<p>
[quote]
inverse- how can Caltech have a high percentage of low-income kids? Are low income kids naturally smarter and better achievers?</p>
<p>Caltech is a "meritocracy", remember?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that low income kids are naturally smarter and better achievers. But low income does not mean low talent. For those who overcome the economical obstacles through their determination and passion, their accomplishment could be truly outstanding and I believe Caltech have a disproportionate share of them.</p>
[quote]
Anyways, I'm sorry I indulged you. It was a judgment lapse, like I thought for a second this was going to get anywhere unlike EVERY OTHER TIME this comes up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By "getting anywhere", I suppose you meant me dropping to my knees and acknowledging that it's my venal concern for my own hide that motivates me to argue against AA. That argument -- about motivations -- seems to be the only one you have in your bag on this issue, in lieu of reason or principle or policy. I'm very sorry I wasn't able to oblige. I have been very blessed, and I can do pretty much whatever I want, race or no race. The fact that personal vendettas are the only reason you can conceive of for being against crude race balancing speaks volumes about your aversion to talking seriously about the issues.</p>
<p>The arguments for AA are certainly not as pathetic as this thread would suggest. There are real and strong ones, but unfortunately they haven't come up. If anyone wants to actually talk as opposed to throwing personal accusations, I'll be around :-)</p>
<p>"That outcome would be unacceptable because it's important for college populations to be "representative" racially, never mind that virtually everyone comes from the same upper-middle class suburban culture. And if you think that's a solution that's better than nothing, I have a tasty bag of bugs for you. "</p>
<p>Usually I stick to gender issues but here goes; there is one positive, ( better than nothing), to this imperfect form of AA, and that is if a minority group is seriously under represented in a group it perpetuates the stereotype that group x isn't capable of being there, thus doing nothing to encourage the next generation to participate. Basically the "role model" issue.
We see this every day across our state in public schools where the largest minority is 20% of the population but only 1% of the teachers. This has not changed since statehood. Programs are being developed to help correct this and I'll let you know in twenty years whether it did any good.</p>
<p>Any factual justification of affirmative action would have to be an extensive study showing that admitting under-represented minorities over other students (all other stats being similar), in the broad scope, has succeeded in allowing more students to reach or have the opportunity to reach their intellectual potential. Note that the reaching of potential should be measured not only in minorities who are admitted, but in the majorities who are denied.</p>
<p>If affirmative action succeeds in increasing the overall opportunities given to the student population, it's a good thing. If it just stops some majority students from reaching their potential by replacing them with minorities who do, then it's unjust discrimination.</p>
<p>I understand that thorough studies have been done to show that living in economically-disadvantaged areas often prevents young people from having the opportunity to reach their intellectual potentials. However, I have not seen any studies showing that affirmative action programs actually do anything to truly remedy the situation, i.e. helping to increase the overall number of students given those opportunities.</p>
<p>All of the other straw-man arguments and hypothetical situations given here really do nothing to address the fundamental issue of affirmative action and whether or not it accomplishes its purpose.</p>
<p>IMO, you are to be commended for your passion about injustice and your concern for finding a way to break the cycle of inequity. However, you are very naive about the issues, and I'm really hoping you put your hot-headedness aside for a few years and do some serious study of the various philosophical and political options about which much is written, but which you don't seem to have encountered.</p>
<p>You are dead wrong that all of the posters who oppose AA, as it manifests itself at elite universities, are privileged white people who have never seen a slum. My parents quit school after the 8th grade (children of illiterate immigrants) and I guarantee you I have seen some slums, along with many floors passing as beds, condemned buildings that I still dream about, and numerous other adventures that the likes of you can only imagine. Furthermore, your assumption that we only post about these matters, but don't do anything, is breathtakingly arrogant. You don't know who I am, or who my family members are. Yep, we are busy little bees trying very hard to change the structure and functioning of K-12 public schools, and I suspect having far more impact on the matter than you will ever have.</p>
<p>BTW, I couldn't grow any balls if I tried. I'm plenty mean and outspoken when I need to be, but I just can't do the balls thing. Choose some gender-neutral slang when you are debating people you can't see.</p>
<p>Ben Golub: I'm kinda sorry to hear you are an immigrant. I was hoping you would run for President some day and I could vote for you!</p>
<p>It's okay - as long as Ben wasn't a test tube baby or a clone then he's a "natural born." :)</p>
<p>Besides if it doesn't work out, you could always vote for me. My parents hopped the border just in time - my sister is stuck with Canadian citizenship.</p>
<p>so far, I haven't seen ONE single post defending afirmative action when anti-AA said to use "social-economic background" in replace of "race"</p>
<p>Pro AAers, if you believe AA is so great, please give some good solid arguements about why race is a better determining facter than social-economic background. Or you guys can simply surrender and say AA is wrong, while social economic background as a determining factor is right.</p>
<p>Wading in here to posit that anybody with the aptitude to qualify for MIT or CalTech will do well no matter what. There are simply not enough geeks (and I mean that in the most positive way) to satisfy the need in business, gov't, health care, education-you name it.</p>
<p>I simply do not understand the depth of bitterness on these boards around the admit policies of MIT. There is a huge demand for technically astute grads in this country, of which MIT supplies what? about 1000 per year? When my D. announced she wanted to study math and was therefore applying to MIT my reaction was "you go, but understand MIT will not be necessary to be successful with a math degree--you can go anywhere and do anything with a math degree from U of State." </p>
<p>So quit whining people-you are already good at math and computer science. Skills that the other 80% of us would be grateful to have. Go to Rose-Hulman, RPI, Harvey Mudd, WPI, Cal Poly, UI, UMich, and the rest and you know what? NOBODY CARES!! They will just be grateful to have you and your skillz bail them out of a jam in a few years.</p>
<p>The fact is that elite schools graduate only a very small fraction of college students. When my younger daughter working in a elite school's lab in the summer, she noticed that about half of graduate students there were not from elite schools. I told her that assuming 10% of student from tier one school master their subject compare to only 1% from the rest, the candidate available not from tier one school would far exceed those from tier one school. Majority of professionals are from non-elite schools, they perform their job with comparable skill as those from elite school.</p>
<p>You enter a debate spitting venom and vile accusations at people who have a genuine interest in social policy and you tell US we take ourselves too seriously?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I simply do not understand the depth of bitterness on these boards around the admit policies of MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, indeed. Why get so worked up?</p>
<p>We know too well that the world at large is bad and unfair. But a small consolation is that we sometimes know enough of goodness and fairness to feel their general absence. So we find ways not to forget them -- small ways to stem the cynicism that, by all reasonable lights, should crush us. We start institutions to incubate goodness and fairness, and knowledge, too, which nurtures them. These places, at one time, were temples, but today they're usually universities -- at their best, little islands of hope to hold our ideals. Little islands floating on money and full of minds, holding out hope that we can do better.</p>
<p>In the big, mean world, we're used to wrongs and the other wrongs meant to right them. But we can hope that there are places -- if only small and sheltered places -- where right still has meaning, and where we would refuse unprincipled means for defending our principles. Places where we would reject racism as a route to equality, or quotas to quicken colorblindness, or different sets of scales to stress our commitment to justice. There's a reason that such places are rare and perhaps ridiculous to hope for. The fight between convenience and principle is not a fair fight.</p>
<p>But you can see why people are bitter when principle gets beaten in the places where it had, by design, the best chance. For lack of anything better, some of us idealize our universities -- especially the best and most idealistic ones -- and it hurts when they betray the ideals they were given to guard. It hurts more when they say it's for the sake of the principles in question that they betrayed them. We appreciate the thought, but we've already got the government for that.</p>
<p>Taking that too seriously is my way of not yet giving up the hope that we can achieve the right goals in the right ways. I'm proud to have that hope, even if the place that first inspired it in me doesn't.</p>
<p>"You enter a debate spitting venom and vile accusations at people who have a genuine interest in social policy and you tell US we take ourselves too seriously?"</p>
<p>Lol, apparently, calling someone human is now a vile and venomous accusation.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is great, even as it arguably fails at adjusting for socioeconomic advantage. It's lucky that a school like MIT can build a class by looking at each applicant in context. The real debate on AA applies to large public schools with less personalized admissions criteria; with regards to MIT, it is what it is.</p>
<p>Why use AA even if it is flawed? Caltech class of 2008 has a0.4% African American component,( common data set 04/05). If anyone can provide an explanation as to why this is reasonable I certainly would love to hear it. We as a society need to correct such gross imbalances among groups that should by ability be represented at a level near their level in the general population..</p>
<p>
[quote]
We as a society need to correct such gross imbalances among groups that should by ability be represented at a level near their level in the general population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that the imbalances need to be repaired, but you are confusing repair and whitewash. Affirmative action is whitewash -- let's get a decent percentage by whatever means.</p>
<p>Yes, we need to correct these imbalances, but pursuing principles of justice and equality by trashing those principles through crude race-biased evaluation is not for me. Maybe it's right for you, however.</p>