Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Affirmative Action] Perspectives and solutions

1246721

Posts

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    At some point, even if we admit AA is the greatest thing ever, we need to just rip off the band-aid and let things work themselves out. When is that point? Is it now? In some places, AA probably doesn't do a whole lot of net good. And in some places, it's probably incredibly helpful. There's a healthy conversation about where that point is, and how to get there the fastest, and how to deal with regional variations in social justice, and yadda yadda.

    Yeah, that's why I tend to take the stand (a pretty typical stand, as far as I can tell) that broad quotas are bad, weighting criteria based on known objectively-verifiable trends (like weighting SAT/ACT scores differently for high schools where the average scores are lower than the general population) are better, attacking causes directly (like better funding for underfunding schools) is best.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The best class-based AA I can imagine would be to just fucking decouple public school funding from property taxes already. My school should not have been rocking brand new computers and shiny new buildings every other fucking year just because Oprah lived a few blocks up the road. It's unbelievable to me that this hilarious bullshit continues unchallenged, particularly in CA where prop 50 basically fucked property tax collection.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    YodaTuna wrote: »

    "If you're white and you don't admit that it is great, you're an asshole"

    I don't think I've ever heard it put exactly like that, but yes, kind of.

    override367 on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    That clip is the best primer on white privilege I could ask for. But of course mere mention of the concept sets the geese a-honkin' because they read "white privilege" as "white guilt" and believe it to be a sign of weakness.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think the discussion over Affirmative Action, at this point in time, is far less necessary than a discussion over rectifying the institutionalized poverty among African-Americans and discussing its origins and solutions.

    We are at a point in our culture where barriers to education and employment are lower than ever, yet Black Americans continue to fail at much higher rate than other minorities and immigrants.

    .Gov link

    Not only do Black Americans have twice the dropout rate of Whites, over the last 20 years, Blacks have seen this rate drop 42% while Whites have seen it drop 58%.


    Recently C-SPAN covered a conference pertaining directly to education and African Americans, where finally it seems that the PC spectre is starting to fade and the issue can be addressed more directly. The biggest hurdle, most professors posit, is the differences in parenting between Black culture and White culture. One professor noted that at the inner-city "black" school, only six parents showed up on "Meet the Teacher" night for the whole grade, and when he sent his kids to the private "white" school the next year, the same meet-up had over 200 parents and they had to hold the conferences over 3 different times over the night to accommodate for the crowd.


    Affirmative Action isn't going to solve this problem, and if anything, keeping it in place in the advent of the educational gap will only make its dysfunction that much more conspicuous and improper.

    Atomika on
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think the discussion over Affirmative Action, at this point in time, is far less necessary than a discussion over rectifying the institutionalized poverty among African-Americans and discussing its origins and solutions.

    We are at a point in our culture where barriers to education and employment are lower than ever, yet Black Americans continue to fail at much higher rate than other minorities and immigrants.

    .Gov link

    Not only do Black Americans have twice the dropout rate of Whites, over the last 20 years, Blacks have seen this rate drop 42% while Whites have seen it drop 58%.


    Recently C-SPAN covered a conference pertaining directly to education and African Americans, where finally it seems that the PC spectre is starting to fade and the issue can be addressed more directly. The biggest hurdle, most professors posit, is the differences in parenting between Black culture and White culture. One professor noted that at the inner-city "black" school, only six parents showed up on "Meet the Teacher" night for the whole grade, and when he sent his kids to the private "white" school the next year, the same meet-up had over 200 parents and they had to hold the conferences over 3 different times over the night to accommodate for the crowd.

    I don't think it's fair to refer to that as "black culture" and "white culture" - there are a lot more differences between those two groups that we may not know about. The inner-city school is most certainly not as well off as the private school. An inner city school is not going to be able to engage parents as much when the parents have to work more than one job, or can't afford to take a night off, or just come from a culture of poverty that tells them PTA just isn't a priority. You can't just say parenting in black culture is the problem because the inner city schools aren't as involved as private white schools. There are so many more factors involved in that.

    Lux on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Lux wrote: »
    I think the discussion over Affirmative Action, at this point in time, is far less necessary than a discussion over rectifying the institutionalized poverty among African-Americans and discussing its origins and solutions.

    We are at a point in our culture where barriers to education and employment are lower than ever, yet Black Americans continue to fail at much higher rate than other minorities and immigrants.

    .Gov link

    Not only do Black Americans have twice the dropout rate of Whites, over the last 20 years, Blacks have seen this rate drop 42% while Whites have seen it drop 58%.


    Recently C-SPAN covered a conference pertaining directly to education and African Americans, where finally it seems that the PC spectre is starting to fade and the issue can be addressed more directly. The biggest hurdle, most professors posit, is the differences in parenting between Black culture and White culture. One professor noted that at the inner-city "black" school, only six parents showed up on "Meet the Teacher" night for the whole grade, and when he sent his kids to the private "white" school the next year, the same meet-up had over 200 parents and they had to hold the conferences over 3 different times over the night to accommodate for the crowd.

    I don't think it's fair to refer to that as "black culture" and "white culture" - there are a lot more differences between those two groups that we may not know about. The inner-city school is most certainly not as well off as the private school. An inner city school is not going to be able to engage parents as much when the parents have to work more than one job, or can't afford to take a night off, or just come from a culture of poverty that tells them PTA just isn't a priority. You can't just say parenting in black culture is the problem because the inner city schools aren't as involved as private white schools. There are so many more factors involved in that.

    There undoubtedly are, but it can be reasonably assumed that there's huge gap in educational prioritization between inner city schools and that in more affluent areas.

    Atomika on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    1) really when you look at the breakdown 'middle class white people' elected Obama, just like they elect most national politicians, cause there are a lot of them. So policies that alienate them from your side on an issue are generally bad things, especially if the policies don't fix the problems(poverty & crime) you are trying to address.

    Some middle class white people elected Obama. Others are now whining about how Obama is a sekrit muslim sleeper terrorist commie who only got elected because of reverse discrimination on account of being black. In other words, the mere act of having a black president engenders resentment among many whites.

    So the criticism that AA engenders resentment is worthless. Resentment alone isn't a reason not to do something.
    2) Bull shit, in the Michigan case it was clearly not a 'tie breaker'. The college I attended hid the entire process behind 'holistic' and 'well-rounded' evaluation, along with a bunch of other statements that don't actually tell you whats going on.
    Myth: Some students get special treatment in the admissions process.

    True. Veterans, adult students, students with disabilities, children of alumni, some athletes, some minority students, some exceptional musicians, and students who are the first in their families to go to college all get some special consideration.

    If an applicant in one of these groups is clearly admissible, or clearly not admissible, nothing unusual happens; a counselor simply makes a decision and follows the normal process. But in borderline cases, counselors are instructed to give students in these groups some extra consideration when they feel a decision could go either way. “It’s one more penny on the scale,” says associate admissions director Reason. “It’s not a pound on the scale. It’s nowhere near as important as academics. But it’s a penny in their favor.”
    Is as clearly as they'll state it, so they consider it, but only a little, but not in any quantifiable way-so you can't sue them. And remember they are reviewing thousands of transcripts so its not a head to head, there is no tie. They are basically drawing the minority line lower, which pushes the non-minority line up.

    The concept of a tie boils down to this: "If there was a white kid with similar test scores, would we consider letting him in?" If the answer is "yes," then you essentially have a tie. Schools will admit lower achieving kids with special circumstances of either race. In practice, black kids are more likely to have special circumstances. For some reason, black kids are the only ones who you are willing to complain about.
    2b) All admitted students should be more qualified than rejected studets, thats the whole idea behind a merit based admittance. Beyond that legacy isn't a protected class, race is? So while I can't stop a $chool from admitting its legacy piggy bank, racial discrimination is illegal. AA falls under the whole 2 wrongs don't make a right column, legacy just brings the count to 3.

    A perfect meritocracy doesn't exist, and it's stupid to judge black kids on a non-existent criteria that doesn't apply to white kids either. If a perfect meritocracy existed, then all kids would receive a basic number that was computed based on test scores and GPA and we would simply admit the people with the highest number. We wouldn't need any applications that included anything else at all.

    You are arbitrarily holding black people to a higher standard. There's a specific word for that.

    Jennifer Gratz whined about the hundred or so less qualified black kids who got in, but not the 1200 or so less qualified white kids who got in. Why is that?

    Schrodinger on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Lux wrote: »
    I think the discussion over Affirmative Action, at this point in time, is far less necessary than a discussion over rectifying the institutionalized poverty among African-Americans and discussing its origins and solutions.

    We are at a point in our culture where barriers to education and employment are lower than ever, yet Black Americans continue to fail at much higher rate than other minorities and immigrants.

    .Gov link

    Not only do Black Americans have twice the dropout rate of Whites, over the last 20 years, Blacks have seen this rate drop 42% while Whites have seen it drop 58%.


    Recently C-SPAN covered a conference pertaining directly to education and African Americans, where finally it seems that the PC spectre is starting to fade and the issue can be addressed more directly. The biggest hurdle, most professors posit, is the differences in parenting between Black culture and White culture. One professor noted that at the inner-city "black" school, only six parents showed up on "Meet the Teacher" night for the whole grade, and when he sent his kids to the private "white" school the next year, the same meet-up had over 200 parents and they had to hold the conferences over 3 different times over the night to accommodate for the crowd.

    I don't think it's fair to refer to that as "black culture" and "white culture" - there are a lot more differences between those two groups that we may not know about. The inner-city school is most certainly not as well off as the private school. An inner city school is not going to be able to engage parents as much when the parents have to work more than one job, or can't afford to take a night off, or just come from a culture of poverty that tells them PTA just isn't a priority. You can't just say parenting in black culture is the problem because the inner city schools aren't as involved as private white schools. There are so many more factors involved in that.

    There undoubtedly are, but it can be reasonably assumed that there's huge gap in educational prioritization between inner city schools and that in more affluent areas.

    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.

    sidhaethe on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It should be noted that diversity is also a useful thing in its own right. Especially in education. And is, in fact, a compelling state interesting according to the Supreme Court, as long as you don't break out pure quota systems.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.
    I think we are to the point where using "black" and "white" culture is antiquated. "Poor" and "rich" is much more apropos, since the socio-economic reality of a family/area is what will generally set up the behavior for those growing up in it nowadays. Race still matters when it comes to AA though due to the stigmas attached, but when we're talking about an inner city school versus a private school then money's definitely the main difference between them.

    Opty on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The book Outliers has a good discussion of affirmative action. It examines minority students who were admitted to prestigious colleges despite having grades a bit worse than what most of the incoming students had. These were still good students, it's just that their earlier education was not as good as what the other students had.

    While they were in college, the result was about what you'd expect. They came in less well prepared, so of course on average they got worse grades and basically didn't do as well in college as the wealthy white students. So people look at that and see proof that affirmative action is a bad idea.

    However, if you look at what happens to them post-graduation, you see a different story. Despite their struggles in college, the acheivement gap completely disappears. They're getting prestigious jobs and earning good salaries, just as much as the more priviliged students. So this is a huge victory for affirmative action- it shows that imbalances take a while to correct, but it can be done.

    Pi-r8 on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    The book Outliers has a good discussion of affirmative action. It examines minority students who were admitted to prestigious colleges despite having grades a bit worse than what most of the incoming students had. These were still good students, it's just that their earlier education was not as good as what the other students had.

    While they were in college, the result was about what you'd expect. They came in less well prepared, so of course on average they got worse grades and basically didn't do as well in college as the wealthy white students. So people look at that and see proof that affirmative action is a bad idea.

    However, if you look at what happens to them post-graduation, you see a different story. Despite their struggles in college, the acheivement gap completely disappears. They're getting prestigious jobs and earning good salaries, just as much as the more priviliged students. So this is a huge victory for affirmative action- it shows that imbalances take a while to correct, but it can be done.

    Affirmative action president!

    Schrodinger on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.

    It was the verbiage of the professor, not mine. And he was Black, and specifically addressing a difference between predominantly Black and White schools.

    "Inner-city lower economic class minority culture" might be more politically expedient, but I question how much more accurate that would be, especially considering that many racial groups in that economic class don't fit that mold. Origination seems to have more influence than race in this equation, as even Blacks from outside the US have substantially higher rates of college graduation, despite American Blacks having higher percentages of enrollment.

    Atomika on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.

    It was the verbiage of the professor, not mine. And he was Black, and specifically addressing a difference between predominantly Black and White schools.

    "Inner-city lower economic class minority culture" might be more politically expedient, but I question how much more accurate that would be, especially considering that many racial groups in that economic class don't fit that mold. Origination seems to have more influence than race in this equation, as even Blacks from outside the US have substantially higher rates of college graduation, despite American Blacks having higher percentages of enrollment.

    "Inner-city" is probably more accurate, since the population of most poor urban neighborhoods is becoming increasingly latino/multiracial.

    Also because black people who immigrate to the US tend to do remarkably well. African immigrants actually tend to rise higher in class/status than any other immigrant group. And, as you stated above, this is largely due to the culture of parenting and education (at least from my experience).

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    Recently C-SPAN covered a conference pertaining directly to education and African Americans, where finally it seems that the PC spectre is starting to fade and the issue can be addressed more directly. The biggest hurdle, most professors posit, is the differences in parenting between Black culture and White culture. One professor noted that at the inner-city "black" school, only six parents showed up on "Meet the Teacher" night for the whole grade, and when he sent his kids to the private "white" school the next year, the same meet-up had over 200 parents and they had to hold the conferences over 3 different times over the night to accommodate for the crowd.

    Affirmative Action isn't going to solve this problem, and if anything, keeping it in place in the advent of the educational gap will only make its dysfunction that much more conspicuous and improper.
    Basically, this. By the time kids are applying for college, it's very difficult to try and remedy the failures of their previous schooling. Using AA to let in minority students makes college administrators give themselves a pat on the back about how they're making their student body more "diverse." But the end result is that you end up with a bunch of kids who simply aren't prepared for the academic demands of college, which is reflected in the significantly higher dropout rate for non-Asian minority students.

    Figuring out how to fix broken public schools is a perplexing task. It's a lot easier to just institute an AA program that ups your minority student numbers and declare "Mission Accomplished."
    A perfect meritocracy doesn't exist, and it's stupid to judge black kids on a non-existent criteria that doesn't apply to white kids either. If a perfect meritocracy existed, then all kids would receive a basic number that was computed based on test scores and GPA and we would simply admit the people with the highest number. We wouldn't need any applications that included anything else at all.

    You are arbitrarily holding black people to a higher standard. There's a specific word for that.

    Jennifer Gratz whined about the hundred or so less qualified black kids who got in, but not the 1200 or so less qualified white kids who got in. Why is that?
    You're being disingenuous here. No one is arguing that black applicants should be held to a higher standard than white applicants. What anti-AA proponents are saying that race should be taken out of the equation when determining who gets accepted/hired/promoted.

    And you're ignoring the real numbers in the Gratz case. Gratz's argument wasn't that she was illegally discriminated against because less-qualified black applicants were admitted. Her argument was that the less-qualified black applicants were admitted in disproportionally high numbers compared to equally-situated less-qualified white applicants. If the admission numbers showed that both black and white applicants with lower qualifications than her were getting in at the same rate, she wouldn't have had a case. But the numbers showed that less-qualified black applicants (and even equally or better-qualified black applicants) were getting in at a significantly higher rate than their white counterparts. At the more extreme end of the scale, there were examples of pools of black applicants with low scores getting in at decent rates while none of their similarly-situated white counterparts were being admitted.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.

    It was the verbiage of the professor, not mine. And he was Black, and specifically addressing a difference between predominantly Black and White schools.

    "Inner-city lower economic class minority culture" might be more politically expedient, but I question how much more accurate that would be, especially considering that many racial groups in that economic class don't fit that mold. Origination seems to have more influence than race in this equation, as even Blacks from outside the US have substantially higher rates of college graduation, despite American Blacks having higher percentages of enrollment.

    "Urban poor". Taa Daa.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Deebaser wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If a black family is middle-class, and full of college graduates, is their culture not black anymore? Are we acting white?

    Because if not, that's where I question the use of "black" and "white" culture. Perhaps we should be using different, very specific words.

    It was the verbiage of the professor, not mine. And he was Black, and specifically addressing a difference between predominantly Black and White schools.

    "Inner-city lower economic class minority culture" might be more politically expedient, but I question how much more accurate that would be, especially considering that many racial groups in that economic class don't fit that mold. Origination seems to have more influence than race in this equation, as even Blacks from outside the US have substantially higher rates of college graduation, despite American Blacks having higher percentages of enrollment.

    "Urban poor". Taa Daa.

    I like it!

    And yes, I agree that origination makes a huge difference (obvs., as I am a first-gen American in my family), but we're still black and our culture is still "black". That a black professor used the term doesn't surprise me much; it isn't just American whites who tend to see blacks as only consisting of African Americans :). Let's just say blacks from different cultures don't always see eye to eye and leave it at that.

    Might I also suggest that one of the problems facing urban poor is lack of representative role models? I.e. Affirmative Action might, as some have argued persuasively, be a bandaid that doesn't get to the root of why certain groups are under-represented in universities or high-ranking professions, etc. But what it can do, by increasing the numbers of minorities represented, is provide visibility of those minorities that can then influence others within that community as being a status to possibly attain.

    I have a hunch that some of what affects African and West Indian blacks' increased tendencies to succeed is that since they are a majority in their home countries, they don't have to look far to see themselves well-represented at all levels of society: as bankers and engineers and lawyers and as CEOs and as Prime Ministers and college professors and etc. etc. instead of mostly as basketball players and rappers. People are also more likely to have someone of such stature in their extended family.

    I haven't had a chance to verify this, and in fact have no idea if any research has been done in this area; as I said, it's just a hunch. Anyone think it's plausible?

    sidhaethe on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I would imagine it also has something to do with the difficulty involved in getting here. Hence partially why Asians and Indians have tended to do well in the US-it's one hell of a trip, so the vast majority of the people people making it are going to be ones who already have some sort of strong financial or familial support, as opposed to your typical schmuck.

    If your parents are high enough achievers to move halfway around the world, you're more likely to be the same way.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I would imagine it also has something to do with the difficulty involved in getting here. Hence partially why Asians and Indians have tended to do well in the US-it's one hell of a trip, so the vast majority of the people people making it are going to be ones who already have some sort of strong financial or familial support, as opposed to your typical schmuck.

    If your parents are high enough achievers to move halfway around the world, you're more likely to be the same way.

    That's definitely true, but speaking for the West Indies at least, it isn't exactly full of underacheivers among the folks who stay.

    sidhaethe on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Basically, this. By the time kids are applying for college, it's very difficult to try and remedy the failures of their previous schooling. Using AA to let in minority students makes college administrators give themselves a pat on the back about how they're making their student body more "diverse." But the end result is that you end up with a bunch of kids who simply aren't prepared for the academic demands of college, which is reflected in the significantly higher dropout rate for non-Asian minority students.

    So there are no white kids who come in unprepared? There are no white kids who end up with failing grades, who don't bother to learn anything, or who end up dropping out?

    Anytime a kid gets into college, it's a risk.

    Figuring out how to fix broken public schools is a perplexing task. It's a lot easier to just institute an AA program that ups your minority student numbers and declare "Mission Accomplished."
    You're being disingenuous here. No one is arguing that black applicants should be held to a higher standard than white applicants. What anti-AA proponents are saying that race should be taken out of the equation when determining who gets accepted/hired/promoted.

    And you're ignoring the real numbers in the Gratz case. Gratz's argument wasn't that she was illegally discriminated against because less-qualified black applicants were admitted. Her argument was that the less-qualified black applicants were admitted in disproportionally high numbers compared to equally-situated less-qualified white applicants.

    Yet in both cases, they were less qualified. And strangely, only the black kids were worth complaining about, even though the less qualified white kids made for a much bigger impact.

    Black kids are admitted in disproportionately greater numbers because 1) they have to overcome disproportionately greater disadvantages, and 2) far less black kids ever have the chance to apply in the first place. Any open position that goes to a black kid will have a disproportionately greater impact on the black community than it would have had on the white community, simply because there are fewer black kids applying.

    Schrodinger on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Basically, this. By the time kids are applying for college, it's very difficult to try and remedy the failures of their previous schooling. Using AA to let in minority students makes college administrators give themselves a pat on the back about how they're making their student body more "diverse." But the end result is that you end up with a bunch of kids who simply aren't prepared for the academic demands of college, which is reflected in the significantly higher dropout rate for non-Asian minority students.

    So there are no white kids who come in unprepared? There are no white kids who end up with failing grades, who don't bother to learn anything, or who end up dropping out?

    Anytime a kid gets into college, it's a risk.
    Of course there are white kids who come into college unprepared. But, assuming that high school grades and test scores are a fairly accurate measure of academic achievement and preparation for college, it's not a reach to conclude that kids with lower grades and test scores in high school are typically going to have a tougher time in college.

    This is especialy pronounced in cases where AA enables an applicant to get into a more academically rigorous school than he's ready for. The thing is, most minority kids who benefit from AA were probably going to go to college anyway. What AA does, typically, is move them up a notch or two in the quality level of the schools they can get accepted to. Whereas a white kid with a GPA of X and an SAT score of Y might get into Central Michigan University, his black classmate with the same scores will get to go to Ann Arbor.

    So, we're not usually dealing with a kid who wasn't going to go to college but-for AA. We're dealing with a kid who wasn't going to go to, say, Harvard or UCLA but-for AA (though he would have gotten into Boston College or UCSD).

    You put kids into environments that they're not academically prepared for, they end up with a high drop-out rate, which is what happens with minority students at schools that have AA policies.
    Yet in both cases, they were less qualified. And strangely, only the black kids were worth complaining about, even though the less qualified white kids made for a much bigger impact.
    Because the less-qualified black kids were getting in at a significantly higher rate then their similarly-qualified white counterparts. That's the point. And that's why Gratz had a good case- she was able to show that, in a significant number of cases, lesser-qualified black students simply would not have gotten in if they were white.

    Black kids are admitted in disproportionately greater numbers because 1) they have to overcome disproportionately greater disadvantages, and 2) far less black kids ever have the chance to apply in the first place. Any open position that goes to a black kid will have a disproportionately greater impact on the black community than it would have had on the white community, simply because there are fewer black kids applying.
    That may be true, or not. But it's still not a counter-argument to the fact that individual white students are being unfairly denied spots in college classes.

    I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that more minority college grads are a good thing for their communities. But that doesn't override the injustice of excluding seomeone from a college spot due to their race. And it certainly doesn't fix the underlying problems that lead to less black students applying to college.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    But its okay to exclude someone based on where they live or the backgrounds of their family, MM?

    That's why Gratz's argument fails - she seems to be perfectly fine with the weighting system itself - she just attacked one weight that is considered politically acceptable to attack.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    But its okay to exclude someone based on where they live or the backgrounds of their family, MM?
    The U of Michigan has a maximium number of out-of-state students it is allowed to accept, by order of the Michigan legislature. But I don't think that's what you're referring to.

    There is no policy I'm aware of at any school to exclude anyone based on where they live or their family background.
    That's why Gratz's argument fails - she seems to be perfectly fine with the weighting system itself - she just attacked one weight that is considered politically acceptable to attack.
    She attacked it because, in her opinion, the weighting system used race in a legally impermissible manner. And the courts agreed with her. Other portions of the weighting system may be dumb or poorly thought out, but they're not illegal.

    Sure, schools can give weight to different factors when deciding who to accept. But, as the courts have ruled, there are limits on how much weight they can give to race, and Michigan's policy crossed that line.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Of course there are white kids who come into college unprepared. But, assuming that high school grades and test scores are a fairly accurate measure of academic achievement and preparation for college, it's not a reach to conclude that kids with lower grades and test scores in high school are typically going to have a tougher time in college.

    This is an awful assumption. There's major inequality of access that tends to correlate with race (well, mostly with income, but then race contributes to that). I went to school in a wealthy suburb of Ann Arbor (Saline). Where 100k incomes are fairly common and the schools could until recently afford to pay their best teachers six figures themselves. The school absolutely kicked ass. There were 357 members in my graduating glass, I think 60 of us took AP Calculus BC. Of those, all but one got at least a 4 on the AP test. There were also exactly two black kids in the class and I believe zero Latinos.

    We were, generally speaking, way more likely to have impressive test scores than a kid from Detroit. But if you give the top kids from Detroit equal opportunity (at say, Michigan) they are just as able to perform as the top kids from Saline. Or alternately, if you put those kids in Saline, they'll have just as good of test scores as we did.

    So there are a couple options:
    1) You do something like what Texas has done, though I am skeptical about guaranteed admissions just in terms of my god that's a lot of undergrads.
    2) You solve the disparity at an earlier level by making the schools in Detroit just as good as the one in Saline. Of course, with all the budget cuts this may happen, but not the way you'd like. The second best teacher just retired slightly early I think partially because they asked her to.

    And I don't buy the culture arguments because very simply: poor people have less time to attend school functions because they're working multiple jobs to make ends meet.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    If people really wanted all students to have a fair shake at success they have all education be financed exclusively by the federal government, with no state or town supplied income (and higher federal taxes and lower state/local taxes to compensate, natch). All schools would receive the same amount of money per student.

    But then of course you'd have wealthy cities throwing a shitfit that they can't build a new high school every decade.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    At some point, even if we admit AA is the greatest thing ever, we need to just rip off the band-aid and let things work themselves out. When is that point? Is it now? In some places, AA probably doesn't do a whole lot of net good. And in some places, it's probably incredibly helpful. There's a healthy conversation about where that point is, and how to get there the fastest, and how to deal with regional variations in social justice, and yadda yadda.

    Yeah, that's why I tend to take the stand (a pretty typical stand, as far as I can tell) that broad quotas are bad, weighting criteria based on known objectively-verifiable trends (like weighting SAT/ACT scores differently for high schools where the average scores are lower than the general population) are better, attacking causes directly (like better funding for underfunding schools) is best.

    I absolutely prefer throwing assloads of money at the root causes. Money to underprivileged schools, scholarships for minorities, training programs, all that kind of thing. So that by the time the underprivileged guy gets to the job interview, he's become qualified enough that paying attention to his race is completely unnecessary.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2010
    It should be noted that diversity is also a useful thing in its own right. Especially in education. And is, in fact, a compelling state interesting according to the Supreme Court, as long as you don't break out pure quota systems.

    To a point, sure - as long as we're talking about the right sort of diversity. I think that for a standard middle-class white Joe, the utility of working next to a middle-class black Joe raised in the suburbs is less than the utility of working next to, say, a white guy from Albania, or a white guy who grew up in extreme poverty. Diversity of race is mostly a positive due to the varying cultural norms associated with different races, not because sitting next to someone with a different amount of skin pigment grants a +3 bonus to Cultural Wisdom skill checks.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2010
    If people really wanted all students to have a fair shake at success they have all education be financed exclusively by the federal government, with no state or town supplied income (and higher federal taxes and lower state/local taxes to compensate, natch). All schools would receive the same amount of money per student.

    But then of course you'd have wealthy cities throwing a shitfit that they can't build a new high school every decade.

    Are we taking into account cost of living? And how do we make sure all the parents are volunteering their time equally?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It should be noted that diversity is also a useful thing in its own right. Especially in education. And is, in fact, a compelling state interesting according to the Supreme Court, as long as you don't break out pure quota systems.

    To a point, sure - as long as we're talking about the right sort of diversity. I think that for a standard middle-class white Joe, the utility of working next to a middle-class black Joe raised in the suburbs is less than the utility of working next to, say, a white guy from Albania, or a white guy who grew up in extreme poverty. Diversity of race is mostly a positive due to the varying cultural norms associated with different races, not because sitting next to someone with a different amount of skin pigment grants a +3 bonus to Cultural Wisdom skill checks.

    Eh, with the history of race in this country, I'm not sure that's entirely true. The general point is correct but I think the middle class black Joe raised in the suburbs experience is sufficiently different that the middle class white Joe raised in the suburbs to make it valuable.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It should be noted that diversity is also a useful thing in its own right. Especially in education. And is, in fact, a compelling state interesting according to the Supreme Court, as long as you don't break out pure quota systems.

    To a point, sure - as long as we're talking about the right sort of diversity. I think that for a standard middle-class white Joe, the utility of working next to a middle-class black Joe raised in the suburbs is less than the utility of working next to, say, a white guy from Albania, or a white guy who grew up in extreme poverty. Diversity of race is mostly a positive due to the varying cultural norms associated with different races, not because sitting next to someone with a different amount of skin pigment grants a +3 bonus to Cultural Wisdom skill checks.

    I'm not sure I understand you. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that it's less valuable for a middle-class white person to have a middle-class black neighbor than to have a white neighbor of a different background?

    If that's the case I guess I don't get it. The value in having a middle-class black neighbor is to acclimate the white person to the notion that black people are middle-class, too, and not just Urban Poor. Then if said white person is in a position to hire someone at their job, they won't instinctively balk at a resume with the name Jamal or LeShaunda, because hey, did you know that black people, even with names like that instead of Heather or Robert can be middle-class professionals, too?

    Apologies if I misconstrued your message.

    sidhaethe on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    If people really wanted all students to have a fair shake at success they have all education be financed exclusively by the federal government, with no state or town supplied income (and higher federal taxes and lower state/local taxes to compensate, natch). All schools would receive the same amount of money per student.

    But then of course you'd have wealthy cities throwing a shitfit that they can't build a new high school every decade.

    Devil's Advocate: do you want Joe Lieberman mandating the curriculum?

    I like local control of schools with national funding, but I know that's impossible. And returns to my previously mentioned lack of time to actually run for and work on the school board in poorer areas.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    If people really wanted all students to have a fair shake at success they have all education be financed exclusively by the federal government, with no state or town supplied income (and higher federal taxes and lower state/local taxes to compensate, natch). All schools would receive the same amount of money per student.

    But then of course you'd have wealthy cities throwing a shitfit that they can't build a new high school every decade.

    Devil's Advocate: do you want Joe Lieberman mandating the curriculum?

    The only thing Liebermann should be mandating is whether he wants him sandwich on wheat or white bread.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    It should be noted that diversity is also a useful thing in its own right. Especially in education. And is, in fact, a compelling state interesting according to the Supreme Court, as long as you don't break out pure quota systems.

    To a point, sure - as long as we're talking about the right sort of diversity. I think that for a standard middle-class white Joe, the utility of working next to a middle-class black Joe raised in the suburbs is less than the utility of working next to, say, a white guy from Albania, or a white guy who grew up in extreme poverty. Diversity of race is mostly a positive due to the varying cultural norms associated with different races, not because sitting next to someone with a different amount of skin pigment grants a +3 bonus to Cultural Wisdom skill checks.

    I'm not sure I understand you. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that it's less valuable for a middle-class white person to have a middle-class black neighbor than to have a white neighbor of a different background?

    If that's the case I guess I don't get it. The value in having a middle-class black neighbor is to acclimate the white person to the notion that black people are middle-class, too, and not just Urban Poor. Then if said white person is in a position to hire someone at their job, they won't instinctively balk at a resume with the name Jamal or LeShaunda, because hey, did you know that black people, even with names like that instead of Heather or Robert can be middle-class professionals, too?

    Apologies if I misconstrued your message.

    I think he is saying that, as a white guy from suburbia, having a coworker who is a white immigrant from Elbonia, or a white guy who grew up in poverty, is a more valuable diversity than a black coworker who also grew up in suburbia.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Chris Rock is bad.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    God I hated that HBO special, the constant changing between the 3 different shows was annoying as all hell.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I admit I can't get too worked up about affirmative action in a country where the reaction to legacy admissions is "eh, they shouldn't be there, but whatever", and where nepotism and rich-guy logrolling in businesses, law firms and public service is considered a mild yet unfortunately inevitable feature of the way the world works.

    Compared to that, I really can't get too worked up about the fact that a black kid from the inner city might get a tiny 'bump' on his effective SAT scores.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    I admit I can't get too worked up about affirmative action in a country where the reaction to legacy admissions is "eh, they shouldn't be there, but whatever", and where nepotism and rich-guy logrolling in businesses, law firms and public service is considered a mild yet unfortunately inevitable feature of the way the world works.

    Compared to that, I really can't get too worked up about the fact that a black kid from the inner city might get a tiny 'bump' on his effective SAT scores.
    But that leads to the same result as the nepotism and legacy admissions: someone loses the opportunity, through no fault of their own, to go to a certain school, get a job, get a promotion etc.

    Ignoring unfair treatment because of other unfairness isn't a particularly well thought out position.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    I admit I can't get too worked up about affirmative action in a country where the reaction to legacy admissions is "eh, they shouldn't be there, but whatever", and where nepotism and rich-guy logrolling in businesses, law firms and public service is considered a mild yet unfortunately inevitable feature of the way the world works.

    Compared to that, I really can't get too worked up about the fact that a black kid from the inner city might get a tiny 'bump' on his effective SAT scores.
    But that leads to the same result as the nepotism and legacy admissions: someone loses the opportunity, through no fault of their own, to go to a certain school, get a job, get a promotion etc.

    Ignoring unfair treatment because of other unfairness isn't a particularly well thought out position.

    Really? So you honestly believe that getting into college because you're a spoiled over privileged white kid who's used to getting his way amounts to the exact same thing as getting into college because you're a disadvantaged underprivileged black kid who's used to being discriminated against?

    Not only do I disagree with your premise, but I have to wonder why only the second one is being actively campaigned against.

    Get rid of AA, and you still have to answer the question of how minorities will manage to overcome discrimination and how diversity is going to realistically occur in the near future.

    Make it so that college admissions can no longer consider your lineage when you apply, and what exactly is the drawback? What exactly do we lose?

    Schrodinger on
Sign In or Register to comment.