances that out, though imperfectly.
The issue with black names is not just race, but class. There was (is still?) a trend among poorer black mothers, many of whom are single mothers, to create made up names when naming their children. So when people see those names, race preferences get mixed in with class preferences. Middle class and above don't really use those names as much.
AA does a poor job of balancing legacy because then poor and middle class whites get the shaft.
Is there any reason we don't just look at income for affirmative action? What if a particular student had a replaced name and no listed race, but his parents' income and non-retirement assets? Seems more fair
AA isn't really about balancing legacies. The purpose is to have a semi-representative cross section of society at the school and has been historically used to correct past injustices.
I don't really think it is about having a semi-representative cross section of society though. Rather, I think it's more about the diversity (and only one or two very specific applications of it) buzzword. Not only do universities commonly have commissions and departments on diversity, but for whatever reason society sees fit to complain when certain definitions are not met. Recently: see USA today making a fuss over big software companies not hiring a lot of women and non-asian/whites.
Also, is there any research done that actually shows that diversity benefits a student population more than it hinders it (when diversity is reached at the expense of the overall merit of the student body)? I can only tangentially think of that one study where they put people in broken elevators.
I would think there is some importance of having students who come from different backgrounds who can share their experiences living in their respective community. In addition, these communities will more likely be represented in the higher levels of academia, the workforce, and politics after college.
Ok I'm reading this right now and after skimming through the first 60 pages or so (mostly looking at the big statements and the tables) I only see people ranking from 1 to 5 how they feel diversity affects the institution, or opinions of faculty and students. That only shows that people believe that diversity is helpful or at least not negative, not that it's actually beneficial in measurable quantities like improved student body performance on objective tests (LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, etc.), employer perception of the school (measured by 6 month employment rates after graduation, recruiting on campus, etc.), graduation rate, student satisfaction (without bringing up diversity). And just because something is generally believed does not make it true, especially for a controversial topic like race.
Also most of the large bolded statements have no source to back them up. I suppose they are supposed to be self-evident but I don't think the claim that "Attention to multicultural learning extends the meaning of personal, social, and moral growth and improves the capacity of colleges and universities to achieve their missions" is very objective or actually self-evident.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
That isn't an option, the options are end affirmative action and have shitty inner city schools or continue having affirmative action and have shitty inner city schools.
But yes, in general first-generation college students fare much worse in schools, and a lot of those students are URM's. Schools who provide special resources, which is what a lot of schools are starting to do, to these students can help change this.
Since intelligence has a heritability factor of about 0.5-0.8 does it not make sense that after generations those whose parents did not fare well academically would also tend to not fare well academically themselves?
Just food for thought. Equal opportunity is good (and imo inner city schools should get the same funding as wealthy suburban schools) but artificial equal outcome is not a good solution to actual inequal outcome.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
It's all good to say 'fix the education system' however every single state has a vastly different education system; you can't just do this or that and it'll all be good.
There are certain methods that you can use, and government intervention is one of them. However, people don't exactly like that, especially when it comes to something like education since apparently the government doesn't know what the fuck it's doing (which I agree, to some extent it doesn't). That being said, China for example has been pretty good regarding their education and shoring up weak areas in their nation. They've addressed some major issues such as under performing students in rural areas basically by brute force (government basically forces the best administrators and teachers to go to under performing schools and pays them a shit ton for their work).
As an actual educator, I can tell you first hand that from my travels around the world and from my work here in the U.S., that teachers here in the U.S. aren't just woefully unpaid, they are also heavily under trained and under equipped on average compared to their counter parts in China, Singapore, Korea, Japan, and other countries that have strong education systems (Norway and other Scandinavian countries are pretty solid too). There are of course exceptions such as the North East where most teachers have a Masters Degree or a Doctoral Degree, but for the most part, your average teacher in the U.S. is woefully underpaid, under trained, and not ready to handle the students. It doesn't help that nationally administrators are pressured into artificially inflating their graduation rates (thus inflating student grades as a whole). Oh, and lots of good teachers are pretty much leaving the country in droves to teach in other countries like Japan, South Korea, China, and other Asian countries trying to compete in the global market. These countries pay teachers to come over to teach subjects like English, U.S. History (which basically ends up being a U.S. Culture class), Spanish, etc. and they pay them a shit ton of money. I mean why not? You get paid a ton of money, you get to live in another country basically for free (they pay for your cost of living for the most part), and you are immersed in a culture where education is #1, everything else follows.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
So, what you're saying is that you view whites and blacks as separate groups, and that any injustice against someone in the black group could be countered by creating an injustice for someone in the white group. This is your so called fairness. To you, fairness is not about justice for every single one of us, rather it's about creating categories arbitrarily and then slicing them into evenly sized chunks.
You're also overlooking the fact that many blacks are descendants from white slave owners and that a lot of white ppl don't have relatives who were slave owners and that a lot of very wealthy cultural groups, like american jews and east asians are as successful as whites today, and they immigrated to the country after slavery was abolished. Asians need higher grades in america to enroll at universities, compared to all the other cultural groups, simply because they're asian. If you don't think this is unjust, you don't know what justice means. The only crime of the asian americans is that they're hardworking. You want to punish them for this.
Also, there's no such thing as "slave work". Slavery occurs when someone by force from some kind of indisputable authority, takes away your freedom of self. The only indisputable authority in a civilized country is the government, so it's only through the government that you can create and maintain slavery in a lawful society.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
So, what you're saying is that you view whites and blacks as separate groups, and that any injustice against someone in the black group could be countered by creating an injustice for someone in the white group. This is your so called fairness. To you, fairness is not about justice for every single one of us, rather it's about creating categories arbitrarily and then slicing them into evenly sized chunks.
You're also overlooking the fact that many blacks are descendants from white slave owners and that a lot of white ppl don't have relatives who were slave owners and that a lot of very wealthy cultural groups, like american jews and east asians are as successful as whites today, and they immigrated to the country after slavery was abolished. Asians need higher grades in america to enroll at universities, compared to all the other cultural groups, simply because they're asian. If you don't think this is unjust, you don't know what justice means. The only crime of the asian americans is that they're hardworking. You want to punish them for this.
Also, there's no such thing as "slave work". Slavery occurs when someone by force from some kind of indisputable authority, takes away your freedom of self. The only indisputable authority in a civilized country is the government, so it's only through the government that you can create and maintain slavery in a lawful society.
I don't 'view whites and blacks as different groups', you can look at countless statistics to see that in practicality they obviously are. Not because I wish it, but due to our history and everyday realities.
I admit AA is a poor way to address the issues but again it's that or nothing not some better alternative(political reality). Trust me, I have had these discussions far too many times and done far to much research to not be aware of discrimination and economic achievements of other races.
Your assertion about Asian Americans is pretty unfounded and even if it did exist, has little to nothing to do with affirmative action. If anything it is just evidence of the history of white privilege and it's impact on many different people. Asians, like most minorities, suffer from the inequity of legacy admissions and historically discriminative practices.
Finally you just completely missed the point about 'slave like law'
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
The EXACT problem with AA is that you aren't losing the seat to someone equally qualified (which would still be racism). You are losing it to someone considerably LESS qualified on all objective parameters. It is only when accounting for race that the other person beats you - and that is discrimination towards both students. AA only accomplishes that everyone will look at a chart like this:
and go: Oh shit, I don't want a black/hispanic doctor.
EDIT: Source with additional comments pertaining to the table:
On July 22 2014 07:25 Ghostcom wrote: You are going to have to explain that one to me Livelovedie.
Dr. Kaplan’s points are backed up by a number of studies. For instance, research has shown that minority doctors are more likely to work with underserved and indigent populations (for a summary table, see pages 2-3 of the Commonwealth Fund’s report on disparities). These are the same populations who bear disproportionate rates of disease and who have the most limited access to care. (For more, see the CDC Health Disparities & Inequalities Report.)
Dr. Kaplan’s points are backed up by a number of studies. For instance, research has shown that minority doctors are more likely to work with underserved and indigent populations (for a summary table, see pages 2-3 of the Commonwealth Fund’s report on disparities). These are the same populations who bear disproportionate rates of disease and who have the most limited access to care. (For more, see the CDC Health Disparities & Inequalities Report.)
So I actually went and read the commonwealth fund's report on disparities (the approximately 2 pages the article you linked deemed relevant). It is overlooking one very obvious confounding variable which ties neatly into the table I linked - how good are these doctors compared to their peers. Perhaps some of these doctors are seeing these patients because that is the population left for them to serve - none of the studies which is linked in the table on page 2-3 outright states that they have adjusted for this confounder.
Furthermore, as one of the biggest predictors of treating the "undeserved and indigent populations" is to have grown up as a member of these then, if the target was to ensure that all populations had a doctor, and as these populations are most economically challenged, having economy as a factor would be a much better and "innocent" way to "discriminate" when looking at applicants than race.
I hate when people bring up slavery when it comes to modern race relations. No one alive today was involved. Hell, most people alive today don't even have grandparents who were involved. Why should people today be treated differently for things that their ancestors did or endured ~150 years ago?
I'm 1/8th Greek, do I deserve special treatment from Turkey for all the oppression under the Ottoman Empire?
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
So, what you're saying is that you view whites and blacks as separate groups, and that any injustice against someone in the black group could be countered by creating an injustice for someone in the white group. This is your so called fairness. To you, fairness is not about justice for every single one of us, rather it's about creating categories arbitrarily and then slicing them into evenly sized chunks.
You're also overlooking the fact that many blacks are descendants from white slave owners and that a lot of white ppl don't have relatives who were slave owners and that a lot of very wealthy cultural groups, like american jews and east asians are as successful as whites today, and they immigrated to the country after slavery was abolished. Asians need higher grades in america to enroll at universities, compared to all the other cultural groups, simply because they're asian. If you don't think this is unjust, you don't know what justice means. The only crime of the asian americans is that they're hardworking. You want to punish them for this.
Also, there's no such thing as "slave work". Slavery occurs when someone by force from some kind of indisputable authority, takes away your freedom of self. The only indisputable authority in a civilized country is the government, so it's only through the government that you can create and maintain slavery in a lawful society.
I'm sorry, but I cringed when you started talking about Asian Americans. You obviously know very little about Asian American issues if you make blanket statements such as that.
On July 22 2014 09:24 Millitron wrote: I hate when people bring up slavery when it comes to modern race relations. No one alive today was involved. Hell, most people alive today don't even have grandparents who were involved. Why should people today be treated differently for things that their ancestors did or endured ~150 years ago?
I'm 1/8th Greek, do I deserve special treatment from Turkey for all the oppression under the Ottoman Empire?
One doesn't have to have owned slaves or descended from those who did to enjoy the benefits it wrought? Not to mention, slavery may have ended a long time ago but oppression is alive today.
Your right they shouldn't be treated differently so lets stop people from inheriting companies and fortunes built by their ancestors long ago...
Like let's say maybe JP Morgan which offered loans while accepting slaves as collateral,or Norfolk Southern who still rides rails built by slaves who were rented to the railroad for ~$3,300 a year ( paid to the owner in today's dollars), or any of the other countless companies who were built on the backs of slaves. It amazing how successful people can be when they take another group of people and say they don't have any rights and we can make them work to death for free (the second being one of the least horrible things about slavery).
To go on, after slavery, plenty of companies abused minorities to their benefit in a variety of ways and continue to this day. Just look at the child labor/ safety laws relating to tobacco farms. They have kids out there in 90+ degree weather picking tobacco 12+ hours, wearing garbage bags (sweat suits) to reduce the instances of acute nicotine poisoning.
My point being that people don't have a problem keeping what was stolen during our history, but god forbid that legacy be considered for those who suffer as well as those who benefit.
On July 22 2014 13:35 Nesserev wrote: Please stop bringing up slavery, it has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread... it's true that a portion of the population has some ancestral relationship with slavery, which they either benefit from, or are disadvantaged by, but it's not relevant in the current spectrum of this discussion. Benefits/advantages can/have been the effect of many different things, if you want to involve slavery in this discussion, you have to involve the universe.
So, to the discussion: should race be a factor in admissions to universities? Affirmative Action goes against the 'political liberal thought'. For those who don't know, it is the principle that the state has to make sure that every person has the right to make his/her own choices (within a certain frame), and have the same opportunities as a different person, regardless of race, religion, etc. This is the foundation of almost every Western culture, including the US. I don't think (read: I hope) that there's no one in this thread who thinks that this is a bad thing. + Show Spoiler [remarks] +
1. It has nothing to do with 'American liberalism'. Please, don't make this mistake. 2. This doesn't mean that any person can do whatever he/she wants. A person can choose to drive too fast, but then he/she can be punished for it. Equality of opportunity, NOT equality of effects.
Affirmative Action has the right intentions, but it's simply not the right way to approach the problem; and is it even targeting a 'problem' in the first place?
It's true that certain portions of the general population don't get equal chances, but is this because of their race? No, it's because of their individual situation (financial, cultural, etc.), and thus, a solution should be applied to those problems.
And, when people don't get equal chances because of their race, it's racism. Racism should be dealt with in a proper fashion. Analogism: "If someone is stabbing people, you don't resolve the problem by patching the victims up, you resolve it by taking away the knife from the stabber." You can't solve racism by giving 'minorities' benefits, but by getting rid of racism.
The problem with Affirmative Action is that it isn't the right approach to solve the problem. Also, as someone mentioned quotas regarding women/minorities; they suffer from the same problem.
Just because people want to forget slavery, doesn't mean it isn't relevant to discussions about current discrimination. The same goes for segregation, and discriminatory laws. Another myth is that Affirmative action is only intended to address intentional, overt racism. It's not. Unintentional discrimination is an important (probably more so now) part of what Affirmative action is intended to address.
Most people who are so avidly against affirmative action seem not to understand, what it is, what it's for, or the historical context, among other aspects. It seems just comprehending what it is and what it does (as opposed to what people blame it for) would alleviate most of the complaints.
Also as I mentioned before 'quotas' are a myth.....Or just a lazy person being lazy.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
So, what you're saying is that you view whites and blacks as separate groups, and that any injustice against someone in the black group could be countered by creating an injustice for someone in the white group. This is your so called fairness. To you, fairness is not about justice for every single one of us, rather it's about creating categories arbitrarily and then slicing them into evenly sized chunks.
You're also overlooking the fact that many blacks are descendants from white slave owners and that a lot of white ppl don't have relatives who were slave owners and that a lot of very wealthy cultural groups, like american jews and east asians are as successful as whites today, and they immigrated to the country after slavery was abolished. Asians need higher grades in america to enroll at universities, compared to all the other cultural groups, simply because they're asian. If you don't think this is unjust, you don't know what justice means. The only crime of the asian americans is that they're hardworking. You want to punish them for this.
Also, there's no such thing as "slave work". Slavery occurs when someone by force from some kind of indisputable authority, takes away your freedom of self. The only indisputable authority in a civilized country is the government, so it's only through the government that you can create and maintain slavery in a lawful society.
I'm sorry, but I cringed when you started talking about Asian Americans. You obviously know very little about Asian American issues if you make blanket statements such as that.
On July 21 2014 14:01 deth2munkies wrote: Affirmative action is merely a shitty remedy to a real problem: the inequality of the education system. Poor predominantly black areas have high dropout rates and overall crappier high schools which make them less likely to get into college. The overall costs associated with college and the related cultural stigma against college in extreme poverty areas all stacks the odds against black people going to college.
Fixing the underlying problems is a lot harder than saying "give us your undereducated black students so that we may hopefully be able to educate them". Anecdotal conversations with several admissions faculty members (including one at UT) also point out another ugly truth: affirmative action students typically do significantly worse in classes than those accepted on the merits.
Affirmative action is just a way to alleviate white guilt and make people feel better when in reality the underlying problems in the education system go unfixed. Comparatively few people that end up getting into college solely on affirmative action grounds end up doing well and making the most of their education. I'm all for burning the education system to the ground and fixing it again, but I'm in the minority. In the meantime, cut this shit out.
Except from what I've seen, affirmative action isn't just a shitty remedy, it also exacerbates the problem. Instead of looking at a students background, it puts their race as the focal point. Instead of seeing if they come from a problem area or if they are impoverished or if there are other things that place stumbling blocks in their path, it looks specifically at racial diversity in a lot of cases. A quota if you will. That quota gets filled up by the best "minority" students, rather than the ones that truly need help getting into college in many cases. Much like the national achievement scholarships (National Merit but only for people who are Black), the people that end scoring high enough to get the scholarship are not people from problem areas, but really smart kids who went to the best schools and aren't, nor have ever been, truly underprivileged. In short, affirmative action doesn't do very much to help those kids you say need help, but it does give a convenient excuse for universities to create the ecosystems they want based on race rather than other factors.
Quotas are a bulllshit myth. Any use of quotas is just lazy people being lazy and has nothing to do with the law. What are you even talking about with universities creating ecosystems based on race? People hear whacko stories about what affirmative action is and they just accept them as gospel, without having a clue it seems?
For the first 200 years of this country black people were property and then just above property. That whole time white people poor and rich enjoyed privilege that was explicitly banned for black people (and others) It's been less than 60 years of Black people being legally human and (at least on paper) treated close to equally, and it's been nothing but whining the whole damn time. Complained about how freeing slaves was going to hurt the white man, how letting black people read was endangering the white man, how black people being able to vote was going to ruin democracy, how allowing black people to go to the same school was dangerous for white folk, how the world would end if black people could eat at the same lunch counters, how interracial marriage was the death knell for the white race, how it's welfare queens sucking the budget dry, how black people have 'lost the culture of hard work', and the poor white students who perform equally to a black person and lose their spot to that equally qualified student. What I say to people who complain about AA is 'cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it'. I can't walk around the streets of New York without having my civil rights violated or being murdered in broad daylight, so pardon me if I don't give a shit about the horrible situation of losing a seat in school to someone who is equally qualified to ones white self.
I'd trade every social program and every affirmative action type law in a heartbeat for 1 year of 'slave like' law. Hell I wouldn't even care if white people didn't actually do any slave work. Just the change in law would be enough to do more to reset the balance than every previous law combined.
It never fails the same people offended by affirmative action are the same ones who want to white wash America's history. The Forbes 400 is full of people who inherited more wealth than most black people will earn in a lifetime and they inherited it from companies and people who indirectly/directly benefited from discriminating/slavery much worse than any AA law. That legacy remains well beyond the Forbes 400. So as long as we don't mind letting people keep that dirty money it's only fair to balance it out a bit with a law like AA. Could it be updated? Of course. Just not by the half-wits in congress. So as was mentioned before, we could have an imperfect law like AA or we could have nothing. I certainly prefer the prior. I could see how a group who benefited massively from the 200+ years of reverse AA wouldn't want a law like that and could see it as unfair though...
So, what you're saying is that you view whites and blacks as separate groups, and that any injustice against someone in the black group could be countered by creating an injustice for someone in the white group. This is your so called fairness. To you, fairness is not about justice for every single one of us, rather it's about creating categories arbitrarily and then slicing them into evenly sized chunks.
You're also overlooking the fact that many blacks are descendants from white slave owners and that a lot of white ppl don't have relatives who were slave owners and that a lot of very wealthy cultural groups, like american jews and east asians are as successful as whites today, and they immigrated to the country after slavery was abolished. Asians need higher grades in america to enroll at universities, compared to all the other cultural groups, simply because they're asian. If you don't think this is unjust, you don't know what justice means. The only crime of the asian americans is that they're hardworking. You want to punish them for this.
Also, there's no such thing as "slave work". Slavery occurs when someone by force from some kind of indisputable authority, takes away your freedom of self. The only indisputable authority in a civilized country is the government, so it's only through the government that you can create and maintain slavery in a lawful society.
I don't 'view whites and blacks as different groups', you can look at countless statistics to see that in practicality they obviously are. Not because I wish it, but due to our history and everyday realities.
I admit AA is a poor way to address the issues but again it's that or nothing not some better alternative(political reality). Trust me, I have had these discussions far too many times and done far to much research to not be aware of discrimination and economic achievements of other races.
Your assertion about Asian Americans is pretty unfounded and even if it did exist, has little to nothing to do with affirmative action. If anything it is just evidence of the history of white privilege and it's impact on many different people. Asians, like most minorities, suffer from the inequity of legacy admissions and historically discriminative practices.
Finally you just completely missed the point about 'slave like law'
If you admited that AA is a poor way to address the issue, then you wouldn't support it. Colleges that stopped AA practices, saw mainly increases in asian students when they started picking the students based on merit alone. AA may be designed to take away opportunities from white ppl, but because asians are more successful than whites on avg, it hits asians even harder.
You can't achieve any amount of justice as long as you look at categories rather than individuals. White ppl are more likely to have been brought up in a rich household, which would have made them privileged, but this is not true all across the board.
Sweden is a very homogenous country by american standards, and all studies that has been made here have shown that how successful you become in school, is directly linked to your parents income. The fact that we have free education, which logically should help those who come from poor households doesn't seem to matter.
Privilege is not about skin color, it's about the quality of your parents and your surroundings.
Visit any elite campus across our great nation, and you can thrill to the heart-warming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. Kids at schools like Stanford think that their environment is diverse if one comes from Missouri and another from Pakistan, or if one plays the cello and the other lacrosse. Never mind that all of their parents are doctors or bankers.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few exceptions, but that is all they are. In fact, the group that is most disadvantaged by our current admissions policies are working-class and rural whites, who are hardly present on selective campuses at all. The only way to think these places are diverse is if that’s all you’ve ever seen.
Let’s not kid ourselves: The college admissions game is not primarily about the lower and middle classes seeking to rise, or even about the upper-middle class attempting to maintain its position. It is about determining the exact hierarchy of status within the upper-middle class itself.
EPT
) said that due to the plaintiff's meager (in comparison to the usual minimum admission for the 25% non-top 10%ers) SAT scores and and another admission criteria (it may have been for the fact she was not in the top 10% of you class), she would not have been admitted regardless.
.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5LjnFs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LrSn3s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AhFs9s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/medschool2.jpg)
