The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
AA. The One With the College Admissions, Not the One With the Booze.
ElJeffe
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Affirmative Action is more harmful than helpful at this point, but railing against it isn't a the mark of a good politician. I'd like a candidate with a strong sense of what we need to be working on right now, and Paul doesn't have that.
Affirmative Action really needs to switch to income based instead of race based. Really badly.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
ElJeffe on
0
Posts
Wouldn't that just be financial aid?
AA also influences your odds of getting accepted in the first place. So: no.
This is a popular meme, but there are some problems with this:
1) There is no reason why we can't have both, e.g., make income a consideration as well as other things.
2) While it might be true that a rich black person might have it better off than a poor white person, poor black people still have it worse off than poor white people, and rich black people still have it worse off than rich white people. Which means that we're back where we're started, a system with an internal bias towards whites. This can occur both due to direct factors (e.g., an inherent bias towards white sounding names, white faces in the interview process, white grammarical styles in the essay), as well as indirect (e.g., black students are less likely to receive support and encouragement than white students, thus giving them more to overcome.).
3) While black people are more likely to be poor, poor people are more likely to be white, since the total number of white people is much greater. This means that, again, the majority of opportunities will tend to go to white students due to statistical factors alone, and that's without counting the inherent biases from #2.
4) Given that minorities tend to already be underrepresented under the current system of AA, the proposed system would essentially further take away many of the opportunities currently reserved to minorities and hand those opportunities to white students.
This meme tends to be popular because it takes the standard away from race to a more "fair" standard, while ignoring the fact that the "fair" standard has an internal racial bias as well.
Here's a quick google I found on the subject: http://kirwaninstitute.org/news/articles/bs052503.html
Maybe I'm having a case of selective vision but when I read that last paragraph, it makes absolutely no sense.
I love the implication that this is somehow objectively bad.
Regardless, this all boils down to a question of strategy. The real problem isn't overt racism, it's the institutionalized, subconscious variety lurking under the surface. There are those who think the best way to address the problem that people subconsciously discriminate based on race because of ingrained stereotypes and the like is to shout at the top of your lungs, "Hey, you! Mr. Black Person! You who is no different than anyone else! Yes, you! You are so very not different from anyone else that we are going to single you out and give you special opportunities. Hear that everyone? We are giving this person here, who is just like the rest of you all, special opportunities! Because he is no different from you!" And then there are those who disagree.
AA is just a proxy argument about whether or not the best way to get everyone to stop making decisions based on superficialities such as race is to lavishly point out those superficialities at every turn and demand that people ignore them.
Basically, there are poor minorities and well off minorities, and there are poor white kids and well off white kids.
Well off minorities are a lot better off than poor minorities, and will be much better equipt for college. The same applies for well off white kids and poor white kids.
The problem starts here: Poor white kids are much more numerous and much more likely to be prepared than poor white kids. You can attribute that to various cultural and institutional biases that are more likely to give a poor white kid a fair shot growing up than it is to give a poor black kid a shot growing up. So the poor black kids get screwed over in favor of the poor white kids. The well off black kid might be better equipt to attend college and make something of his or herself, but since race is no longer considered a factor, he/she still has to due with the internal biases against minorities, without being given any sort of edge to compensate. Ergo, the well off black kids get screwed over in favor of the well of white kids.
I think he's saying that shifting to income-based programs would admit a greater number of poor blacks who aren't ready for college, instead of wealthier blacks who are better prepared by way of attending better schools. This makes no sense, though, unless you assume that they're going to be admitting people who have no business being admitted, which AA advocates swear up and down certainly never happens.
Here's another way to look at it:
There are kids who are prepared for college and kids who aren't prepared for college. The latter group should not be admitted under any circumstances, because they are not prepared. The end.
Because it perpetuates and further increases the racial divide in terms of opprotunity?
Which I suppose is still better than the current system where black people are simply discriminated against in secret, and left to believe that the problem must be with their own inadequacies. Yes, the guy in scenario is black. I'm sure that he is already well of that. You can't fight ignorance by feigning ignorance, and pretending not to notice something that you notice.
Of course, on the subject of what you brought up, it reminds me of one of my favorite arguments: "Affirmative Action isn't necessary when you're color blind, like me. I don't see race. Here's a guy I think you should read on the subject, and you know that you can trust him, because he's BLACK!!"
It's called bringing the problem to the surface. If I have a rifle with a crooked site that aims slightly to the left, I solve nothing by pretending that the problem isn't there and pretending everything is fine, because "even thought my site is misaligned now, attempting to adjust it and fix the problem would be reverse-misalignment!"
If you actually beleive that I think you should be forced to take a trip out to western Pensylvania or West Virginia. You've obviously never seen the conditions that lots of poor white people live in if you think it's much better than the inner city. The inner city is more concentrated and more visible but rural poor america isn't much better really. Maybe there's less crime but the poverty is pretty horrible and there's next to nothing in the way of public services
So?
What if the problem is that your nerves keep screwing up your aim, even though you're a dead shot? Is the proper solution to chant "I am not nervous, I am not nervous, I am not nervous?" If you don't obsess over your nervousness to the point that it fucks up your aim, does that mean you're ignoring the problem?
Look, a very large chunk of the problem is that people are ascribing significance to skin color instead of treating as something completely irrelevant and transparent, akin to hair color. Do you disagree that if people equated skin color with hair color, there would be no problem? How do you propose we get to that point whilst constantly pointing at people and yodeling about their race?
The problem is subtle. The problem lurks beneath the surface. The solution needs to do likewise, and AA sure as fuck doesn't.
You are right on some of your points (whites still outnumbering minorities in the lower income bracket), but ElJeffe is absolutely right in that people who are not prepared for higher education should not receive assistance in qualifying for it. They should not be admitted, and rightfully so. Giving them the leg-up is attacking the absolute wrong angle of the problem.
Go to the high schools and other institutes that come before college-- address the issues there, don't just pull the wool over your own eyes and give the kids a step ladder because they were "unfairly disadvantaged." Band-aid fixes are avoided for a reason.
EDIT: I mean, the ball is definitely on your side of the court Schrodinger et al. What is the logical basis for picking race out of the numerous issues and attacking it at this point in the education process by offering artificial admissions?
Clearly if X% of the population is white, it's racist for them to get X% of the opportunities.
EDIT: To clarify, I read ElJeffe's post there as a corollary, not as a benefit of making income a larger factor in artificial admissions. I read it as a corollary that people who would not under any circumstances be admitted should not be admitted, and should be removed from the pool of people that stand to be given artificial admissions (the leg-up over similar candidates).
I've seen both. I grew up in a rural area (Maine) with a lot of poverty and associated crime (theft, domestic violence, drug abuse), and now I live in Philadelphia, which has all those same problems at higher rates and in greater proximity to me, and in which to date 156 people have been murdered.
If I had to choose to live in either of those environments, hands down I'd choose rural poverty.
What? No. Any program should only offer opportunities to kids who are actually qualified in the first place. If there exist poor black student who are qualified, they'll benefit from this program. If there don't exist poor, black, qualified students, then they won't get admitted, because they aren't there.
You make it sound like the income-based alternative just throws admissions at random poor kids without regard for how qualified they are. Meanwhile, you accuse me of strawmanning. Nice.
http://weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/615szpgj.asp
The article makes the case that AA actually harms minorities, rather than helping them, because it places people into situations that they can't handle.
I'm assuming that what you're saying is that even with the same amount of money, a black person is worse off becuase... people say mean things to them? Don't let them live where they want to live? What? And how does giving them preferential job or admissions treatment actually do anything to solve those problems?
...But of course race also affects socioeconomic status.
Right, but a poor black person and a poor white person have more in common then two random white people of different classes.
edit: This is moving fast, please read that link I put on the bottom of page 1 about how AA actually hurts students.
Stop being a goddamned idiot, please.
If someone came in with lime green and purple hair, it would be notable by virtue of the fact that the person had done it to himself. In a similar vein, sure, if someone came in with lime green and purple face paint, I would probably also take notice, because I would be talking to a fucking Mystery-Flavor Now-and-Later.
"Familiarity" is not a problem in most places. It is certainly not a problem in most places that use AA. Most people have seen a black dude.
The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that it's a Big Fucking Deal.
"Initial"? AA has been around for decades. You make it sound like some new, untried concept. We've had it for awhile. Once upon a time, it was a good thing. It's time to retire it. If not now, when?*
*This is a rhetorical question. I've asked you before, and you've mentioned that it should be around forever, so we needn't bother with this line of discussion.
i really don't seehow that's anything but racism. Whats the problem with taking the actual background into account rather than some sterotypical one? if all the disadvantages black people face are so self-evident wouldn't the result be pretty much the same?
Again it comes down to a band-aid. it's really about appearances than actually making a difference. Liberals thnik seeing black faces in the crwd at a college are somehow a symbol of "progress" no matter the factors that landed them there. Seeing a poor white kid in the same position isn't as obvious so it's viewed as less of an accomplishment.
Have they? I'd be interested in seeing soem studies with controlled variables if you have any.
For instance, there are studies showing that people with white sounding names have a 50% better chance of getting a callback than people with black sounding names. I seriously doubt that it's because the employer could read these identical resumes and safely conclude that the non-existent black people made less money than the non-existent white people.
Further, even if this were true, that does not absolve the problem. I can prove that heart disease has a greater impact on death than murder. That does not mean that we should ignore the role of murder.
I mean, seriously. I see no reason at all to give less qualified people positions over more qualified people, ever.
At top schools, Asians are far and away the group most HURT by AA. The acceptance rate of whites at Ivies and equivalents isn't really impacted much at all.
that's them hurting themselves... AA doesn't become a bad thing just because some people have trouble.
No, that isn't the question. The question is: HOW is LIFE worse for a rich black person than it is for a rich white person? And HOW will AA SOLVE those differences?
It is whatever the evidence says it is. No answer should be ruled out.
Which therefore shows that hair color is not transparent. Which makes sense, or people wouldn't bother to dye it to begin with.
You mean like... in the movies?
Right, because you're making it into one unnecessarily.
Yes, and there are still people who are resistent to the new idea of teaching evolution in schools. I suppose we should give up on that as well. As for your timeline, I could ask the exact same thing with your whole income-based system. How long should that continue? Until there are no poor people because communism took over and everyone is equal? Or just as long as there is a SIGNIFICANT and MEASURABLE gap that affects achievement?
But the more they were hurt socio-economically by racial factors, the more they'd benefit from SES-based AA.