<p>Here's a link about a celebration coming up of relevance to this thread. </p>
<p>Loving</a> Day: Celebrate the Legalization of Interracial Couples</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, you are greatly contradicting yourself. Just a few posts ago you pointed out the great educational advantages that come with wealth. I fail to see how a black or hispanic family making $200k a year has fewer educational opportunities than a similar white family? (which it what it seems like you are implying)
[/quote]
There's no contradiction.</p>
<p>Here's an example, a family in New York City making $50,000 a year versus a family in South Dakota making $50,000 a year. Another example, two families make $50,000 a year: one family stretches to send their child to an expensive private school while the other just sends their child to the local mediocre public school.</p>
<p>I hope you can see how socioeconomic affirmative action is flawed, especially in the second case. It's more important and more practical to assess an applicant in the context of the educational opportunities and resources available to him or her.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I am aware that white people are the largest group of poor people in the US. However, you fail to notice that blacks and hispanics are much more likely (as a percentage of their population) to be from an economically disadvantaged background. So you are actually incorrect: as a percentage of each group's population, socioeconomic affirmative action would disproportionallly benefit blacks and hispanics.
[/quote]
Not true, because you are forgetting that it is much more unlikely for a poor African American, Hispanic, Native American, etc. student to graduate from high school than it is for poor White and Asian student to do so. In addition, it is more likely that a poor White or Asian student would be qualified for admission to the schools in question. (This is according to average SAT scores by race/ethnicity.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't really make sense...
[/quote]
LOL! Because your point did not make sense...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you denying that African-Americans have an advantage in the admissions process before you take any other variable into account?
[/quote]
Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, has some sort of an "advantage" when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's not forgot how Michigan added 20% of the points needed to be admitted to hispanic and black applicants solely because of their race.
[/quote]
That's not affirmative action, though.</p>
<p>fabrizio:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on your second sentence? I don’t understand it.
[/quote]
Holistic admissions...</p>
<p>And helping poor white people instead of affluent "URM's"- is a problem why?</p>
<p>Educational opportunities are based heavily on socioeconomic status whereas relate little to race. Socioeconomic status can affect quality of school district, ability to afford outside help in schoolwork, time issues depending on whether you have to hold down a job as well as go to school- and so on and on. </p>
<p>Whereas the only difference I can ascertain that race may create is different cultures emphasising education more or less. But you definitely can't make a blanket assumption about culture from one checkbox- Chinese culture is very different from Filipino culture, poor rural white culture very different from east coast culture, ghetto culture very different from affluent black culture. And in any case I don't see why culture is playing a part in this at all.</p>
<p>Cause and effect.</p>
<p>Poor black and Hispanic kids do graduate in smaller numbers than poor white or Asian kids, but that has more to do with effort in and attitude towards school than any inherent disadvantage.</p>
<p>I do agree, however- that judging based on educational opportunities, such as the quality of the school they attend, and yes, socioeconomic factors that could affect their education- should be considered. And it is already, but holistically. If we used socioeconomic status the way race is used, it is true that it would be as flawed as the current system is, but accounting for geographical location, size of family, financial burdens such as having to fund assisted living for grandparents, and so on, could even out many of those flaws.</p>
<p>And I do think something is inherently wrong with a system that tries blindly to raise the numbers of certain races rather than looking at every applicant holistically and fairly to determine whether they've been disadvantaged educationally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educational opportunities are based heavily on socioeconomic status whereas relate little to race. Socioeconomic status can affect quality of school district, ability to afford outside help in schoolwork, time issues depending on whether you have to hold down a job as well as go to school- and so on and on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, there was a study done by some black professor from some UC (I think it was UCLA) on affluent black kids in a Chicago public school and found that they still performed below their peers and their parents could not understand why. After conducting this study, the professor was called racist and all sorts of things by black people.</p>
<p>I can't remember specific details for this study and whatnot, but I am not making it up.</p>
<p>Bottom line: It has more to do with the parents and how they raise their child.</p>
<p>It's all in the percentages.</p>
<p>Say, a BM student and a WF student have the same scores/grades, etc.</p>
<p>Percentage-wise, the BM student is going to have a significantly higher chance of getting admitted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And helping poor white people instead of affluent "URM's"- is a problem why?
[/quote]
Jeez...</p>
<p>The point of affirmative action today is to both level the playing the field for underrepresented groups and to promote diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educational opportunities are based heavily on socioeconomic status whereas relate little to race. Socioeconomic status can affect quality of school district, ability to afford outside help in schoolwork, time issues depending on whether you have to hold down a job as well as go to school- and so on and on.
[/quote]
Wow... you seemed a bit confused. There are many different points being made...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whereas the only difference I can ascertain that race may create is different cultures emphasising education more or less. But you definitely can't make a blanket assumption about culture from one checkbox- Chinese culture is very different from Filipino culture, poor rural white culture very different from east coast culture, ghetto culture very different from affluent black culture. And in any case I don't see why culture is playing a part in this at all.
[/quote]
Uhhh...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Poor black and Hispanic kids do graduate in smaller numbers than poor white or Asian kids, but that has more to do with effort in and attitude towards school than any inherent disadvantage.
[/quote]
No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do agree, however- that judging based on educational opportunities, such as the quality of the school they attend, and yes, socioeconomic factors that could affect their education- should be considered. And it is already, but holistically. If we used socioeconomic status the way race is used, it is true that it would be as flawed as the current system is, but accounting for geographical location, size of family, financial burdens such as having to fund assisted living for grandparents, and so on, could even out many of those flaws.
[/quote]
1.) That's not practical, though.
2.) It doesn't facilitate racial/ethnic diversity and would result in college student bodies becoming more White.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I do think something is inherently wrong with a system that tries blindly to raise the numbers of certain races rather than looking at every applicant holistically and fairly to determine whether they've been disadvantaged educationally.
[/quote]
If you are asserting that schools don't look at the applicants holistically, you are contradicting yourself...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And helping poor white people instead of affluent "URM's"- is a problem why?
[/quote]
Jeez...</p>
<p>The point of affirmative action today is to both level the playing the field for underrepresented groups and to promote diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Educational opportunities are based heavily on socioeconomic status whereas relate little to race. Socioeconomic status can affect quality of school district, ability to afford outside help in schoolwork, time issues depending on whether you have to hold down a job as well as go to school- and so on and on.
[/quote]
Wow... you seemed a bit confused. There are many different points being made...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whereas the only difference I can ascertain that race may create is different cultures emphasising education more or less. But you definitely can't make a blanket assumption about culture from one checkbox- Chinese culture is very different from Filipino culture, poor rural white culture very different from east coast culture, ghetto culture very different from affluent black culture. And in any case I don't see why culture is playing a part in this at all.
[/quote]
Uhhh...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Poor black and Hispanic kids do graduate in smaller numbers than poor white or Asian kids, but that has more to do with effort in and attitude towards school than any inherent disadvantage.
[/quote]
No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do agree, however- that judging based on educational opportunities, such as the quality of the school they attend, and yes, socioeconomic factors that could affect their education- should be considered. And it is already, but holistically. If we used socioeconomic status the way race is used, it is true that it would be as flawed as the current system is, but accounting for geographical location, size of family, financial burdens such as having to fund assisted living for grandparents, and so on, could even out many of those flaws.
[/quote]
1.) That's not practical, though.
2.) It doesn't facilitate racial/ethnic diversity and would result in college student bodies becoming more White.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I do think something is inherently wrong with a system that tries blindly to raise the numbers of certain races rather than looking at every applicant holistically and fairly to determine whether they've been disadvantaged educationally.
[/quote]
If you are asserting that schools don't look at the applicants holistically, you are contradicting yourself...</p>
<p>EDIT:
I'll try to respond if you have questions, etc. but I am not interested in arguing with anyone on this because it always ends up the same way. :) I am pretty sure that I am right on this issue, and so are people like fabrizio...</p>
<p>Yes, I think it is possible for two people with conflicting opinions to both be right. The key is that they reach their conclusions logically.</p>
<p>"Jeez...</p>
<p>The point of affirmative action today is to both level the playing the field for underrepresented groups and to promote diversity."</p>
<p>The crux of your argument is here, and it is flawed. First of all, you must break free of the notion that just because whites as a whole are well-represented that all white subsections geographically and socioeconomically are well-represented. What I'm essentially saying is that the brilliant but dirt poor white kid living in an Idaho trailer park should be given the same advantages as a brilliant but poor black kid living in an inner-city ghetto. They are both under-represented, they both bring diversity, they both deserve an advantage. Socioeconomic affirmative action (as you describe it, within the context of their educational opportunities) would give it to both of them.</p>
<p>However, I do not understand why you think that an affluent African-American applicant from a ritzy Connecticut suburb brings any more diversity to a school than a white applicant from the same neighborhood. Why should he or she be given an advantage? If you respond that their race is under-represented, all I have to say if that became true if socioeconomic aff. action were to be implemented, it would be solely the fault of that group itself.</p>
<p>"I hope you can see how socioeconomic affirmative action is flawed, especially in the second case. It's more important and more practical to assess an applicant in the context of the educational opportunities and resources available to him or her."</p>
<p>You seem to be describing socioeconomic affirmative action as I see it. How strange. Why can't we have what you describe here, just without race factored into it?</p>
<p>"Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, has some sort of an "advantage" when it comes to college admissions."</p>
<p>"If you are asserting that schools don't look at the applicants holistically, you are contradicting yourself..."</p>
<p>I don't understand how you cannot admit that with all other variables controlled for, URM applicants have an advantage. We are not denying that colleges look at all applicants holistically, all we are saying is that colleges look at URMs a little more holistically, you could say.</p>
<p>Yes, saying that one admission factor or another is important is not the same as saying that any one admission factor results in automatic admission. It is a sophisticated, but not too sophisticated for college students to understand, form of statistical reasoning to tease out how much of an advantage any one admission factor provides when others are equal. The issue of what factor SHOULD matter most is a question of policy, not of statistics, but the question of what factor DOES matter most has been investigated in courtrooms and by academic and journalistic researchers.</p>
<p>cookietime, you just are not making any sense and you continue to ignore the complexities of constitutional affirmative action policies.</p>
<p>EDIT:
[quote]
I don't understand how you cannot admit that with all other variables controlled for, URM applicants have an advantage.
[/quote]
ROFL! You just don't want to look at the big picture do you? Everyone is advantaged or disadvantaged in one way or another in all aspects of life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We are not denying that colleges look at all applicants holistically, all we are saying is that colleges look at URMs a little more holistically, you could say.
[/quote]
ROFL! What makes you think that colleges look at URMs less holistically? You have no logical reason to believe that what you are saying is true.</p>
<p>'cookietime, you just are not making any sense and you continue to ignore the complexities of constitutional affirmative action policies.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>Quote:
I don't understand how you cannot admit that with all other variables controlled for, URM applicants have an advantage. </p>
<p>ROFL! You just don't want to look at the big picture do you? Everyone is advantaged or disadvantaged in one way or another in all aspects of life.</p>
<p>Quote:
We are not denying that colleges look at all applicants holistically, all we are saying is that colleges look at URMs a little more holistically, you could say. </p>
<h2>ROFL! What makes you think that colleges look at URMs less holistically? You have no logical reason to believe that what you are saying is true."</h2>
<p>NewJack, there are things which are associated with being a URM or white and there are things which are true *by definition. * Being associated with something means it sometime is not true. The definition of AA is that being a URM is a boost. The only thing which you can say is definitely a boost for whites is that they don't have to experience racism.</p>
<p>Other things like wealth may be seen as a boost to whites because they are more associated with whites than with URM. However, they are not true by definition. (And you could address this separately by boosting lower income applicants.)</p>
<p>I believe this is what cookietime is trying to say.</p>
<p>"ROFL! You just don't want to look at the big picture do you? Everyone is advantaged or disadvantaged in one way or another in all aspects of life."</p>
<p>I don't see the relevance. I never denied this. We aren't talking about the sum total fairness of life for various groups.. but rather the fairness ascribed to different groups in the college admissions process. In my own opinion, unfair benefits are given to affluent URMs. That is all I am saying. Will you deny or avoid that point once again?</p>
<p>"ROFL! What makes you think that colleges look at URMs less holistically? You have no logical reason to believe that what you are saying is true."</p>
<p>First of all, I said more holistically, but you probably made a typo. </p>
<p>To me, holistics admissions is the willingness to look over possibly subpar scores or grades in lieu of the context of an applicant's background or other outstanding qualities. If you agree with that, then I would claim that is exactly what happens in race-based affirmative action. My evidence for this is the ample data that URMs, on average, have lower SATs and GPAs than their white and asian classmates. Where is the flaw in this logic?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Let's not forgot how Michigan added 20% of the points needed to be admitted to hispanic and black applicants solely because of their race.
[/quote]
That's not affirmative action, though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the twenty points thing is not affirmative action, then Gratz wasn’t an affirmative action case.</p>
<p>Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but no one entitled to his own version of the facts. The reality is that Gratz WAS an affirmative action case. Michigan’s affirmative action policy was challenged by Jennifer Gratz and it was held un-Constitutional. That is why Michigan changed their affirmative action policy afterward.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the twenty points thing is not affirmative action, then Gratz wasn’t an affirmative action case. [...] Michigan’s affirmative action policy was challenged by Jennifer Gratz and it was held un-Constitutional.
[/quote]
If it was held unconstitutional, then it was not really an affirmative action policy as those are constitutional. That's all I was suggesting.</p>
<p>"If it was held unconstitutional, then it was not really an affirmative action policy as those are constitutional. That's all I was suggesting." </p>
<p>So automatically any affirmative action policy that is struck down in the court of law suddenly becomes something other than affirmative action? That's...convenient.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, there was a study done by some black professor from some UC (I think it was UCLA) on affluent black kids in a Chicago public school and found that they still performed below their peers and their parents could not understand why. After conducting this study, the professor was called racist and all sorts of things by black people.</p>
<p>I can't remember specific details for this study and whatnot, but I am not making it up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the late Dr. John Ogbu did research in Shaker Heights.</p>
<p>As I understand it, Dr. Ogbu faulted the culture and mindset of the black students in Shaker Heights. To them, doing well in school was “acting white.” He found that the parents “didn't supervise their children that much…[and] didn't make sure their children did their homework.” After he finished his research, he informed parents and school officials that he would wait one year before publishing so that his findings could be discussed. No parents ever met with him during that one year grace period.</p>
<p>Of course, this is very politically incorrect. I attend college with a student who has studied at Shaker Heights. When I asked him what he thought of Dr. Ogbu’s research, he said, “That’s white Republican thinking.” He then told me that culture was not the problem, the need to not “act white” was. I asked him why he thought that was not an aspect of culture but unfortunately we were interrupted by an announcement and we weren’t able to get back on the subject.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So automatically any affirmative action policy that is struck down in the court of law suddenly becomes something other than affirmative action? That's...convenient.
[/quote]
Let's use logic here. </p>
<p>Affirmative action policies are constitutional. Michigan's affirmative action policy was held unconstitutional. Therefore, Michagan's affirmative action policy was not really an affirmative action policy because it was held as unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Also, just so that you can become more informed on this issue, Harvard's affirmative action policy has been the one that has consistently been referenced as a model in Supreme Court affirmative action cases. I think that the way that Harvard and many other elite instutitions practice affirmative action is the correct way to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action policies are constitutional. Michigan's affirmative action policy was held unconstitutional. Therefore, Michagan's affirmative action policy was not really an affirmative action policy because it was held as unconstitutional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To you, if an affirmative action policy is held un-Constitutional, then it’s not one. By this reasoning, if the Supreme Court never ruled that Michigan’s old affirmative action policy was un-Constitutional, then that old policy would still be “really an affirmative action policy.”</p>
<p>So, Michigan's old policy was "really an affirmative action [one]" all the way until 2003. Then, it became "not affirmative action." Interesting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard's affirmative action policy has been the one that has consistently been referenced as a model in Supreme Court affirmative action cases.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Specific case citation please?</p>