<p>I am not accusing any single individual. As I said, I know the practice is widespread. I am explaining why I do or not do certain thing. I know when link is used instead of including, the chance of something being read is drastically lower. I know links are often broken after a while. I have been tempted to included material rather link to it. Ultimately I think I should do what is right, not what is more efficient or convenient. That is my own standard.</p>
<p>I think the real question this thread was started with the intent to explore was about how someone who comes from a background with white parents, is not a native Spanish speaker, and lives in a predominantly white suburban area would enhance education at a university so much as to outweigh the fact that other applicants that are universally considered better (in the context of the community) and from poorer parts of the same suburb would be considered inferior applicants nevertheless.</p>
<p>I don't think the face value assumptions about diversity apply there. The best plan of approaching the issue is to NOT assume biological determinism and predict that we'll find that the fact that a person that has some Native Amerian ancestry (but mostly Spanish e.g. European, as she is clearly white) does not make her very different from an Irish male. Enviornment is what makes people different, but the enviornments are more or less the same in this case. I find it hard to believe that people from the neighborhood and culture could be so different based on a small genetic influence as to have a major impact on the educational quality of a university.</p>
<p>So maybe the lesson is that the focus on racial differences hurts individuals and divides people when what we really need is more dialogues, more understanding, and solidarity. That was the message of most pro-civil rights advocates is the position of the silent majority in the US today. It is a lesson AA proponents could often benefit from. That was the point of my post.</p>
<p>Equal access does not mean quotas or targets. It means judging each person as an individual. According to your own statements...I would never say anything if they accepted a person from the ghetto. However, they usually accept upper middle class immigrant blacks, which is a different culture. </p>
<p>Also, you lack any proof of what you say. All you have are plausible theories, but from personal experience, it's often middle class immigrant blacks who've often had better conditions than me who benefit.</p>
<p>Epiphany we have statistical data for the current viewpoints, please present some of your own to support your own theories.</p>
<p>My theory is that the people who benefit from affirmative action are not those who it was targeted for (the hardworking poor classes). I believe the data supports my point of view. Instead, oftentimes people who've slacked in high school (slacked by elite college applicant definitions) are the ones who benefit. </p>
<p>Also, you're misinformed about Thomas Sowell's book, it did not propose the ideas you mentioned, and did in fact mention higher education in there.</p>
<p>The support is directly from the words of admissions officers, posted here on CC often, and mostly recently by AdOfficer, who is only one of many. AdOfficer has already addressed the question of AA as it applies to blacks internationally, stating that diversity of race is a value in itself, aside from economic opportunity, which is separately & additionally a consideration.</p>
<p>The fact that AA also includes middle-class blacks does not reduce the value of AA as an important aspect of admissions, but only one aspect, never a stand-alone.</p>
<p>Not all arguments can be reduced to statistics, and this is one of them. My statements are not "theories." They are facts as related by admissions officers & in multiple books I have read by admissions officers, discussing how & why decisions are made. I have restated the philosophy behind AA, as described by those in authority to make those decisions. Not my "theory." I am not required to present you with statistics. And at one point perhaps in the distant future, one of you anti-AA folks will finally get it that college admissions are not statistically determined: not on any level.</p>
<p>"My theory is that the people who benefit from affirmative action are not those who it was targeted for (the hardworking poor classes). "</p>
<p>You are mixing 2 factors (again, according to the colleges). They are interested in a mix of races AND a mix of economics. They try to get both, but do not always succeed BECAUSE THEIR QUALIFICATION STANDARDS ARE SO HIGH. (mwfn, is that the 45th or the 46th time I've said that?) They may get in the qualified group: poor whites, poor Hispanics, fewer poor blacks, more middle-class blacks, some immigrant blacks, Asians of various classes, & they obviously get wealthy whites -- all together. Because there do not end up being ideal proportions of classes & races in the ultimate qualified pool does not negate the entire value of diversity as a factor in selecting a class. The Universities will not compromise their standards of excellence to pursue a goal which will be at odds with their stature & which will underserve the most capable who attend.</p>
<p>I did not misstate what Thomas Sowell said.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting that. Unfortunately, it only provides the first few paragraphs to those of us who are not subsccribers to the digital version of the magazine.</p>
<p>It seems to me, however, that what you've posted is an article that refutes some of the kinds of claims made for affirmative action in the workplace. It isn't clear to me why this research trumps that anyone else has done on the effect of education, cognition, learning, or neuroscience. And I have to say I'm still not quite understanding why you felt the need to scold other posters for their lack of equally-relevant and equally-substantiated findings. Mannix and Neale have done some very interesting work on diversity in workteams, but that's one productive area of research. It is not all-encompassing. </p>
<p>Their findings were mixed, were they not? They concluded that diversity was not universally positive for work team productivity--that is was good for some things, and less good for others. For example, they found diverse teams "are likely to be especially appropriate for tasks involving innovation and exploration of new opportunities, whereas homogeneous teams are better for exploitation and implementation of what is already known." And they suggested that management had a role to play in determining whether or not diversity ended up being a plus for a company. Really interesting stuff, and I'm glad to have an opportunity to read more about their work. But I think it's not the sweeping condemnation of other posters that you took it as.</p>
<p>This debate reminds me of the one set forth by gay parents, i.e., "There is no definitive "scientific evidence" that it is better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, therefore it is just as beneficial for a child to be raised by two single-sex parents." Maybe there is no "scientific evidence," but intuitively, almost all of us know it is true.</p>
<p>Perhaps we will never definitively or scientifically prove to everyone's satisfaction that racial diversity in education is valuable, but intuitively almost all of us know it is true.</p>
<p>In response to Bay: Maybe its because I'm rigorous empiricist (esp. when it comes to social science as history shows us we can't rely on intutition!) but I have a hard time believing anything is "intuitively" true when hundreds of researchers, with political and monetary incentives, cannot produce much credible evidence (again I'd like to see everyone agree its uncertain) for a theory that is obviously/intuitively true.</p>
<p>Anyway, a lot of people (myself included) have no doubt the opposite is true with respect to raising children: it seems intuitive that single-sex couples can raise children just as well. And to me it seems intuitively obvious that diversity of skin-color (of genes) is not important at all; what matters is having a diversity of opinion and perspectives, which is associated with envionrment and not ancestry. That is why I think its important to treat people as individuals.</p>
<p>Is it intuitively obvious a Hispanic person raised by white parents in a mostly white neighborhood who considered themselves non-Hispanic until less than a year ago and is does not speak Spanish (and is not Catholic, etc.) is going to contribute a vastly different perspective than an American kid from the same neighborhood? If so could you explain why.</p>
<p>"Is it intuitively obvious a Hispanic person raised by white parents in a mostly white neighborhood who considered themselves non-Hispanic until less than a year ago and is does not speak Spanish (and is not Catholic, etc.) is going to contribute a vastly different perspective than an American kid from the same neighborhood? If so could you explain why."</p>
<p>Well yes, it seems intuitively obvious to ME. Picture yourself being that applicant but white, raised by Hispanic parents in a Hispanic neighborhood. I think it would be safe to assume that your perpective on your life experiences will be quite different from those of other Hispanic applicants from that same neighborhood. (And other white applicants, I might add)</p>
<p>I would think everyone's expierences would be different in the neighborhood; it wouldn't have anything to do with race. One person's house might burn down and they struggle with that. Another might be raped, another had cancer as a kid, and another had heart surgery twice. Those are all pretty big expierences that maybe make life seem more unfair or more valuable (or whatever) but they have nothing to do with race.</p>
<p>Plus all the kids would be raised with the same religion for the most part, and dissent wouldn't be based on race it would be based on the randomness of the population as a whole. They would have the same ethics and learn the same things are school (more or less). They all speak and only speak the same language (English) and read from the same libraries--obviously everyone would read different things based on interests, but those interests would not be based on their race but rather on their personality, I would think. They would all expierience things like 9/11 together at school and do the same activities of rememberance. They would participate in the same political debates and discussions at clubs in school if they choose to.</p>
<p>I honestly don't think they would be that different BECAUSE of race. I think people are different because people are unique. Since race isn't what makes us unique we shouldn't use it as a basis for discrimination.</p>
<p>What I don't understand is why AA still applies to people who have had just as much of an opportunity to do well as others...
How can they STILL receive preferential treatment...<br>
I can understand if they were disadvantaged financially, but if they get AA even if they have had the same opportunities/were relatively well-off as other applicants... it's just not right.</p>
<p>steve10c, you don't think the dark-skinned kid in the white neighborhood... or the white kid in the hispanic neighborhood would be treated differently than his friends?</p>
<p>
[quote]
steve10c, you don't think the dark-skinned kid in the white neighborhood... or the white kid in the hispanic neighborhood would be treated differently than his friends?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Browser, Would YOU treat those kids differently?</p>
<p>I think there would be some subtle differences, but overall: no, not really. I live in a suburban area that is majority white (95%+) and Asian people are hardly treated differently despite the fact that collectively there are only at most 5 at my school. They just have all white friends and sinophiles fall in love with them. Maybe some people are are sinophobes and hate them, but I've never seen anyone act like thats the case.</p>
<p>Plus, one of the notable points here is that Hispanic people are usually white. They have the same skin-color as French, Irish, British etc. people so in the anecdote I told you'd never know that girl was Hispanic unless she told you (and in fact didn't consider herself Hispanic until it became useful for college admissions). I definitly don't think anyone would treat her differently based on race in that case; if anything they would treat her differently because of her personality (whether good or bad).</p>
<p>And I have faith you'd treat them the same, with respect and decently, just like everyone else. The modern world makes a lot of our race with things like The Bell Curve and the Bollinger cases, but since the 60s a lot of progress has been made in seeing beyond gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. and seeing people for who they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I live in a suburban area that is majority white (95%+)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha, yeah, that's not a surprise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asian people are hardly treated differently despite the fact that collectively there are only at most 5 at my school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd be curious to hear if they would say the same about whether they are treated differently or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I have faith you'd treat them the same, with respect and decently, just like everyone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And of course I would treat everyone with respect, that's what I do. I think you won't ever really be able to fully understand my point until you've really seen some diversity. I live in an "economically depressed" predominantly black neighborhood. Whether I like it or not, when I walk down my block, I react differently when I see a black person than as to when I see a white person. Its not my fault, I don't want to do that, but I do. I am not alone.</p>
<p>Hoe down, your intuition is completely right. I did not use it as a sweeping condemnation. Rather, it was scientific proof of the uselessness of diversity of diversity's sake. You are right, good management makes diversity more effective. I was posting that for the sake of people who assumed that simply having diversity was good in itself.</p>
<p>Also, I am not anti-AA. Like most Asians (this is a local sample though, I'd admit) I am pro-AA. However, I was simply pointing out that there was no real empirical evidence for AA. The only thing is "intuition," which is unfortunately wrong many times, as there's 6 billion people and each one of them has their own intuition.</p>
<p>Also, even Adcoms can't go further than saying "diversity is good for value of education." If they show me some evidence, then I'll accept it. So far, the only evidence available is evidence against, as shown in some of the articles posted by other posters in this topic and the princeton racist joke topic.</p>
<p>For those wondering why I am pro-AA even though the evidence is against it, it is because it's my intuition, as well as articles that suggest good management can make diversity really rewarding. However, do you believe that most colleges have good management? Of course, that's a whole nother topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I don't understand is why AA still applies to people who have had just as much of an opportunity to do well as others...
How can they STILL receive preferential treatment...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you follow some of the discussion here, you will discover that AA is not just practiced do make up for disadvantage. For those who believe that racial diversity on a campus is an important aim (for reasons we've been discussing here, whether or not you agree with that), simply having more URMs on campus may be a goal in itself. To some extent, then, AA is not just about helping the downtrodden, it's about changing the student mix on campus. Colleges and universities give boosts to all kinds of people who were not "disadvantaged," just because they want them on campus (i.e. athletes, legacies, geographically underrepresented people, etc). For some campuses, URMs are the same way. Sure, making up for disadvantage may be part of it, but not all. I think if you read some of this stuff it'll clear up some of the mystery of why middle class and wealthy URMs often get the same boost.</p>
<p>Kamikazewave writes:
[quote]
However, I was simply pointing out that there was no real empirical evidence for AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No real empirical evidence? Based on what, the article you read featuring the research of two organizational behavior researchers who study the workplace? Have you looked at the other material that's been talking about here? I have to say, you've been setting yourself as the final word on AA research but I'm beginning to question how much of it you're familiar with. It's not even clear to me how much of this thread you've been reading. I don't mean for that to sound snarky, I'm just genuinely puzzled here at how your conclusions follow from the research you cited and why it was, exactly, you believe your posts negate the posts of the others and the body of research on diversity.</p>
<p>I've read the entire thread. Please show me your evidence.</p>
<p>I've read my stuff, and I've listed them. Thomas Sowell, the Princeton racist joke topic featuring several articles, as well as the behavior researchers.</p>
<p>Yours please? I don't see how your posts negate my posts, or show any evidence beyond your speculations and theories.</p>