I think the point you're missing is that these "assumptions" about minorities that make it through the admissions process or make it in the professional world exist primarily because of affirmative action. Affirmative action is only contributing to the problem it is trying to solve.
[/quote]
I think the point you're missing is that these people would not make those "assumptions" if they did not feel some sense of entitlement/privilege. Anyway, what problem is Affirmative Action addressing? I thought it was addressing a lack of representation of certain groups? I do not see how it is solving yet contributing to that problem?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I absolutely abhor the term “sense of entitlement.” I’ve found that it’s a meaningless phrase that supporters of racial preferences bestow upon anyone who wishes to be treated without regard to his race. It’s nothing more than a roundabout way to call someone a racist. (If you’re accusing someone of believing that he’s special because of his race, how is that any different from calling him a racist?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If it's not entitlement/privilege, then why are only specific groups targeted?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Going back to the paragraph cornell.2012 quoted in post #35, the reason why the credentials of whites “can’t be challenged because of…race” is because whites don’t receive preferential treatment on the basis of their race. Sure, you can remind me that legacy and athlete preferences often favor whites. But, are they favoring whites because they’re white or because they’re the children of alums? Because of their skin color or because they play a sport? There is a difference in the way the preferential treatment is allocated; do not conflate them.</p>
<p>When being black is worth the equivalent of 240 extra SAT points, you don’t need to think that you’re special because of your race for you to question the qualifications of protected minorities.</p>
<p>"but fabrizio, you can't use Chang and Espenshade's study! That... that... can't possibly be true because it would ruin my naive bleeding heart outlook on life..."</p>
<p>I question the qualifications of people who get affirmative action boosts in admissions or the workplace. It must be because I feel a sense of entitlement or privilege, and not because those boosts effectively override differences in qualifications.</p>
<p>"but fabrizio, you can't use Chang and Espenshade's study! That... that... can't possibly be true because it would ruin my naive bleeding heart outlook on life..."</p>
<p>How about because that study uses data that is at least ten, and maybe more than twenty five years old?</p>
<p>"....Using data from the National Study of College Experience on 124,374 applications for admission during the 1980s and the fall semesters of 1993 and 1997, they found that elite universities give extra weight "...</p>
<p>Maybe I missed something...</p>
<p>The article goes on to say</p>
<p>...Finally, the advantage that athletes have over nonathletes in elite universityadmissions has been growing, whereas the strength of the minority student advantage, especially for Hispanic candidates, has been waning.</p>
<p>The Chang and Espenshade study is not very reliable for the reasons Shrinkrap mentioned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I absolutely abhor the term “sense of entitlement.” I’ve found that it’s a meaningless phrase that supporters of racial preferences bestow upon anyone who wishes to be treated without regard to his race. It’s nothing more than a roundabout way to call someone a racist. (If you’re accusing someone of believing that he’s special because of his race, how is that any different from calling him a racist?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are many reasons why a person may feel a sense of entitlement. It is not always about race. In most cases the kids who feel a sense of entitlement do so because they have 2300+ SAT scores, 4.0+ GPA, Top 1% of their class, Intel Semi-Finalist/Finalist, or etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Going back to the paragraph cornell.2012 quoted in post #35, the reason why the credentials of whites “can’t be challenged because of…race” is because whites don’t receive preferential treatment on the basis of their race. Sure, you can remind me that legacy and athlete preferences often favor whites. But, are they favoring whites because they’re white or because they’re the children of alums? Because of their skin color or because they play a sport? There is a difference in the way the preferential treatment is allocated; do not conflate them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. You shot yourself in the foot.</p>
<p>African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics do not receive preferential treatment because of their race. They receive it because their races are underrepresented; do not conflate the two.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are many reasons why a person may feel a sense of entitlement. It is not always about race. In most cases the kids who feel a sense of entitlement do so because they have 2300+ SAT scores, 4.0+ GPA, Top 1% of their class, Intel Semi-Finalist/Finalist, or etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, what if kids with 2300+ SAT scores, 4.0+ GPA, Top 1% of their class, are disgruntled because someone with a 2100, 3.6 GPA, top 5% of his/her class, gets into a school instead of them due to affirmative action? Are they disgruntled because they feel that they're entitled to the acceptance or disgruntled because someone less qualified got into a school because of affirmative action? You can't automatically assume the former.</p>
<p>The paper was published in 2005. That was the best data available to the researchers at the time. To my knowledge, the only “refutation” of Espenshade and Chung’s paper comes from William Kidder. I found Kidder’s paper interesting in its own right but utterly inadequate as a refutation. Espenshade et al. used data from undergraduates. Kidder used data from law schools to try to prove Espenshade wrong. He apparently forgot about how meaningful it is to compare apples to oranges.</p>
African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics do not receive preferential treatment because of their race. They receive it because their races are underrepresented; do not conflate the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That’s just plain duplicity.</p>
<p>You’re trying to tell me that a black student doesn’t receive preferential treatment because he’s black, he receives it because there aren’t enough blacks. Well, if there aren’t enough blacks and you want more blacks in the student body, then on what basis do you grant preferential treatment to rectify this problem? Race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haha. You shot yourself in the foot.</p>
<p>African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics do not receive preferential treatment because of their race. They receive it because their races are underrepresented; do not conflate the two.
<p>
[quote]
Okay, what if kids with 2300+ SAT scores, 4.0+ GPA, Top 1% of their class, are disgruntled because someone with a 2100, 3.6 GPA, top 5% of his/her class, gets into a school instead of them due to affirmative action? Are they disgruntled because they feel that they're entitled to the acceptance or disgruntled because someone less qualified got into a school because of affirmative action? You can't automatically assume the former.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In most cases this happens with people of the same race. I know an Asian kid who meets the profile of the first student and another Asian who meets the profile of the second. The first was rejected by Harvard while the second was accepted.</p>
<p>Anyway, there is no such thing as being "more qualified" than another applicant. People who buy into this thinking do so because it is a way for them to rationalize/justify their sense of entitlement. So yes, the person is truly disgruntled because they thought they were more deserving of the spot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You’re trying to tell me that a black student doesn’t receive preferential treatment because he’s black, he receives it because there aren’t enough blacks. Well, if there aren’t enough blacks and you want more blacks in the student body, then on what basis do you grant preferential treatment to rectify this problem? Race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. I thought I said not to conflate the two? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people can say the same thing about whites and legacy and athletic considerations, so what's the point of even arguing about this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, there is no such thing as being "more qualified" than another applicant. People who buy into this thinking do so because it is a way for them to rationalize/justify their sense of entitlement. So yes, the person is truly disgruntled because they thought they were more deserving of the spot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yeah. Everyone is equally special. We're all equally smart, attractive, and deserving! No one's "more qualified" than anyone else!</p>
<p>I get what you're saying, that qualification is a boolean value where you're either qualified or not, but if you know that candidate A has 2400 SAT and 4.0 GPA and candidate B has 2100 SAT and 3.6 GPA with everything else equal, you can say that A is "more qualified" as in A is a stronger student. And would it be so wrong to say that people who display stronger merit are more deserving?</p>
<p>Yup, I believe some students are stronger than others and thus better qualified. Must be my way to rationalize my sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haha. I thought I said not to conflate the two? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people can say the same thing about whites and legacy and athletic considerations and be just as "accurate," so what's the point of even arguing about this?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You thought correctly; you did say not to conflate the two. My point is that there’s nothing to conflate. All you did was call a pig a swine and proceed to act like there’s some huge difference.</p>
<p>OK, let’s assume that it is a fact that people can “say the same thing…” I will replace my paragraph accordingly as follows:</p>
<p>You’re trying to tell me that a **legacy* student doesn’t receive preferential treatment because he’s a legacy, he receives it because there aren’t enough legacies. Well, if there aren’t enough legacies and you want more legacies in the student body, then on what basis do you grant preferential treatment to rectify this problem? Legacy status.*</p>
<p>Wow, you’re right. My statement is just as accurate, and in both cases, you are wrong. Blacks receive preferential treatment because of their race, and legacy students receive preferential treatment because they’re legacies. Thank you.</p>
<p>You are arguing a few different things. I am not saying that when Affirmative Action is applied in cases to increase the representation of certain racial/ethnic groups that race/ethnicity are not considered, so you do not have you waste your time arguing about that.</p>
<p>Anyway, you are saying that ultimately underrepresented groups receive preferential treatment because of their race/ethnicity not simply because they are underrepresented. Well, ultimately whites are more likely to benefit from legacy and athletic consideration because they are white. Whites are more likely to be legacies because historically only whites were regularly granted admission. Whites are more likely to benefit from athletic consideration because whites are more likely to go to a school with a good athletic program.</p>
You are arguing a few different things. I am not saying that when Affirmative Action is applied in cases to increase the representation of certain racial/ethnic groups that race/ethnicity are not considered, so you do not have you waste your time arguing about that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You did not say “race is not considered.” I’m not arguing about “that.”</p>
<p>You did say that “African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics do not receive preferential treatment because of their race. They receive it because their races are underrepresented.” I am criticizing you for claiming a difference when there is not one. If the race is “under-represented,” then race is the factor upon which preference is granted. That is, blacks, Indians, and Hispanics do receive preferential treatment for being black, Indian, and Hispanic, respectively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, you are saying that ultimately underrepresented groups receive preferential treatment because of their race/ethnicity not simply because they are underrepresented. Well, ultimately whites are more likely to benefit from legacy and athletic consideration because they are white. Whites are more likely to be legacies because historically only whites were regularly granted admission. Whites are more likely to benefit from athletic consideration because whites are more likely to go to a school with a good athletic program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>“More likely to benefit” is not the same thing as “benefits.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're all equally smart, attractive, and deserving!
[/quote]
No one "deserves" to get into college. Either way, the top-tier colleges, especially, don't have a minimum standard by which they accept applicants (i.e. no min. SAT/ACT score, GPA, number of AP classes, etc.)-they take whoever they want for whatever reason, and not one of those acceptees is more "deserving" than the others.</p>
<p>No one? Not even the hypothetical poor black student from an inner-city high school who lives in a single-parent household, works part-time to help his family, takes care of his siblings, and still manages time to study for his classes and the SAT?</p>
<p>Not even the hypothetical rich white kid from the suburbs who lives in a household with two parents who each work 80 hour weeks, leave him with a nanny who barely speaks English, rarely sees siblings because they're over-involved activities preparing them for college, and still manages time to study for his tough private school classes and score 240 points better on the SAT than^^^^^ to compensate for being white. Who has it worse? Because I can point to numerous examples of this coming from my school. Stereotyping doesn't work. That is all AA is, stereotyping.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not even the hypothetical rich white kid from the suburbs who lives in a household with two parents who each work 80 hour weeks, leave him with a nanny who barely speaks English, rarely sees siblings because they're over-involved activities preparing them for college, and still manages time to study for his tough private school classes and score 240 points better on the SAT than^^^^^ to compensate for being white.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Awwww, poor rich upper class white male! He has to receive a privileged education and a nanny who acts on his every whim, what hell is this...</p>
<p>I'd also just like to point out again that numbers aren't the only thing admissions officers consider. SAT and GPA are important, but they're not everything. One of the things schools like HYP are on the lookout for is passion--if that means that you devote your time to your art studies and excel at them, at the expense of chemistry or math scores, or you devote your time to studying biology beyond what your school offers and requires at the expense of your English grades, then admissions officers can recognize that. If you've struggled with your education, or overcome large challenges to succeed--say in urban or rural America--then they recognize that, too.</p>
<p>There are so many different ways to define intelligence that it does applicants a disservice to claim that the SAT is any kind of accurate predictor of intelligence, or even of aptitude. Test prep, AP classes, dedicated teachers and extracurriculars are privileges that many students--black and white--are not exposed to. Kids at good public schools, not even necessarily elite private schools, go into college admissions already having an "edge" over urban or rural applicants. Why get so upset over AA, which compensates students who (for the most part) don't have access to many of the facilities other students get to take for granted? Elite schools have thousands and thousands of "well rounded" applicants, and they also have the luxury to choose applicants who don't fit into a wealthy, privileged, homogenous role.</p>
<p>I'll just say that some of the smartest people I know didn't even go to college. Some of the most driven and successful people I know worked their way through community college with multiple full-time jobs. A lot of the people I admire the most are recent immigrants who worked harder than I can imagine to acquire the English language. I'm pretty sure that if they took the SAT, they wouldn't score in the 2200+ range, but I'm 100% confident that it doesn't make them any less intelligent than a student at Exeter or Andover who scored a 2400. And I'm also certain that if I were an admissions officer trying to compose a freshman class, I'd want more of the former type of students than the latter.</p>
<p>The latin phrase ceteris paribus just about handles your entire post. I'll explain further tomorrow if no one else takes the ball to run with it.</p>