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

1235721

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Furthermore, how does the person "lose" this opportunity? Were they owed it? Was there some contract saying it was theirs? The privilege in that statement is immense. We're talking Jesse Helms bullshit here.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    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?
    No I think not getting into a college because a legacy student gets in, effects someone the same as not getting into a college because a minority student does.
    Not only do I disagree with your premise, but I have to wonder why only the second one is being actively campaigned against.

    Because the second is intentionally racially discriminatory, whereas the first is all about the school getting money. You want to lead the anti-legacy charge, go for it I'll sign the petition. Its not like every minority enrolled pushes out a wasteful legacy admission. If that were the case, I'd change my position. Instead I support neither, and talk about the one that the thread is about.
    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?

    Actually only have to answer that question if AA actually achieves what you claim its achieving(which isn't whats happening). Letting an already college bound minority into a slightly better/ more prestigious college than they would have gotten into doesn't do fuck all for the 1/2 of his classmates that didn't graduate HS. There aren't a lot of students from [Pick Major City] Public Schools admitted to colleges because *PS sucks. Lowering the bar to let more into a better college doesn't fix anything.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Furthermore, how does the person "lose" this opportunity? Were they owed it? Was there some contract saying it was theirs? The privilege in that statement is immense. We're talking Jesse Helms bullshit here.

    So if I were an admittance officer, and just denied every applicant from a minority group, I wouldn't have made them lose anything? Because they weren't owed it? There was no contract saying they were?

    IDK how you could construct a rational argument against discrimination, while claiming that individuals aren't owed opportunity.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Furthermore, how does the person "lose" this opportunity? Were they owed it? Was there some contract saying it was theirs? The privilege in that statement is immense. We're talking Jesse Helms bullshit here.

    So if I were an admittance officer, and just denied every applicant from a minority group, I wouldn't have made them lose anything? Because they weren't owed it? There was no contract saying they were?

    That's not even remotely analogous to what AA actually does.

    When you pay money on an application fee, you have an expectation that your application will be considered. That's the point! You do not have an expectation that your application will get you in.

    The problem is when white people need to blame the black kid for the fact that they didn't get in, just like they'll try to blame the black president for the BP oil spill.

    Schrodinger on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited October 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.

    The claim is that diversity is inherently valuable. That, all things equal, it's better to have an office (for example) filled with people who are different than with people who are the same. I'm interpreting this to claim that diversity is valuable even if it doesn't have a net positive effect on racial relations - just having different people around you is beneficial.

    And I agree with this, to the extent that we're talking about diversity in experience and culture, not just diversity in skin color. Absent the implications of racism, diversity of skin color isn't much more meaningful than diversity of hair color. However, in current American society, skin color is correlated with a lot of the cultural differences that are beneficial, so I think diversity of race carries with it some useful side effects.

    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.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 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?
    It's the same in that the spot that was filled by the legacy admission or the AA admission is a spot that was not filled by someone who was more qualified, by objective standards. Are you arguing that since some kid got screwed over because he wasn't a legacy, the proper solution is to screw over some kid because he isn't the right race?
    Not only do I disagree with your premise, but I have to wonder why only the second one is being actively campaigned against.
    Because, I would say that people getting something due to their connections is bad, but not as bad as someone getting something due to their race. Or would you disagree?
    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.
    Whatever the answer might be to that, it still doesn't change the fact that someone losing an admissions spot due to their race is an injustice.
    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?
    Is anyone arguing against this position?
    Furthermore, how does the person "lose" this opportunity? Were they owed it? Was there some contract saying it was theirs? The privilege in that statement is immense. We're talking Jesse Helms bullshit here.
    Admissions is a zero sum game- if one person was admitted, that means one person was not. No, I suppose no one is owed admission at a school. But, if you're going to argue that a less qualified person should be admitted over a more qualified person based solely on race (which was pretty much what was happening at the U of Michigan), you're the one supporting a racist admission system.

    I know you think the airhead term "privilege" is some sort of silver bullet. But, as usual, it's irrelevant bullshit used to try and cover up a lack of argument.

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

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Ignoring unfair treatment because of other unfairness isn't a particularly well thought out position.

    Indeed. This is why I don't understand those who scream about affirmative action that helps "unqualified minorities" (now there's a buzzphrase for you) and that admissions should be "based on merit", but don't particularly seem concerned about admitting unqualified legacies or admissions based on something other than merit, even when the purpose and effect of legacies is to protect privilege. Doing that is ignoring unfair treatment because of other unfairness.

    In other words, abolishing 'goal based' admissions preferences as a whole is a sound position, but that's not what opposition to affirmative action, under that name, is really about.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Newsflash - college admissions are anything BUT objective. Continuing to make the assertion that they are just continues to show both your foolishness and your privilege.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User
    edited October 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    The claim is that diversity is inherently valuable. That, all things equal, it's better to have an office (for example) filled with people who are different than with people who are the same. I'm interpreting this to claim that diversity is valuable even if it doesn't have a net positive effect on racial relations - just having different people around you is beneficial.

    And I agree with this, to the extent that we're talking about diversity in experience and culture, not just diversity in skin color. Absent the implications of racism, diversity of skin color isn't much more meaningful than diversity of hair color. However, in current American society, skin color is correlated with a lot of the cultural differences that are beneficial, so I think diversity of race carries with it some useful side effects.

    I don't see how that is beneficial. I don't see a difference between a room full of white people and a room filled with every race under the sun. How would that improve anything?

    Cedar Brown on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because, I would say that people getting something due to their connections is bad, but not as bad as someone getting something due to their race. Or would you disagree?

    I do. Please explain why giving a spot to an under privileged black kid in a school severely lacking in diversity is worse than giving a spot to an over privileged white kid in a school that already has more than enough of those to go around.

    In one case, you're trying to correct for social injustice. In the second case, you're trying to increase it.

    The black kid gets average SAT scores despite having gone to the best schools in the district, and the white kid gets average SAT scores despite having gone to the best schools in the district. Why is it better to give the white kid a second chance?

    All you would have to do to get rid of legacies is to implement a policy that says that parental lineage cannot be a factor in admissions. So why aren't people like you campaigning for this?

    Schrodinger on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I'm amused at the notion that legacy admissions are about 'connections', as if you get them through professional networking. Legacies are a hereditary benefit, which is about as unAmerican a thing as you can get, and were instituted to help keep out 'undesirables' (i.e., Jews and Catholics) who were equally qualified on merit, but hadn't had the foresight to make sure that Grandma got knocked up by an alumnus.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    All you would have to do to get rid of legacies is to implement a policy that says that parental lineage cannot be a factor in admissions. So why aren't people like you campaigning for this?

    :lol:

    Of course! It's so simple! Sure, you might lose a dollar or two from fundraisers, but that's a small price to pay for social justice.

    emnmnme on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    All you would have to do to get rid of legacies is to implement a policy that says that parental lineage cannot be a factor in admissions. So why aren't people like you campaigning for this?

    :lol:

    Of course! It's so simple! Sure, you might lose a dollar or two from fundraisers, but that's a small price to pay for social justice.

    So you're conceding that meritocracy is not the goal here?

    And how is rewarding rich people for being rich not an aspect of white privilege?

    Schrodinger on
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    The claim is that diversity is inherently valuable. That, all things equal, it's better to have an office (for example) filled with people who are different than with people who are the same. I'm interpreting this to claim that diversity is valuable even if it doesn't have a net positive effect on racial relations - just having different people around you is beneficial.

    And I agree with this, to the extent that we're talking about diversity in experience and culture, not just diversity in skin color. Absent the implications of racism, diversity of skin color isn't much more meaningful than diversity of hair color. However, in current American society, skin color is correlated with a lot of the cultural differences that are beneficial, so I think diversity of race carries with it some useful side effects.

    I don't see how that is beneficial. I don't see a difference between a room full of white people and a room filled with every race under the sun. How would that improve anything?

    Cross-cultural exchange, variety in perspectives, and fresh networking opportunities for everyone involved

    Lux on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    The claim is that diversity is inherently valuable. That, all things equal, it's better to have an office (for example) filled with people who are different than with people who are the same. I'm interpreting this to claim that diversity is valuable even if it doesn't have a net positive effect on racial relations - just having different people around you is beneficial.

    And I agree with this, to the extent that we're talking about diversity in experience and culture, not just diversity in skin color. Absent the implications of racism, diversity of skin color isn't much more meaningful than diversity of hair color. However, in current American society, skin color is correlated with a lot of the cultural differences that are beneficial, so I think diversity of race carries with it some useful side effects.

    I don't see how that is beneficial. I don't see a difference between a room full of white people and a room filled with every race under the sun. How would that improve anything?

    I'm one of those people who's so non-racist that someone will suggest going out for Chinese food, and I'll reply with, "Great! How about Burger King?"

    Schrodinger on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Rewarding rich people for being rich? Legacies are an exclusive domain of the rich? Higher education has been affordable to the middle-class since WW2 and I bet there are legacies formed thanks to the GI Bill, too.

    Having three or more generations of the same family graduate is a symbol of pride for the university, adding whole inches to the university's penis. The legacy bond also makes alums belonging to a legacy open their wallets a little more on donation day, so universities encourage legacies. In return, belonging to a legacy means better chances for admission, so alumni encourage the practice, too. Any idiot can see there's nothing meritocratic about it - a case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

    No one's going to work to get rid of it. The idea is set in stone.

    emnmnme on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Rewarding rich people for being rich? Legacies are an exclusive domain of the rich? Higher education has been affordable to the middle-class since WW2 and I bet there are legacies formed thanks to the GI Bill, too.

    People raised by college graduates tend to have more wealth and access than people who were raised by people who weren't even allowed to drink from the same drinking fountains. That's one of the main reasons people go to college in the first place. And while college education may have become more accessible to the middle class, the fact is that black people were cut off from many opportunities that allowed white to reach middle class status in the first place.
    Having three or more generations of the same family graduate is a symbol of pride for the university, adding whole inches to the university's penis.

    Wouldn't it be more prideful if these future generations got in on their own merits alone?
    No one's going to work to get rid of it. The idea is set in stone.

    Fair enough. But it's still a double standard.

    Schrodinger on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Having three or more generations of the same family graduate is a symbol of pride for the university, adding whole inches to the university's penis.

    Wouldn't it be more prideful if these future generations got in on their own merits alone?

    Meh. It's a penny on the tracks. It's not derailing the whole train.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/16/national/main6588478.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;9

    emnmnme on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Having three or more generations of the same family graduate is a symbol of pride for the university, adding whole inches to the university's penis.

    Wouldn't it be more prideful if these future generations got in on their own merits alone?


    It's kind of the same logic as the pride associated with a Catholic kid taking first communion. People go apeshit over that kind of thing, despite the absolute lack of logic behind it.

    Atomika on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    So you're conceding that meritocracy is not the goal here?

    That's how it always breaks down. Meritocracy, unless it means my kids don't get into my alma mater/my college might lose money from some pissy alumnus whose kid got beat out on merit.

    The idea that legacy admissions actually pay for themselves in alumni donations is also probably a myth.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    The idea that legacy admissions actually pay for themselves in alumni donations is also probably a myth.

    As well, I fail to see how a school's flushness has any pertinence to the quality or egalitarianism of its admissions procession.

    "Hey, they're just letting rich fucktards in now!"

    "No, no, it's cool. We're getting a new gym."

    Atomika on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I like the idea that we need to maintain the legacy system because it's a source of pride for the university, even though that information isn't readily available. Like, can anyone provide me with a list of the current legacies attending freshmen year Harvard? If not, then how can this be source of pride?

    Meanwhile, isn't the idea of having a racially diverse campus something that you can proud of?

    Schrodinger on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I like the idea that we need to maintain the legacy system because it's a source of pride for the university, even though that information isn't readily available. Like, can anyone provide me with a list of the current legacies attending freshmen year Harvard? If not, then how can this be source of pride?

    Meanwhile, isn't the idea of having a racially diverse campus something that you can proud of?

    Sure, but achieving that by jiggering standards around till you create some pseudo quota by raising and lowering the admittance bar based on race/gender isn't worth instituting a discriminatory policy. Since women are becoming increasing majorities on many colleges, should there at some point be a policy where men's applications will be evaluated more favorably, simply to keep the ratio nearer 50%? Should a Male 3.4 be equivalent to a Female 3.6 GPA for admittance purposes?

    Also, you don't actually need black students for a diverse student body, just photoshop.
    wisconsin.jpg


    These guys(UW) gave a full ride to a classmate of mine from HS. He grew up in suburbia, his dad made well over 6 figures working for IBM(had an awesome ass Corvette Stingray), and he never knew life outside the US, but he was a 'Vietnamese', so he needed minority assistance. Now if they had selected on a criteria other than a check box, maybe Mr. Photoshop could have actually gotten assistance and went.

    Things like : Attended a Poor School district(the fed tracks them through lunch vouchers so theres a classification system already in place), or First Generation College Student or Child of Single Parent. This would have channeled that assistance, away from my financially supported, upper middle class suburban BUT Vietnamese classmate and towards someone who actually grew up as a poor kid in a ghetto(or a poor kid in the boonies). It would of channeled it away from me too, but not because I was white, but because I didn't meet rational criteria for needing assistance, which he didn't meet either.

    To boil it down to the lowest level: The education of poor minorities sucks because they are poor, not because they are minorities; in the same way they commit more crimes because they are poor, not because they are minorities. (ignoring 'cultural' arguments here). So selecting for minority-ness instead of poorness(and the associated markers like family structure/school quality/etc) is an unnecessarily coarse(ie racist) way to go about it.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    That's not even the worst photoshop job I've seen.

    toronto.jpg

    EDIT: Oh, wow, the site I found through google to recall this image is the same one you used. So nevermind.

    Lux on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because, I would say that people getting something due to their connections is bad, but not as bad as someone getting something due to their race. Or would you disagree?

    I do. Please explain why giving a spot to an under privileged black kid in a school severely lacking in diversity is worse than giving a spot to an over privileged white kid in a school that already has more than enough of those to go around.
    I know this is a little out of context, but your statement implies that there is some correct upper limit of rich white kids that should be admitted to universities.

    I'd be happy to see a system of college admissions based almost solely on GPA and test scores. If that results in a disproportionally white (or Asian) student body at certain schools, so be it. If you get rid of AA, the only minority kids who will be precluded from going to college are the ones who were so academically marginal that the only way they could have gotten into any college was through AA. That is not the situation of most minority kids applying to college. Rather, all AA does for most minority college applicants is push them up a tier or two in terms of where they would have been admitted. So, without AA they still would go to college, just a college that they are better academically suited for. This will result in a reduction in dropout rates for minority students. If you're looking to increase the rate at which minorities get college degrees, I think that's a good result.

    Ideally, we'd get rid of legacy admissions, too. But there's nothing illegal about discriminating against people based on social connections and family history. So, that's a policy decision for schools and state legislatures. On the other hand, the legal trend has been to limit the ability of schools to use race as a determinative factor in admissions. I think this status quo reflects our society's view on which type of discrimination is worse.
    Lux wrote: »
    That's not even the worst photoshop job I've seen.
    Weird- I think the guy in the original picture is black too, though lighter-skinned than the guy in the photoshopped shot.

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

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    wisconsin.jpg

    :lol:

    emnmnme on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Sure, but achieving that by jiggering standards around till you create some pseudo quota by raising and lowering the admittance bar based on race/gender isn't worth instituting a discriminatory policy. Since women are becoming increasing majorities on many colleges, should there at some point be a policy where men's applications will be evaluated more favorably, simply to keep the ratio nearer 50%? Should a Male 3.4 be equivalent to a Female 3.6 GPA for admittance purposes?

    That isn't even remotely close to how AA actually works.
    These guys(UW) gave a full ride to a classmate of mine from HS. He grew up in suburbia, his dad made well over 6 figures working for IBM(had an awesome ass Corvette Stingray), and he never knew life outside the US, but he was a 'Vietnamese', so he needed minority assistance. Now if they had selected on a criteria other than a check box, maybe Mr. Photoshop could have actually gotten assistance and went.

    Wait, so you're telling me that the University of Wisconsin has a "free tuition for anyone Asian" box, regardless of income? Speaking as a Vietnamese person, I'm going to need a cite on that.
    To boil it down to the lowest level: The education of poor minorities sucks because they are poor, not because they are minorities;

    Being poor is a symptom of an overall problem. It's not like minorities in America are poor by sheer coincidence. They became poor by design. Poor black people are worse off than poor white people. Wealthy black people are still worse off than wealthy white people.

    It's like insisting that smoking is completely irrelevant to your health, the real problem comes from having lung cancer.
    So selecting for minority-ness instead of poorness(and the associated markers like family structure/school quality/etc) is an unnecessarily coarse(ie racist) way to go about it.

    Apparently, it's racist to try to address racism.

    Schrodinger on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Lux wrote: »
    That's not even the worst photoshop job I've seen.

    toronto.jpg

    EDIT: Oh, wow, the site I found through google to recall this image is the same one you used. So nevermind.

    I find this deeply offensive. As a graphic artist.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I do. Please explain why giving a spot to an under privileged black kid in a school severely lacking in diversity is worse than giving a spot to an over privileged white kid in a school that already has more than enough of those to go around.
    I know this is a little out of context, but your statement implies that there is some correct upper limit of rich white kids that should be admitted to universities. [/quote]

    We're only talking in the contexts of applicants with average borderline test scores. Obviously, if a rich white kid has a 2400 SAT and a 5.0 GPA, he should have no problem getting into college regardless of whether or not he's a legacy.
    I'd be happy to see a system of college admissions based almost solely on GPA and test scores. If that results in a disproportionally white (or Asian) student body at certain schools, so be it. If you get rid of AA, the only minority kids who will be precluded from going to college are the ones who were so academically marginal that the only way they could have gotten into any college was through AA.

    That's not the only possibility. Maybe they could have gotten in on their own if they had access to better education in the first place.

    Right now, we're teaching typing skills to an unprivileged black youth who's assisting in our office as part of a reform program. Someone recently asked us, "Why doesn't she just buy a computer so that she can practice at home?" The idea that she simply couldn't afford a computer and doesn't have ready access to computers at her school completely escaped him.
    That is not the situation of most minority kids applying to college. Rather, all AA does for most minority college applicants is push them up a tier or two in terms of where they would have been admitted. So, without AA they still would go to college, just a college that they are better academically suited for.

    The biggest advantage of going to a prestigious college is having networking opportunities. You have a better chance of finding a good job if you know the right people. The vast majority of open positions are never actually advertised to the general public. By keeping minorities out of the top schools, you prevent them from having any access to these opportunities in the first place. It's basically the new face of segregation.
    Ideally, we'd get rid of legacy admissions, too. But there's nothing illegal about discriminating against people based on social connections and family history.

    There's nothing illegal about AA either. That doesn't stop people from campaigning against it.

    Schrodinger on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    We're only talking in the contexts of applicants with average borderline test scores. Obviously, if a rich white kid has a 2400 SAT and a 5.0 GPA, he should have no problem getting into college regardless of whether or not he's a legacy.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/60minutes/main649704.shtml
    Aicklen had a 3.9 GPA, and she still didn't make the top 10 at her school ... Aicklen's parents never considered such a drastic step. They assumed that her grades, resume, and family legacy would still win her one of those precious seats at the university that are not filled by "Top 10s." They were wrong.

    TEXAS!

    emnmnme on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I find it interesting that on one side of things I see comments asking why people should be punished for the actions of their ancestors (which I do not believe AA does), while simultaneously asking why people cannot benefit from the hard work of their ancestors.

    On the other side of things I feel it is apparent that it can be equally argued that minorities are, in the absense of AA initiatives, being punished for the status and appearance of their ancestors. Either your ancestry is irrelevant or it isn't, at all, for anyone, ever (in which case why should parents work hard to improve the lot of their children, right?): either who your parents were or what they did or experienced is irrelevant or it isn't, at all, for anyone, ever.

    sidhaethe on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I'm telling you, names in a hat would solve all of the problems being discussed in this thread.

    emnmnme on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    That is not the situation of most minority kids applying to college. Rather, all AA does for most minority college applicants is push them up a tier or two in terms of where they would have been admitted. So, without AA they still would go to college, just a college that they are better academically suited for.

    The biggest advantage of going to a prestigious college is having networking opportunities. You have a better chance of finding a good job if you know the right people. The vast majority of open positions are never actually advertised to the general public. By keeping minorities out of the top schools, you prevent them from having any access to these opportunities in the first place. It's basically the new face of segregation.
    Except, no one is arguing for going back to the bad old days when Jews weren't allowed into Yale and black students couldn't go to Duke. Eliminating AA would in no way keep qualified minorities out of top schools. A minority applicant would be judged that same way as their white counterpart.

    I mean, my grades and SAT scores weren't good enough to get me into Yale, either. Does that mean Yale was practicing segregation against "my type?"

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

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    That is not the situation of most minority kids applying to college. Rather, all AA does for most minority college applicants is push them up a tier or two in terms of where they would have been admitted. So, without AA they still would go to college, just a college that they are better academically suited for.

    The biggest advantage of going to a prestigious college is having networking opportunities. You have a better chance of finding a good job if you know the right people. The vast majority of open positions are never actually advertised to the general public. By keeping minorities out of the top schools, you prevent them from having any access to these opportunities in the first place. It's basically the new face of segregation.
    Except, no one is arguing for going back to the bad old days when Jews weren't allowed into Yale and black students couldn't go to Duke. Eliminating AA would in no way keep qualified minorities out of top schools. A minority applicant would be judged that same way as their white counterpart.

    I mean, my grades and SAT scores weren't good enough to get me into Yale, either. Does that mean Yale was practicing segregation against "my type?"

    I wouldn't say that, but I'd wager that your dad being an engineer opened you up to some opportunities for meeting people that others don't have. I wager this because certainly my dad being a dentist opened me up to opportunities for networking and employment and better education that others don't have.

    So I can see how bumping certain minorities into higher-tier schools can attempt to make up that gap. I'd like to note that I'm not arguing in favor of this particular practice: I've been silent on it thus far because I still haven't decided how I feel about it (I haven't moved far from my position on page 1).

    sidhaethe on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    I'd like to note that I'm not arguing in favor of this particular practice: I've been silent on it thus far because I still haven't decided how I feel about it (I haven't moved far from my position on page 1).

    TrueNeutralMotivator_2213.jpg:lol:

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

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Except, no one is arguing for going back to the bad old days when Jews weren't allowed into Yale and black students couldn't go to Duke. Eliminating AA would in no way keep qualified minorities out of top schools. A minority applicant would be judged that same way as their white counterpart.

    I mean, my grades and SAT scores weren't good enough to get me into Yale, either. Does that mean Yale was practicing segregation against "my type?"

    So minorities have lower scores because they're segregated, and we should continue to segregate them because they have lower scores.

    Clearly, this problem will solve itself. There is no reason to intervene whatsoever.

    Schrodinger on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm telling you, names in a hat would solve all of the problems being discussed in this thread.

    It really would not. You advocated hiring practices completely independent of qualifications, which is just dumb, and would lead to a larger AA backlash than what we have now.

    SageinaRage on
  • CpunkCpunk Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Being not poor makes you more likely to get into good colleges. Getting good SAT scores makes your more likely to get into good colleges.

    Some minorities are much poorer and have much lower test scores on average than other races. Either this stems from some serious genetic differences, or it's the effect of years of being disenfranchised by society. If it's the latter, we should probably help level the playing field. If it's the former you might be a little racist.

    Edit: clarity

    Cpunk on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm telling you, names in a hat would solve all of the problems being discussed in this thread.

    It really would not. You advocated hiring practices completely independent of qualifications, which is just dumb, and would lead to a larger AA backlash than what we have now.

    Minimum qualifications get you in the hat.

    emnmnme on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm telling you, names in a hat would solve all of the problems being discussed in this thread.

    It really would not. You advocated hiring practices completely independent of qualifications, which is just dumb, and would lead to a larger AA backlash than what we have now.

    Minimum qualifications get you in the hat.

    You try telling business owners all over america that they can no longer hire the best, just randomly selected mediocre. Or that they just need to define 'minimum qualifications' as 'the best resume we get', making your process completely pointless.

    SageinaRage on
Sign In or Register to comment.