<p>The concept of AA is based on the fact not everyone in our society has been treated equal and that the impact of some “sins” may still need to be affirmed.</p>
<p>However, in the case of higher education, I personally don’t think it is necessary or is it appropriate. Perhaps that why the SCOTUS limited the scope of AA in college admissions to the right to use race as a non-determinate factor as part of a holistic evaluation of a candidate with no greater impact than other non-merit factors such as legacy and wealth.</p>
<p>Lastly, do you really think this country has discriminated against Asians as much as African-Americans? Can you name a state that had a law on its books making it illegal to teach Asians to read?</p>
<p>2kidsincollege why don’t you think its appropriate or necessary?</p>
<p>One should be judged from their work from the start to the end not just where you end up. It shows that the person has gone through hoops to get where they did while the other kids are, in comparison, born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Why should they be judged the same? They are clearly under extremely separate and different situations and should be judged as such.</p>
<p>2kidsincollege:
My point about how many spots were available at Princeton was from a very practical perspective. I understand that colleges want diverse populations, but that means if you happen to be white (not a legacy, not a super athlete, not a donor, not a celebrity, and not a bassoon-playing toe-dancer), any Ivy is a reach school. </p>
<p>My daughter would kill me if I posted her stats, but you could add National Merit Scholar and a few other things to the list you posted.</p>
<p>I don’t favor AA in college admissions because it assumes the sins of the past, which apply to a race of people, should be used as a factor in the evaluation of an individual who happens to be of color. I do however, strongly favor diversity and the right of a college to want to promote it within their student body. Therefore I do support a college’s right to include a candidate’s race as a non-determinate factor as part of a holistic evaluation that gives appropriate non-deterministic weight to other non-merit based factors such as legacy and wealth.</p>
<p>I do favor AA in other areas where specific past sins can be directly tied to the detriment of specific individuals. For example…lets say a town has no black police officers despite the a history of well qualified blacks applying. Upon review of all the hiring data a judge may conclude there is some systematic discriminatory bias in the hiring process preventing blacks from being hired. The judge may in turn require a certain number of blacks be hired over a certain period of time to “affirm” for this past bias, so that the overall profile hired officers better reflect what it should have been had there been no bias in the first place. In general terms, think this is an appropriate application of AA.</p>
<p>Not true. There are more white kids at Princeton and other Ivy’s than any other racial categories. Was Princetion a “reach school” for all the white kids?</p>
<p>By the way, my daughter was a National Achievement Scholar as well.</p>
<p>They are reach schools in that all things being equal, a person (parent, college counselor, student) cannot predict who will get in and who won’t. Just look on this site where students self report where they applied and where they were accepted. It flip flops all over. There are many academically qualified students with fabulous activities and recommendations who will be rejected because the schools have more than ten applications for each spot they have to fill. It is the same for the academies.</p>
<p>Sadly because of AA, minorities who have earned their slots are instead assumed by the general public have been handed them instead. </p>
<p>AA paints successful minorities with an unattractive brush, that reduces the value of their hard earned accomplishments. I am surprised to not hear a cry from successful minorities to stop AA.</p>
<p>Taxguy - we both know why affirmative action based on socio-economic factors does not sell. </p>
<p>It does not obtain the right diversity quotas - in other words, it helps poorer Asian and white students - the last thing university administrators want to see. </p>
<p>Think I am wrong. Look at the State of California: </p>
<p>Speaking for the State Superintendent, the article states: </p>
<p>“The realization was a jolt: Being black or Latino - not poor - was what the low-scorers had in common”. </p>
<p>Read the article’s comments too. The culture in the relevant communities is simply deadly. Good luck getting the post modernist apparatchiks to honestly deal with the problem. They would rather merely have the right palette of pigmentation surrounding them to assuage their guilt as opposed to making challenges to changing the culture. Unfortunately merely feeling morally superior doesn’t fix the problem. </p>
<p>Affirmative action supporters know deep down that a preference for socio-economic factors would largely void the significant advantages that racial preferences now obtain. Hence the resistance to the idea.</p>
<p>"Sadly because of AA, minorities who have earned their slots are instead assumed by the general public have been handed them instead. </p>
<p>AA paints successful minorities with an unattractive brush, that reduces the value of their hard earned accomplishments. I am surprised to not hear a cry from successful minorities to stop AA."</p>
<p>You seriously think that successful minorities envy AA because it makes them look bad? Holy **** are you kidding me that is a reach.</p>
<p>"I don’t favor AA in college admissions because it assumes the sins of the past, which apply to a race of people, should be used as a factor in the evaluation of an individual who happens to be of color. I do however, strongly favor diversity and the right of a college to want to promote it within their student body. Therefore I do support a college’s right to include a candidate’s race as a non-determinate factor as part of a holistic evaluation that gives appropriate non-deterministic weight to other non-merit based factors such as legacy and wealth.</p>
<p>I do favor AA in other areas where specific past sins can be directly tied to the detriment of specific individuals. For example…lets say a town has no black police officers despite the a history of well qualified blacks applying. Upon review of all the hiring data a judge may conclude there is some systematic discriminatory bias in the hiring process preventing blacks from being hired. The judge may in turn require a certain number of blacks be hired over a certain period of time to “affirm” for this past bias, so that the overall profile hired officers better reflect what it should have been had there been no bias in the first place. In general terms, think this is an appropriate application of AA. "</p>
<p>But it isn’t about repaying past sins. It’s about finding students that can perform well in life and college and bring diversity to the school. The students that were born with a silver spoon didn’t do as much to get where they are but the miniorities usually have to jump through hoops to get where they are. This brings character and integrity to the school. It has nothing to do with paying for “past sins”.</p>
<p>asp - I don’t think you are correct. There are clearly IQ differences in racial groups. Sometimes they are really significant - compare the IQ’s of Ashkenazi Jews with those from sub-Saraha Africa, and the differences are several standard deviations. I don’t think discussion about IQ is helpful (see below), but merely mentioning the difference in test scores does not make one a racist. The American Psychological Association recognizes the differences in scores among races, but cannot explain it. Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, one would have to assume the APA is racist - I don’t buy it. </p>
<p>The problem is that IQ has (in a large enough sample set) high predictive validity in terms of achievement. So it is hard to ignore. I suggest that we do, however. </p>
<p>I think the better question to ask is whether IQ properly measures intelligence. Or even better yet, is reducing the question of intelligence to a single number helpful? I am not sure that it is. When it comes to academic achievement, there’s no question a 140 IQ student has a great advantage over an 85 IQ student - but I am not sure the notion of IQ adds anything to that statement - after all, we agree that really smart people who read and write and compute well generally do better in school than those who do not do those things well! </p>
<p>I think focus on IQ is not helpful in any way, because the educational system ought to be demanding the best that everyone can bring, no matter their innate level of analytic ability. A rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak. </p>
<p>I do think there is a severe cultural problem in the afflicted communities, and that entire groups (e.g. the education bureaucracy, leaders in these communities) of well meaning people are in fact being condescendingly racist by not insisting on the same high standards for everyone. This is a tough subject to raise, but given the dismal consequences of so many being poorly educated in a global knowledge based economy (and note, it doesn’t appear that significant race preferences for admission to elite colleges have done really anything to close the gap), it needs to be raised. And continuing to operate race preference programs in secrecy (as many of them do) is problematic. </p>
<p>In any event, I think this response does demonstrate that merely labeling someone racist (as you did) is really a technique to cut off difficult discussion. I for one refuse to take the bait - these discussions must be had.</p>
<p>This is true if the IQ is a good system, but it isn’t. What is intelligence, but how you preceive it to be? Intelligence is a far cry between Amazonian tribes and your local private school. So comparing the intelligene of Jews to Sub-Saharan Africans is comparing apples to oranges. Our intelligence and knowledge is based off of a Western ethnocentric base and of course those that have integrated into “the game” will do better. Obviously it is the culture of a person that substantiates what is intelligence and how important it is. That’s my postmodern approach.</p>
<p>AA should be done away with completely, the only people it helps are underachiever minorities who don’t actually deserve any help. AA hurts both the majority and truly successful minorities.</p>
<p>"AA should be done away with completely, the only people it helps are underachiever minorities who don’t actually deserve any help. AA hurts both the majority and truly successful minorities. "</p>
<p>How does it hurt successful minorities? They are already successful so what does that have to do with anything? </p>
<p>AA is used to level the playing field for students that usually are in a less condusive environment for success. Without this level playing field, colleges would be incredibly homogeneous.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as culture is your post-modern approach, then you do concede that there are significant cultural impediments in the black and hispanic communities that are impeding academic progress, all one way or another related to a lack of focus on education, and that these cultural impediments should be the focus of our universities rather than a shallow system of preferences based on pigment? </p>