White people are responsible for all war in the world.
Lol. Were you in the thread where I showed that Islam is a significant factor in 2/3 - 3/4 of all violent conflict in the world? Many Muslims are white, though, so there's that.
Lol, indeed.
It was meant as a jab at what Mel Gibson infamously drunkenly blurted out when he was pulled over three years ago, except I replaced 'Jews' with the broader term 'white people'.
To repeat what I just said: if everyone was a perfectly safe driver, seat belts still wouldn't be a bad thing.
Try convincing the car companies who have to pay for them of that. You know, the companies that actively protested the implementation even though it was clearly established that there weren't any "perfectly safe drivers."
This is just panicked floundering, so I'll assume I've made a point.
You can assume that you've made a baby elephant that sprouted from your womb if you want to, but that doesn't make it so.
Similarly, this isn't much related to what I said, and isn't about an argument I'm even involved in. I guess it relates to what I'm saying in this way: the people who want to legislate racial advantages have the burden to continually demonstrate the level of need and only seek the appropriate level of action to meet that need. And if the program is working, then that level of need must decrease regularly, and thereby so too must the appropriate level of action decrease regularly.
By this logic, doctors should decrease their efforts every year. Or else we concede that all doctors are useless.
It could be that since AA is working, more black people are able to apply for college in the first place, which means that more black people will need help getting in.
Is AA necessary until humanity has become just one giant mixed race and racism is impossible?
Because with the doctor analogy, doctors will always be needed until people stop getting hurt/dying. At the moment, curing someone of one health problem will always open them up to being attacked by some other health problem -- we all die. The only way to make doctors unnecessary is invulnerability, so that health problems are impossible.
In countries that have AA programs, does every single minority person suffer from systemic racism, and is it inevitable?
So ABC news runs an experiment in the park where to see how people react to bike thieves.
First, they have a white guy pretend to steal a park. He's there for a full hour, and only one person tries to stop him.
Then they try the same experiment, with a black kid. Within a few minutes, entire angry mobs start forming around him. Then they start over and try again. A few minutes later, same thing.
Then they have an attractive white girl steal the bike, and apparently men will actually try to give her a helping hand.
Anyway, this is how racism works. People are either more likely to recognize the white person as a thief, despite identical circumstances, or they're recognize both people as thieves but they feel more comfortable confronting the black kid. But everyone will deny that it has anything to do with race.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they just heard that the black kid's name was "DeShawn" and assumed that it meant that he had less of an education, without ever actually noticing he was black.
There's also some footage on how pedestrians react when they see overt discrimination against black people, or against gay people. It's a good response to anyone who ever says, "Laws against discrimination were unnecessary in the 1960s, because people didn't want to shop at racist stores in the first place."
So ABC news runs an experiment in the park where to see how people react to bike thieves.
First, they have a white guy pretend to steal a park. He's there for a full hour, and only one person tries to stop him.
Then they try the same experiment, with a black kid. Within a few minutes, entire angry mobs start forming around him. Then they start over and try again. A few minutes later, same thing.
Then they have an attractive white girl steal the bike, and apparently men will actually try to give her a helping hand.
Anyway, this is how racism works. People are either more likely to recognize the white person as a thief, despite identical circumstances, or they're recognize both people as thieves but they feel more comfortable confronting the black kid. But everyone will deny that it has anything to do with race.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they just heard that the black kid's name was "DeShawn" and assumed that it meant that he had less of an education, without ever actually noticing he was black.
There's also some footage on how pedestrians react when they see overt discrimination against black people, or against gay people. It's a good response to anyone who ever says, "Laws against discrimination were unnecessary in the 1960s, because people didn't want to shop at racist stores in the first place."
i saw this when it aired on tv and it never fails to crack me up. you can either laugh or cry
So ABC news runs an experiment in the park where to see how people react to bike thieves.
First, they have a white guy pretend to steal a park. He's there for a full hour, and only one person tries to stop him.
Then they try the same experiment, with a black kid. Within a few minutes, entire angry mobs start forming around him. Then they start over and try again. A few minutes later, same thing.
Then they have an attractive white girl steal the bike, and apparently men will actually try to give her a helping hand.
Anyway, this is how racism works. People are either more likely to recognize the white person as a thief, despite identical circumstances, or they're recognize both people as thieves but they feel more comfortable confronting the black kid. But everyone will deny that it has anything to do with race.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they just heard that the black kid's name was "DeShawn" and assumed that it meant that he had less of an education, without ever actually noticing he was black.
There's also some footage on how pedestrians react when they see overt discrimination against black people, or against gay people. It's a good response to anyone who ever says, "Laws against discrimination were unnecessary in the 1960s, because people didn't want to shop at racist stores in the first place."
Thanks Schrodinger. Now if we could just get everyone in America to sit down and view what you just posted, we'd be making some progress. Maybe. People do have a tendency to dig their toes in and scream lalalalalalala.
The funny thing is that it's entirely possible to pass by a guy hacking through a chain and give him the benefit of the doubt. But dude stood by for a full hour, and even then, no one tried to stop him until he pulled out an electric saw. If he hadn't done that, then chances are that no would have stopped him all day.
It's entirely pass by a guy hacking a chain and get suspicious. But you had entire crowds getting into full on angry mob mode. Twice.
Of course, someone will probably say something like, "Oh, it's not because he was black. Maybe they were just put off by the color of his shirt?"
Or, "Maybe the black kid just reminded him of a bike theif they knew. Now, I'm not saying that the other bike thief was black. Maybe he was wearing the same type of shoes"
East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
SAT and ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity: 2003
In recent years the noted pattern of test scores has reflected similar numbers--
Editor, 2005
SAT Ethnic Group Scores (Math/Verbal+total)
• American Indian---482/480 (962)
• Asian American
575/508 (1083)
• African American
426/431 (857)
• Puerto Rican----457/448 (905)
Average ACT Composite Score by Race/Ethnicity, 2003
• African American ----16.9
• American Indian---18.7
• Caucasian---- 21.7
• Mexican American----18.3
• Asian American---- 21.8
• Hispanic----19.0
• Other ----19.3
• Multiracial
20.9
• Prefer Not to Respond
21.8
• No Response
20.1
"Readiness for college science and math coursework was particularly low among
African American students. Only 5 percent of African American test-takers scored
at or above the college-readiness benchmark for college biology, and just 10
percent attained the readiness benchmark for college algebra. http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm
East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
SAT and ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity: 2003
In recent years the noted pattern of test scores has reflected similar numbers--
Editor, 2005
SAT Ethnic Group Scores (Math/Verbal+total)
• American Indian---482/480 (962)
• Asian American
575/508 (1083)
• African American
426/431 (857)
• Puerto Rican----457/448 (905)
Average ACT Composite Score by Race/Ethnicity, 2003
• African American ----16.9
• American Indian---18.7
• Caucasian---- 21.7
• Mexican American----18.3
• Asian American---- 21.8
• Hispanic----19.0
• Other ----19.3
• Multiracial
20.9
• Prefer Not to Respond
21.8
• No Response
20.1
"Readiness for college science and math coursework was particularly low among
African American students. Only 5 percent of African American test-takers scored
at or above the college-readiness benchmark for college biology, and just 10
percent attained the readiness benchmark for college algebra. http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm
It is not possible to achieve racial parity without lowering intellectual standards for blacks. Because affirmative action does not create more opportunities, this means raising standards for whites and east Asians.
Affirmative action advances many blacks to positions where they are not able to perform adequately. It denies whites and east Asians positions where they could perform well.
It is not possible to achieve racial parity without lowering intellectual standards for blacks. Because affirmative action does not create more opportunities, this means raising standards for whites and east Asians.
Affirmative action advances many blacks to positions where they are not able to perform adequately. It denies whites and east Asians positions where they could perform well.
Despite your attempts to pump IQ into this thread, I don't think you understand how to read statistics. Somehow you seem to be confusing "average" with "all."
You're right, if AA worked by replacing a randomly selected white person with a randomly selected black person, then the randomly selected black person would probably have a lower IQ. Affirmative Action doesn't work like that.
What Affirmative Action says is, "If a black person and a white person have the same IQ, then the black person should be given a slight preference." Basically, AA is designed so that an outstanding black person has a better chance of getting into college than a mediocre white person.
Or, let's per it another way. You have two runners. One of them is a white kid in perfect health who's parents managed to spend tens of thousands of dollars on personal trainers and lessons, and finishes the race in 7 minutes. The other runner is a black kid, who just had both his legs broken a month ago by a group of white supremacists, and who doesn't even have a race track to practice on because his school can't afford one. He finishes the race in 7 minutes. Who is the better athlete?
Right now, our society is skewed in such a way that if both kids reach the same time, then the white kid will receive a significant preference based entirely on skin color, despite having the same time and more advantages. AA is designed to balance things out slightly.
It is not possible to achieve racial parity without lowering intellectual standards for blacks. Because affirmative action does not create more opportunities, this means raising standards for whites and east Asians.
Also, are you implying that the IQ difference is genetic, rather than cultural?
If not, then it's entirely possible to achieve racial parity without lowering standards, simply by removing cultural barriers over time. Which is part of what AA does.
If you're implying that the IQ difference is genetic, then you need to show a lot of work.
Again, look at the video I posted from Hulu.
A white kid can pretend to steal a bike for an entire hour, and no one tries to stop him until he purposely goes out of his way to bring attention to himself with an electric saw. There were probably hundreds of people who passed him by that day, and shrugged it off.
Then they try the experiment again, but with a black kid. Within minutes, an angry mob forms up and decides to confront him. Was this a fluke? Perhaps the angry mob only formed because one concerned citizen decided to stop him, and that same concerned citizen would have been just as concerned if the kid had been white. So they repeat the experiment, and try again. Same result. Funny how concerned citizens only seem to appear when the kid is black.
If you asked the people who ignored by the white kid, they'll insist that they would have ignored a black kid as well. If you asked the people who confronted the black kid, they would insist that they would have confronted a white kid as well. Everyone who passed by that day will deny any form of racism. And yet racism is readily apparent.
Why is this important? Because the same thing happens in job admissions. Statistically, a white kid with an 18 month sentence for selling cocaine has a better chance of finding a job than a black kid who's crime free. A white person has a 50% better chance at getting a callback than a black kid with an identical resume. And when I say "identical," I mean, "experimenters fabricated a resume and set two sets out, to see how HR people would respond."
Everyone will deny racism. "Oh, we would have responded the same way if his skin color was different." But the data shows otherwise. When a white kid has a 18 month prison sentences, employers are more likely to come up with an excuse to rationalize it and look for good points to weigh it out. When a white kid has no criminal record at all, employers are more likely to look for flaws in the resume that they wouldn't be so concerned about if the kid was white.
Does anybody have actual quota levels? I'd always assumed that they were low enough that there would have to be a heavy bias to bump up against them.
agentk13 on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
The SAT/ACT scores are relevant regarding AA in one major context: the comparative success of Hispanics over Blacks in America.
For many values, Blacks have the advantage over Hispanics. On average, a Black student will not have to face the cultural, lingual, sexual, religious, or financial external factors that many Hispanic students have to face, but most studies still find Hispanic students far outperforming Blacks.
To me, this shows a glaring disparity between Blacks and other ethnic groups in attitudes toward education. So far, data shows that AA has not been particularly helpful proportional to the success of other ethnicities, so in that context, is it doing what it was intended for?
The SAT/ACT scores are relevant regarding AA in one major context: the comparative success of Hispanics over Blacks in America.
For many values, Blacks have the advantage over Hispanics. On average, a Black student will not have to face the cultural, lingual, sexual, religious, or financial external factors that many Hispanic students have to face, but most studies still find Hispanic students far outperforming Blacks.
To me, this shows a glaring disparity between Blacks and other ethnic groups in attitudes toward education. So far, data shows that AA has not been particularly helpful proportional to the success of other ethnicities, so in that context, is it doing what it was intended for?
They've been in the US longer, so that their problems are more institutionalized, their positions allow less mobility, and they've had longer to pick up America's anti-education bias and American "education." There's also the fact that racism seems to correlate well with skin color, so that light skinned blacks do better than dark and blacks have much lower employment and income even after you account for education level.
Are hispanic students with severe linguistic problems going to bother taking the SAT and the ACT in the first place? Because you may have a sampling issue.
Schrodinger on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Are hispanic students with severe linguistic problems going to bother taking the SAT and the ACT in the first place? Because you may have a sampling issue.
I don't know, and I bet there's not much data on that front. But still, just about every hispanic HS grad takes either the SAT or ACT. And while there's certainly nothing to support an assertion that all hispanic students face linguistic issues, I would strongly assume that lingual factors play a much stronger role in those households over their Black counterparts, as the instance of non-English speaking parents or in-home grandparents is arguably much higher with hispanics.
Still, I think the data points to the educational disparity between Blacks and other races being driven by other factors than just systemic educational failings.
Posts
Lol, indeed.
It was meant as a jab at what Mel Gibson infamously drunkenly blurted out when he was pulled over three years ago, except I replaced 'Jews' with the broader term 'white people'.
Try convincing the car companies who have to pay for them of that. You know, the companies that actively protested the implementation even though it was clearly established that there weren't any "perfectly safe drivers."
You can assume that you've made a baby elephant that sprouted from your womb if you want to, but that doesn't make it so.
By this logic, doctors should decrease their efforts every year. Or else we concede that all doctors are useless.
It could be that since AA is working, more black people are able to apply for college in the first place, which means that more black people will need help getting in.
Is AA necessary until humanity has become just one giant mixed race and racism is impossible?
Because with the doctor analogy, doctors will always be needed until people stop getting hurt/dying. At the moment, curing someone of one health problem will always open them up to being attacked by some other health problem -- we all die. The only way to make doctors unnecessary is invulnerability, so that health problems are impossible.
In countries that have AA programs, does every single minority person suffer from systemic racism, and is it inevitable?
So ABC news runs an experiment in the park where to see how people react to bike thieves.
First, they have a white guy pretend to steal a park. He's there for a full hour, and only one person tries to stop him.
Then they try the same experiment, with a black kid. Within a few minutes, entire angry mobs start forming around him. Then they start over and try again. A few minutes later, same thing.
Then they have an attractive white girl steal the bike, and apparently men will actually try to give her a helping hand.
Anyway, this is how racism works. People are either more likely to recognize the white person as a thief, despite identical circumstances, or they're recognize both people as thieves but they feel more comfortable confronting the black kid. But everyone will deny that it has anything to do with race.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe they just heard that the black kid's name was "DeShawn" and assumed that it meant that he had less of an education, without ever actually noticing he was black.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/201894/what-would-you-do-viewer%E2%80%99s-choice#s-p1-so-i0
There's also some footage on how pedestrians react when they see overt discrimination against black people, or against gay people. It's a good response to anyone who ever says, "Laws against discrimination were unnecessary in the 1960s, because people didn't want to shop at racist stores in the first place."
i saw this when it aired on tv and it never fails to crack me up. you can either laugh or cry
Thanks Schrodinger. Now if we could just get everyone in America to sit down and view what you just posted, we'd be making some progress. Maybe. People do have a tendency to dig their toes in and scream lalalalalalala.
It's entirely pass by a guy hacking a chain and get suspicious. But you had entire crowds getting into full on angry mob mode. Twice.
Of course, someone will probably say something like, "Oh, it's not because he was black. Maybe they were just put off by the color of his shirt?"
Or, "Maybe the black kid just reminded him of a bike theif they knew. Now, I'm not saying that the other bike thief was black. Maybe he was wearing the same type of shoes"
Anything to ignore the elephant in the room.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
SAT and ACT Scores by Race/Ethnicity: 2003
In recent years the noted pattern of test scores has reflected similar numbers--
Editor, 2005
SAT Ethnic Group Scores (Math/Verbal+total)
• American Indian---482/480 (962)
• Asian American
575/508 (1083)
• African American
426/431 (857)
• Puerto Rican----457/448 (905)
Other Hispanic----464/457 (921)
• White
534/529 (1063)
• Other ----513/501 (1014)
Source: www.collegeboard.com
Average ACT Composite Score by Race/Ethnicity, 2003
• African American ----16.9
• American Indian---18.7
• Caucasian---- 21.7
• Mexican American----18.3
• Asian American---- 21.8
• Hispanic----19.0
• Other ----19.3
• Multiracial
20.9
• Prefer Not to Respond
21.8
• No Response
20.1
Source: www.act.org
Quote from attached SAT/ACT article:
"Readiness for college science and math coursework was particularly low among
African American students. Only 5 percent of African American test-takers scored
at or above the college-readiness benchmark for college biology, and just 10
percent attained the readiness benchmark for college algebra.
http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm
so, what's your point?
It is not possible to achieve racial parity without lowering intellectual standards for blacks. Because affirmative action does not create more opportunities, this means raising standards for whites and east Asians.
Affirmative action advances many blacks to positions where they are not able to perform adequately. It denies whites and east Asians positions where they could perform well.
Despite your attempts to pump IQ into this thread, I don't think you understand how to read statistics. Somehow you seem to be confusing "average" with "all."
You're right, if AA worked by replacing a randomly selected white person with a randomly selected black person, then the randomly selected black person would probably have a lower IQ. Affirmative Action doesn't work like that.
What Affirmative Action says is, "If a black person and a white person have the same IQ, then the black person should be given a slight preference." Basically, AA is designed so that an outstanding black person has a better chance of getting into college than a mediocre white person.
Or, let's per it another way. You have two runners. One of them is a white kid in perfect health who's parents managed to spend tens of thousands of dollars on personal trainers and lessons, and finishes the race in 7 minutes. The other runner is a black kid, who just had both his legs broken a month ago by a group of white supremacists, and who doesn't even have a race track to practice on because his school can't afford one. He finishes the race in 7 minutes. Who is the better athlete?
Right now, our society is skewed in such a way that if both kids reach the same time, then the white kid will receive a significant preference based entirely on skin color, despite having the same time and more advantages. AA is designed to balance things out slightly.
Also, are you implying that the IQ difference is genetic, rather than cultural?
If not, then it's entirely possible to achieve racial parity without lowering standards, simply by removing cultural barriers over time. Which is part of what AA does.
If you're implying that the IQ difference is genetic, then you need to show a lot of work.
Again, look at the video I posted from Hulu.
A white kid can pretend to steal a bike for an entire hour, and no one tries to stop him until he purposely goes out of his way to bring attention to himself with an electric saw. There were probably hundreds of people who passed him by that day, and shrugged it off.
Then they try the experiment again, but with a black kid. Within minutes, an angry mob forms up and decides to confront him. Was this a fluke? Perhaps the angry mob only formed because one concerned citizen decided to stop him, and that same concerned citizen would have been just as concerned if the kid had been white. So they repeat the experiment, and try again. Same result. Funny how concerned citizens only seem to appear when the kid is black.
If you asked the people who ignored by the white kid, they'll insist that they would have ignored a black kid as well. If you asked the people who confronted the black kid, they would insist that they would have confronted a white kid as well. Everyone who passed by that day will deny any form of racism. And yet racism is readily apparent.
Why is this important? Because the same thing happens in job admissions. Statistically, a white kid with an 18 month sentence for selling cocaine has a better chance of finding a job than a black kid who's crime free. A white person has a 50% better chance at getting a callback than a black kid with an identical resume. And when I say "identical," I mean, "experimenters fabricated a resume and set two sets out, to see how HR people would respond."
Everyone will deny racism. "Oh, we would have responded the same way if his skin color was different." But the data shows otherwise. When a white kid has a 18 month prison sentences, employers are more likely to come up with an excuse to rationalize it and look for good points to weigh it out. When a white kid has no criminal record at all, employers are more likely to look for flaws in the resume that they wouldn't be so concerned about if the kid was white.
Your summation of AA is very, very wrong.
For many values, Blacks have the advantage over Hispanics. On average, a Black student will not have to face the cultural, lingual, sexual, religious, or financial external factors that many Hispanic students have to face, but most studies still find Hispanic students far outperforming Blacks.
To me, this shows a glaring disparity between Blacks and other ethnic groups in attitudes toward education. So far, data shows that AA has not been particularly helpful proportional to the success of other ethnicities, so in that context, is it doing what it was intended for?
They've been in the US longer, so that their problems are more institutionalized, their positions allow less mobility, and they've had longer to pick up America's anti-education bias and American "education." There's also the fact that racism seems to correlate well with skin color, so that light skinned blacks do better than dark and blacks have much lower employment and income even after you account for education level.
I don't know, and I bet there's not much data on that front. But still, just about every hispanic HS grad takes either the SAT or ACT. And while there's certainly nothing to support an assertion that all hispanic students face linguistic issues, I would strongly assume that lingual factors play a much stronger role in those households over their Black counterparts, as the instance of non-English speaking parents or in-home grandparents is arguably much higher with hispanics.
Still, I think the data points to the educational disparity between Blacks and other races being driven by other factors than just systemic educational failings.
Do you need the SAT or the ACT for community college? Or do you only need it for state college?
Just state and most privates.
This year's Heisman winner, Cam Newton, went to JuCo in Texas before transferring to Auburn. There's only one reason A-list talent starts out at JuCo.