NEVER say blacks will do worse at elite colleges...

Applying to College
461

<p>Tyler09: "Because race is a way in which our society naturally divides itself, it is vital that socioeconomic gaps between groups be minimized in order to aid the integration and inter-relations of the various groups. This helps to prevent any group feeling "superior" to any other, which is the basis of racism."</p>

<p>Your statement infers that these gaps should be altered by some external means, such as government. Is that what you meant? This would not promote the ends you are seekng. The last century already showed us that the communist experiment failed. Also, human societies dividing themselves according to race is on its way out. It can't happen fast enough.</p>

462

<p>"On average, they do worse than other students. There is plenty of empirical evidence proving this. But you people just think it's racist to point out things like that"</p>

<p>Not really!^ I hope you're not taking the statistics the OP posted in the beggining page. I also hope you're not comparing the amount of blacks at an elite college with the amount of caucasians because the caucasian population is far greater.</p>

<p>When it comes to Asians or whites, I think they realy need to stop stigmatizing with this BS about "OH, asians are extremely intellegent so if they come to us with a 1950 SAT then they cannot be accepted overa black with a 1700 SAT."</p>

<p>Read post # 25 & 26 on this thread page.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=219019&page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=219019&page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The person that responded to her open house rejected actually said that its because shes white and her dad is a lawyer. I'm thinkingto myself...so what?</p>

463

<p>Where are you all getting evidence that makes you think that whites and Asians have to have a certain GPA/SAT to get into a school because of affirmative action? If a person was rejected from a school then they probably weren't smart enough to go, not because a URM took their place. People should really stop getting mad about minorities getting into college. </p>

<p>"I’m all for equality of opportunity. I have no support for equality of result. Inequality of result does not necessarily infer inequality of opportunity, although that may be the case."</p>

<p>AA is made to level out the playing field. Without it the field will not be equal. Even now that it is implemented the playing field is still really crooked and not just between whites and Blacks, but the rich and poor, men and women.(White women are also the strongest, by far, beneficiaries of AA, so you can go wile out to you mom about how AA sucks,if you're white) So if you are all for equality, what do you suppose should be done about this unequal playing field, or do you still not believe that there is one?</p>

464

<p>Trackbabi: "AA is made to level out the playing field. Without it the field will not be equal."</p>

<p>The existence of AA to "level out the playing field" is an outdated notion IMO. It is also one which gives ammunition to anti-AA people and gets them talking about lost opportunity and unfairness towards non-urm's. I even think the term AA should be abandoned for something better. Basically, it is all about markets and supply and demand. Many professions lack proper representation from different groups. Companies, hospitals, labs, etc. want to hire these people. There is, for example, a shortage of scientists of African American descent. Companies can be more effective, profitable, and run more smoothly when their employees represent the societies in which they compete. Colleges have a job to do - to produce the best group of graduates that they can to meet the demands of the employment market. Nobody is "losing" a spot to a minority with an AA type of system.</p>

<p>BTW, even with AA, the field is not "equal". If you want to see equality, open a math book. If you want fairness, depend on markets (instead of people). This is the way things are already working (when they work), and it is time for those who support AA to update their PR efforts.</p>

<p>It is simply untrue that colleges are handing anything out to anyone who doesn't deserve it when it comes to AA. Again, it is all about supply and demand. It's time for this old debate to be put to rest. You outdated young people need to catch up with progressive, forward thinking old people like me. :)</p>

465

<p>...so did you just like repeat what I said, or were you making some significant point that I could not find? Clarify...</p>

466

<p>I totally did not repeat what you said, except for the part where we both obviously support AA. But for completely different reasons. In my heart I may agree with your position, but my head tells me that the way the world really works calls for a very different way to look at AA. I think that the reasons you cited are nice, but outdated (and ineffective as a tool to persuade naysayers).</p>

<p>You seem to think that institutions can level a playing field. They can't. Colleges can't. Government can't. Only markets can produce the fairest playing field possible. And this is the language you need to use to convince anti-AA people (if that is your goal).</p>

<p>Not that you did this, but in general pro-AA people will sometimes talk about how certain groups suffered and deserve reparation and a fair shot. But people outside of those groups may be focused on their own ancestral suffering (without discounting anyone else's), or maybe came from a place where they never owned a slave or maybe their own ancesters were slaves themselves (Jews, for example, suffered through thousands of years of enslavement). So this is a very difficult argument to sell to everyone. The issue of fairness does come up. </p>

<p>How could you ever measure out a fair reparation (as reparation seems to be, in some people's minds, one of the main reasons for AA)? All across the globe will we ever be able to make reparation to all of the various groups and people's who deserve it? It is even possible that some of the slaves who arrived on these shores came from families who owned slaves themselves (other Africans). Historical reparation is impossible to do.</p>

<p>There are way better reasons to support AA. There are untapped talents and resources within URM communities that companies and institutions want and need. It has nothing to do with reparation. It has to do with the present and with the future. So no one should ever feel that they "lost" a spot to a URM. The reality is that markets dictate what is needed, and that makes it fair. You didn't lose a spot to a URM. You were not recruited to meet a particular demand. Just like in any other market. And that is the real reason why anti-AA people should get over their opposition to it.</p>

467

<p>ok I see what you're saying.</p>

468

<p>As far as performance and grades go, the employment market will pick the best candidates which meet its needs. No need to be concerned about who does better than whom. The debate should be irrelevant, once people see that it has nothing to do with preferential treatment.</p>

469

<p>I like to try to come at things from a different angle.</p>

470

<p>Good point, i never thought of that.</p>

471

<p>TrackBabi17,</p>

<p>Research by Espenshade and Chung showed that being Asian had the *equivalent effect<a href="keywords">/i</a> of a fifty point deduction on the SAT (e.g. A student with a 2200 is treated as if he had a 2150.)</p>

<p>Though many supporters of modern affirmative action proudly dismiss this study as biased garbage and cite Kidder’s rebuttal as “the real thing,” E&C has not been successfully refuted. Kidder used law school data to respond to a paper that used undergraduate data. He was academically dishonest because he knew that if he had used the undergraduate student body change at Berkeley instead of the postgraduate student body change at Boalt Hall, his results would have largely confirmed E&C’s.</p>

<p>What’s more, E&C’s paper is still cited in recent research without any mention that it is “biased garbage.” Massey & Mooney and Alon & Tienda cited E&C in papers that they published this year. In fact, A&T noted that their research confirmed E&C’s findings in a 2004 paper they published with Walling. This paper is very similar to their controversial paper published in 2005, which had the -50 statistic.</p>

<p>You say that “if a person was rejected from a school, then [he] probably was not smart enough to go.” What about Jian Li? Is he an exception to your “probably,” or he is but one of many who are rejected despite being “smart enough to go?” Note that I do not mention that these students’ “spots” are taken by so-called “under-represented” minorities. I simply question your belief that rejects “probably” aren’t smart enough to attend. It’s denied by the vast majority of admissions officers.</p>

<p>Nobody here is “getting mad about minorities getting into college.” That is a gross straw man. The burden of proof is on you to find a single statement where one user has made a comment even remotely like that. And, “well, you don’t like ‘affirmative action,’ so you must dislike minorities getting into college” does not count. They are two different things.</p>

<p>Sure, affirmative action as traditionally defined can certainly be intended to “level out the playing field.” After all, it was meant to treat all equally without regard to largely irrelevant factors. I’m for traditional affirmative action.</p>

<p>What do I propose be done about our current unequal playing field, which I do believe exists?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>End modern affirmative action and reinstate traditional affirmative action. Affirmative action was not meant to be a program of entitlements for whoever could moan the loudest on a lectern. It was designed to ensure that no one be discriminated against based on his race, sex, nationality, and other factors that are irrelevant to participation in university programs and the job force.</p></li>
<li><p>Figure out what the problems are with public education and solve them directly. Just throwing money into the hands of administration is no guarantee that any of the problems will be solved.</p></li>
</ol>

472

<p>
[quote]

The debate should be irrelevant, once people see that it has nothing to do with preferential treatment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It’s absolutely true that affirmative action doesn’t have to be related to preferential treatment. The Executive Order issued by President Kennedy simply described an idea that no one be discriminated against based on his race, gender, national origin, creed, and so forth.</p>

<p>Yet, when measures to ban preferential treatment are introduced at the state level, the usual suspects rear their heads and cry “No! They’re ending affirmative action! Stop them!”</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Could it possibly be that despite their strident efforts to claim that “what we support isn’t preferential treatment,” it actually is preferential treatment?</p>

473

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

474

<p>^ Good article. I disagree with this point, however:</p>

<p>"So ask yourself: Would you rather have a gift of 20 points out of 150 to use at the college of your choice? Or would you rather have the more amorphous advantages President Bush has enjoyed at every stage of his life? ...If the answer to that isn't obvious to you, even 20 extra points are probably not enough to get you into the University of Michigan."</p>

<p>The author overlooked the fact that most non-URM applicants do not get to make that choice. Hardly any non-minority applicants get the kind of break that George W received.</p>

<p>I still believe that government should stay out of businesses and universities, and let market forces create the fairest playing field possible. I would not have felt this way fifty years ago (when society's toxicity reaches an extreme, I'm all for government intervention). Today is a different story, however.</p>

475

<p>I don't think the author was implying that most non-urm minorities have that choice, but instead there is a more secret and more "preferential" type of admissions, that is constantly forgotten about whenever anyone discusses that random <em>black/native american/hispanic</em> kid that stole some <em>white/asian</em> kid's spot at a top school.</p>

476

<p>fabrizio: "Could it possibly be that despite their strident efforts to claim that “what we support isn’t preferential treatment,” it actually is preferential treatment?"</p>

<p>It depends on what you mean. Many are against AA because they fear that a lesser qualified minority will take the place of a better qualified non-minority. And that makes them really mad. But I wonder why they don't see that absolutely every factor in any hiring or admitting decision amounts to "preferential treatment". Any time you rank what you are looking for, you are giving preference to one trait or situation over another. Therefore, giving someone more points based on race is no more "preferential" than anything else. </p>

<p>If I am an adcom at a private university and I have no African American Bio majors, I am going out to look for some. Because the medical schools don't have enough African American applicants or graduates, and there are not enough African American doctors. Why do we need African American doctors? Because there is a demand for them. Patients (customers) want to go and see an African American doctor. Why do they? If I am a business person and I own a clinic or a hospital, I don't really care why. Maybe it has something to do with the social side of medicine? Whatever - I am going to give the customer what he or she wants. Hospitals which operate in cities want their staff to reflect the communities in which they operate. This isn't social engineering, it is good business. The market's demand needs to be satisfied. </p>

<p>So whatever President Bush wants to call it, it is all about markets, supply and demand. He is really speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about U Michigan. Supposedly he is a conservative (he isn't, of course, but he likes to say that sometimes). If that is the case, he should be for less government intervention in the affairs of a great university like Michigan. He should believe in market systems, and let them do their magic. It isn't about "preferential treatment", it is about supply and demand.</p>

477

<p>hotpiece: "I don't think the author was implying that most non-urm minorities have that choice, but instead there is a more secret and more "preferential" type of admissions, that is constantly forgotten about whenever anyone discusses that random <em>black/native american/hispanic</em> kid that stole some <em>white/asian</em> kid's spot at a top school."</p>

<p>Maybe, but that is what people fixate on when they are anti-AA a lot of the time. And I think that focusing on the intangible preferences that benefit non-URM candidates creates an impossible argument to win. Each individual has his own story, so it is difficult to speak in general terms about which preferences most non-URM applicants enjoyed. That is why a market focus is the most persuasive argument, as markets (in a reasonable society) are the great equalizer.</p>

478

<p>hmmmmmmm. finally something new. </p>

<p>the way you look at it spideygirl is really interesting, let me see if i'm getting it right. </p>

<p>At a college when theirs a demand for more art majors then they'll admit more art majors, when theirs a demand for more lacrosse players they'll admit more lacrosse players, when theirs a demand for more women they'll admit more women, and when theirs a demand for more black college students they'll admit more. </p>

<p>So because preference is all a matter of supply and demand, nobody's spot is being taken, they simply werent in demand. </p>

<p>Thats probably the most realistic perspective of looking at the situation.</p>

<p>Tying that into my thoughts, it's like now at say, Harvard, racial diversity is in demand because people wanted, so the quality of adding racial diversity is a "plus" in admissions. </p>

<p>I like that, i think you taught me something. </p>

<p>Fabrizio, I'm not quite seeing what that study proves. Asians are admitted less compared to white students, as much as a student with a 2150 is admitted less then one with a 2200.
If anything i think that that would refute Asians being discriminated against in admission, and i personally am not saying they aren't, because i don't think adcoms see much of a difference between a 2150 and a 2200, seeing as they're the same within statistical error...</p>

479

<p>Tyler - your rewording makes my point sound different. BTW - I don't think preference is all a matter of supply and demand. Just that supply and demand offers a better explanation why AA is a good thing.</p>

<p>My cliff notes version would be that once society is at least at a place where a reasonable amount of civility exists, economic markets will tend to naturally produce a fair representation of different racial groups among the various professions. Colleges which feed those professions will naturally follow suit. The marketplace is demanding more ethnically and racially diverse employees, and colleges are meeting that demand by recruiting more URM's. If bassoonists or Hispanic, female chemists are in demand, and you are a guitar player or a Caucasian, male biologist, than it just isn't going to go your way for that particular spot. Blame the market, not the bassoonist or the chemist. And maybe go out and get a bassoon and start practicing.</p>

480

<p>I like your perspective on it spidey. In my view, though, I think that some adcoms really are looking more to compensate for a botched "400m race", one in which minorities were made to start 100m behind.</p>