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

Applying to College
521

<p>You assume that people who are pro-AA assume that a urm student will always be a stronger college student based on factors that are not directly related to college performance. </p>

<p>The college isn't trying to admit the "most meritorious" students necessarily, because that would be impossible as it is impossible to say that someone is more meritorious than anybody else. They're trying to build their class to make their idea of the best school. </p>

<p>They aren't saying that urm students are "better" than that world-class quarterback. And once again they dont compare two applicants and say "you you're rejected", thats why class numbers vary so much and are never round numbers like "10,000". They don't rank all the applicants and then admit the top 10% of them. They look at your individual qualities and if you fit their class mold, you are admitted.</p>

522

<p>Dude this thread has been alive for like 2 months, lol. Somehow the hydra keeps growing heads (abated this round by me, sorry).</p>

<p>Ok, another exhausting round of arguing! CUT ME! </p>

<p>And spideygirl is t3h meanie.</p>

<p>"The red shirt wasn't preferred simply because it was red. It was preferred because the wardrobe needed more red shirts. If there were enough red shirts in the wardrobe, then red shirts wouldn't be preffered.</p>

<p>Its not the color of the shirt, it was that it was needed."</p>

<p>The color of the shirt is not about to change. Neither will the need, which will probably last for at least a couple more generations while today's youth straighten out their priorities (maybe). The wardrobe will need red shirts for a long time to come. The need is the color. They are synonymous. But this doesn't mean that the wardrobe owner should discard blue shirts just because red shirts are available. Especially since the wardrobe owner doesn't officially prefer either red or blue shirts. </p>

<p>"The applicant doesn't need help. The incoming class of students needs, in the mind of the adcoms, more diversity."</p>

<p>Why is it that different colored people automatically means more diversity? People are very, very different, regardless of color.</p>

<p>"No - you don't get it. It isn't about your physical appearance when it comes to college admissions. It is about the experiences which you bring to the group."</p>

<p>Then why does race matter at all, if its just about the experiences? Everyone has different experiences, so then everyone should be equally able to audition, right?</p>

<p>"No - it would be based on what was in demand."</p>

<p>The demand is more URMs. So URMs get the nod in the equal fight. </p>

<p>Outdebate? Them's fighting words.</p>

523

<p>underrepresentation means that their is less of something than is in demand. </p>

<p>So there IS underrepresentation in a free market. And a free market is one that is able to supply what is in demand. A market isn't free if it has outside forces restrict how it is able to function to meet societies demands.</p>

524

<p>"They aren't saying that urm students are "better" than that world-class quarterback. And once again they dont compare two applicants and say "you you're rejected", thats why class numbers vary so much and are never round numbers like "10,000". They don't rank all the applicants and then admit the top 10% of them. They look at your individual qualities and if you fit their class mold, you are admitted."</p>

<p>Adcoms at the top look at your individual qualities and admit you if you fit their mold. They usually overflow and have to cut down the number of people they've accepted. Before they send out the notices, they look through their accepted batch and weed out weaker applicants until they reach around their desired class number. </p>

<p>The URM student probably isn't going to be compared to the world-class quarterback, either, because that guy is getting recruited. Another worry for another argument. If there is to be a comparison, it'll be the regular URM compared to the regular ORM, since they'll be around the same in qualities. And the URM'll win.</p>

525

<p>"The color of the shirt is not about to change. Neither will the need, which will probably last for at least a couple more generations while today's youth straighten out their priorities (maybe). The wardrobe will need red shirts for a long time to come. The need is the color. They are synonymous. But this doesn't mean that the wardrobe owner should discard blue shirts just because red shirts are available. Especially since the wardrobe owner doesn't officially prefer either red or blue shirts." </p>

<p>-You didn't really make sense here. The owner never discards blue shirts. The college never says "oops, we dont have enough hispanics, better drop some whites and asians to make room". The color of the shirt only mattered if their wasn't enough of it.</p>

<p>Now you're arguing that racial diversity isn't important, which is an opinion that you have the right to hold. But the colleges and the majority of the public hold an opposing opinion. If the public didn't believe that racial diversity was important, more urms wouldn't be in demand and AA wouldn't exist.</p>

<p>Fabrizio, spideygirl already refuted your "only x race can be x race".</p>

<p>only an award winning chef can be an award winning chef. </p>

<p>you are what you are, and if you are what colleges want then you'll be admitted.</p>

526

<p>enderkin, there is no winning.
If diversity was the tipping point for that urms admission then they wouldn't be competing for the same niche, and wouldn't be compared.</p>

<p>and simply because they weed out weaker applicants doesn't mean they do it by comparing applicants side by side. They don't need to because they dont operate under a strict to-the-person quota.</p>

527

<p>My point was to say that there is no reason to choose red shirts over blue shirts if the owner of the wardrobe doesn't already have some set preference towards one or the other. What's the reason for choosing red over blue if both are made from the same fabric, and each has its own warehouse story? </p>

<p>URMs are in demand because it's horrible PR to be seen as a good-ol-boy private school. Bad PR = less applications = less prestige/money. I'm all for racial diversity, but I disagree with having race as a tipping factor between acceptance and rejection.</p>

528

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>In the long-run, there is no “under-representation” in a free market. The free market allows the supply and demand to adjust such that there will an equilibrium price and quantity (i.e. market clearing point). If there is “under-representation,” then the free market will adjust to create “correct representation” – equilibrium.</p>

<p>So, if there is “less of something than is in demand,” which I translate as quantity supplied less than quantity demanded, the price will adjust such that quantity supplied equals quantity demanded. After this has occurred, “under-representation” no longer exists.</p>

<p>A market is indeed not free if it has outside forces restricting how it is able to function to meet society’s demands. We simply disagree on what these “outside forces” are. I say positive discrimination is an outside restrictive force, but you say Proposition 209 is an outside restrictive force. And, in a way, they both are. Positive discrimination restricts the number of non-“under-represented” minorities. Race-blind policies might restrict the number of “under-represented” minorities, but they also might increase the number (e.g. Berkeley, East Bay, respectively).</p>

529

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>spideygirl did not refute anything. Rather, she confirmed what I stated.</p>

<p>Only a world-class runner can call himself a world-class runner. Sure, a decent runner can call himself world-class, but he’d just be lying. Ditto for a decent chef calling himself award-winning if he hasn’t won any awards.</p>

<p>And, only [x] race can call himself [x] race. But, world-class runners can be of any race, gender, religion, and nationality. Same for award-winning chefs.</p>

530

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>I want to get your answer to the following question, which I posed a few pages back:</p>

<p>If you state that there is nothing wrong with giving preferential treatment to “URMs” since any ranking of desired traits (e.g. grades, involvement, etc.) is preferential treatment, is that not an absolution of segregation?</p>

531

<p>Wasn't there a study that showed that urm's graduate at the bottom of the class at elite schools. The advantage is unfair. They really don't deserve it. </p>

<p>Also think about it like this What if the NBA used affirmative action?</p>

532

<p>a study showed that urms graduate with comparable rates at elite schools and that's the only one i've heard about...</p>

533

<p>"Also think about it like this What if the NBA used affirmative action?"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-NBA.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-NBA.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"If affirmative action were truly applied to the NBA, then a study would be done to determine the percentage of qualified players from each race. Although 75 percent of the male population is white, and 12 percent black, the study would probably find that 90 percent of the qualified players are black, and only 10 percent white. It would then set an affirmative action goal of 90 percent black and 10 percent white players, and ask the team-owners to conduct a good-faith effort to meet these goals. Penalties would be incurred only if a racist team insisted on 100 percent black players, and a blatant case of discrimination could be proven.</p>

<p>We could quit here, but it is also worthwhile to address the point that critics of affirmative action thought they were making with this example. And that is that it's wrong to deny top jobs to the most qualified in the name of racial fairness.</p>

<p>However, the NBA example fails to make even this point. To see why, imagine that you have been asked to preside as a judge at a track-and-field event. Two sprinters, Joe and David, are going to compete in a 200-meter dash. Because you are a finish-line judge, your judging box is at the finish line, and you can't see the starting conditions of the race very well. Now suppose the starting gun goes off, and about 20 seconds later Joe and David come flying by. Joe wins the race, and you declare him the winner.</p>

<p>However, suppose a starting-line judge then approaches you and confides that he is suspicious of the starting line positions. Officials remeasure the length of the sprinting lanes, and find that Joe has actually run 190 meters to David's 200 meters. Obviously, the race results should be invalidated, because the race was unfair.</p>

<p>But what if the starting-line judge told you that Joe had actually run 210 meters to David's 200 meters? In that case, it's clear that Joe is still the faster sprinter, because he won despite his disadvantage.</p>

<p>Now, a few critical questions emerge here. First, are the officials justified in keeping Joe's lane at 210 meters in all future races, even if Joe wins every time against these odds? Of course not.</p>

<p>Second, are the officials justified in shortening David's lane, trying somehow to achieve a "fairer" result? Of course not.</p>

<p>But what if some sports writer were to argue that shortening Joe's lane is the same as shortening David's lane, and therefore just as unfair? But this is completely illogical; shortening Joe's lane makes the race equal and fair, but shortening David's makes it even more unequal and unfair.</p>

<p>The only fair race is one where the competitors get an equal start.</p>

<p>The above analogy holds for blacks in the NBA -- they win despite their disadvantaged start in society. Does this mean society should keep them disadvantaged? No. Does this mean that whites should be given an even greater advantage to catch up? No. Does it mean that giving blacks a step up is the same as giving whites a step up? No. All it means is that blacks should be given an equal start in society.</p>

<p>Now, it's entirely conceivable that when blacks achieve an equal start, they may dominate the NBA even more so than they do today. In that case, they will have achieved the full measure of their merit. The fact that they have only partially achieved it today is yet another injustice being committed against them."</p>

534

<p>Asians are underrepresented in the NBA. I demand my right to play ball and make millions of dollars. Who do we have? Yao Ming, and the guy who used to benchwarm for the HEAT. We make up 4% of the population. That means we should have at least 1 Asian on every team. Boo, discrimination. </p>

<p>I'm actually pro-AA, but I just had to type that in response to KK's NBA post. </p>

<p>Blacks completely dominate the NBA. I mean completely.</p>

<p>In China, the only basketball players with universal recognition are Yao Ming, Jordan, Mcgrady, Shaq, and Wade. Even that white guy from the suns doesn't cut it. </p>

<p>"The fact that they have only partially achieved it today is yet another injustice being committed against them.""</p>

<p>What? I seriously tried to understand this comment but couldn't fathom what the writer were thinking about when he/she wrote it.</p>

535

<p>"Who do we have? Yao Ming, and the guy who used to benchwarm for the HEAT."</p>

<ul>
<li>lol... It should be noted that the first Non-White person in the NBA was a Japanese-American man.</li>
</ul>

<p>"We make up 4% of the population. That means we should have at least 1 Asian on every team. Boo, discrimination."</p>

<ul>
<li>I think it would make more sense to see what percentage of 'good' players consists of Asians, and then call for more players. If it happens to be that there just aren't enough Asians who are qualified (enough) for an Affirmative program to help raise their numbers, then it's impossible to call for such an action. That is, having more random Asian players is not analogous to AA for Black students in elite colleges, as, Black students do still graduate at nearly the same rates as their White counterparts - random Asian basketball players stuffed in the NBA most likely wouldn't be able to keep up with the rigor of the sport. </li>
</ul>

<p>"Blacks completely dominate the NBA. I mean completely."</p>

<p>-Yes, yes they do... but the percent majority of Black players in the NBA is near the majority at some colleges within the country, and, is in fact, below others.</p>

<ul>
<li>Also, while Black players make up about 75% of the NBA to the White 21%, Black players are only 8% of the MLB - while Whites are 60%. </li>
</ul>

<p>-The only reason for creating any kind of affirmative program in these sports would be if there were a societal need to see more White NBA players or more Black baseball players - I think few would argue that the need for more White NBA players is anywhere near the need for more and better-educated minorities. </p>

<p>Moreover, the NBA has NEVER stopped qualified White people from being players.....but colleges stopping minorities from attending?... that's a whole different ball game.</p>

536

<p>The problem with that analogy is that it basically says that all blacks (Joe) must have had an disadvantage and all whites (David) must have had an advantage. The article goes on to say that a lower average income and higher poverty rate are the disadvantages that blacks hold (or at least according to "liberals" though since the article only mentions that specific viewpoint, I assume that the author holds that viewpoint), however, these are hardly things confined to one specific race.</p>

<p>Also, the author states that blacks have a disadvantage in basketball, but I fail to understand how a greater overall poverty rate and lower average income somehow means that they would be that disadvantaged in basketball; I can see how it would disadvantage someone's education, but to be good at basketball, all you need is genetics, a ball, a court (neither of which are that hard to get access to whether you're rich or poor), and work, along with role models (which there are more than enough of.)</p>

537

<p>No time to respond to all these new posts right now. Just one to enderkin: Spideygirl is NEVER the meanie! :)</p>

538

<p>:-...this thread is still alive? geez...</p>

539

<p>certainly a LIAR NO MATTER WHAT OH SNAP FLAME WARZ0rS LOLBBQZAUSAGE!!!</p>

540

<p>"Also, the author states that blacks have a disadvantage in basketball, but I fail to understand how a greater overall poverty rate and lower average income somehow means that they would be that disadvantaged in basketball; I can see how it would disadvantage someone's education, but to be good at basketball, all you need is genetics, a ball, a court (neither of which are that hard to get access to whether you're rich or poor), and work, along with role models (which there are more than enough of.)"</p>

<p>-Try getting into the NBA without first going through a college program.... Something like 80% of American NBA players went to college (1-4 years) first. While I didn't write the article, I think the point is that if you can't get into college because of different social factors, then you can't get to the NBA to play basketball in the first place, despite having talent. Also, teamwork and game knowledge is just as much a part of being a professional NBA player as being talented at using the ball. Without having proper training as a "professional" basketball player (going to a college or highly rigorous high school program) it's virtually impossible to be in the NBA.</p>