The Affirmative Action Thread

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>It took me a few minutes, but I was able to find the following link (evidence is always good)</p>

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/colleges_black_students%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/colleges_black_students&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]

"To white observers, black immigrants seem more polite, less hostile, more solicitous, and 'easier to get along with,'" the study said. "Native blacks are perceived in precisely the opposite fashion."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, the study talks about white observers, not white bigots. We would have to define a white observer who views native Blacks as less polite, more hostile, less solicitous, and harder to get along with as a bigot.</p>

<p>Do you think that's an acceptable definition?</p>

<p>haha ok.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If you read the posts before this (which whenever i post i assume you have) you would see that i already said that racism is more significant amongst the lower class then the upper class. THAT is why the cycle of poor black people is so rampant; not because they or any race is less intelligent. And while at this time URMs would still face prejudice in society after they graduate, it would be to a lesser extent because racism amongst college educated people isn't as rampant as racism amongst the lower class.</p></li>
<li><p>I also said that AA DOES apply to asians, but they AREN'T under represented in the top 10 colleges or so. That's why it SEEMS like asians aren't being helped by AA but at any of the "non-elite" colleges, Asians are a small minority and also benefit from AA. </p></li>
<li><p>Fredfred, are you calling me a bigot or fabrizio? hopefully not me, and if it was i hope it was just because you misinterpreted what i said (which i explained above) because, just a feeling, i HIGHLY doubt i'm a bigot, especially towards african americans.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Also if you read about admissions at any of the Ivy league schools you'd see that:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Yes, they are need blind because they have such a large endowment</p></li>
<li><p>BUT they do view low income/ blue collar background as a tip.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>oh, I almost forgot.</p>

<p>BACKTRACK 50 bucks.</p>

<p>-you backtracked to saying that asians don't benefit or aren't considered in AA. which I, and others i believe, have explained to you at least 12 times.</p>

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Well, at least you're nicer than Derrick is.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if you feel that I'm abrasive towards you, it's just that sometimes I'm a tad overzealous in my defense of something that is near and dear to me. As far as how I define diversity in terms of race, I define it as an eclectic mix of different races and color, which all lend unique ideas and perspectives born from their varying backgrounds.</p>

<p>Derrick,</p>

<p>Please don't apologize. My comment was likely misunderstood, which is my own fault because I did not make it clear enough.</p>

<p>Tyler seems to support affirmative action benefits for at least some Asians. By contrast, you have stated your belief that affirmative action benefits should not be conferred unto Asians. That's what I meant by "nicer."</p>

<p>If you feel that way, that's fine. I thank you for your straightforward answer to my question.</p>

<p>Now that you've defined diversity levels, I have to say that I do not believe they would drop if top tier schools switched to race-neutral admissions.</p>

<p>I frequently use the UCs as examples because they provide real-world data on the effects of race-based and race-blind admissions. It turns out that not considering race does not "shut the door" on non-Whites. Matter of fact, following Proposition 209, the percentage of Whites at some campuses, including even Berkeley if I remember correctly, dropped. If the number of majority students decreased, then minorities are certainly not being barred from attending.</p>

<p>Some people claim that Ivy Leagues would be different, namely, without racial preferences, they'd be loaded with affluent Whites from Northeastern boarding schools. I disagree. I believe that the number of qualified high students from across the country far exceeds the number of affluent White boarding school students. Race-blind admissions would not create a homogeneous all-White Ivy League.</p>

<p>** I adamantly contend that if Affirmative Action was abolished, diversity levels would drop in top tier schools. Why? Consider:</p>

<p>According to data from the Census bureau
( <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html&lt;/a> )</p>

<p>As of 2005, rough 2,114 thousand black households are within the 35K to 50K bracket as opposed to 13,944 thousand white households within that same bracket. That is roughly a 15:100 ratio. Assuming one child from each of these households, you have 15 blacks competing with 100 whites for x amount of spots. If we adjust for the “Achievement Gap” in terms of Academics, which places those 15 blacks academically lower than the 100 whites in terms of SATs, GPA, etc, the blacks have even less of a chance of competing with 100 whites. The immensity of such a problem is evident, the blacks would no longer have the advantage of being considered based on race;</p>

<p>IF considered based on INCOME, there is absolutely NO ADVANTAGE and with lower average academic scores, there is VERY LITTLE advantage.</p>

<p>Of course, there are blacks who are in the higher income brackets. But the median income for blacks is 17696 less than the median for whites. In addition, there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites.</p>

<p>Thus it is clear that for every black of higher socioeconomic status, there are far more whites competing for the same spot of the same status. And for every black of low income there are many more whites competing for the same spot. Adjusted for the Achievement Gap, according to which on average blacks perform worse than whites, without AA and with a system based purely on socioeconomic status, blacks would be present in extremely small amounts." **</p>

<p>I'm sure you read that before, but I still feel that the argument is still germane to the debate. You stated that:
"Some people claim that Ivy Leagues would be different, namely, without racial preferences, they'd be loaded with affluent Whites from Northeastern boarding schools. I disagree. I believe that the number of qualified high students from across the country far exceeds the number of affluent White boarding school students. Race-blind admissions would not create a homogeneous all-White Ivy League."</p>

<p>Although some people may believe this, it is not what I am asserting. I contend that the under representation that would occur due to socioeconomic AA is a combination of the Achievement gap, which places blacks on a lower academic level (on average) than whites, and a direct result of the fact that there are far more white households than black households. Thus whites and blacks of the same socioeconomic brackets would be competing for the same spots, but blacks would be at an inherent disadvantage (of course, on average) compared to whites pursuant to the achievement gap.</p>

<p>At the top tier of academia, the situation would become more pronounced, because not only would blacks be at at inherent disadvantage according to the Achievement gap, but because of the natural bell curve of scores in standardized testing, even fewer of them would even be viable candidates at the very top tier schools.</p>

<p>Derrick:
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to conclude that under an economic AA, "blacks would be present in extremely small amounts" at top tier schools because although the economic playing field would be leveled the "Achievement Gap" would remain.</p>

<p>I was under the impression that the Achievement Gap itself was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. Is this the case? </p>

<p>Wikipedia says that the Achievement Gap "most often describes the issue of low-income/minority education in the United States; that is, that Blacks and Latinos and students from poor families perform worse in school than their well-off White and Asian peers. SAT scores broken down by family income show when students have similar family incomes, Black and Latino students still score lower than Whites, and Whites score lower than Asians with similar incomes.[3]"</p>

<p>In short, why does the Achievement Gap still exist when economics are taken out of the picture? </p>

<p>(This is not a racist question--I believe there are better explanations than racist ones, such as less of an emphasis on education in different cultures, but I am not well versed in what these explanations are and how they can be remedied. As far as intelligence is concerned, I am an ardent believer in nurture over nature--I cannot believe that an Achievement Gap would exist merely due to some sort of "natural intelliengence.")</p>

<p>Whoa John, hold your horses.</p>

<p>It just so happens that I'm black myself, so I'd be the last to say that the achievement gap is the result of a difference in natural intelligence. The achievement gap is still in the picture when economics are taken out because on average on all socioeconomic levels, there is still a difference in academic achievement between blacks and whites. The problem is definitely not one of natural intelligence, it is a combination of economic AS WELL AS ** social ** factors. The social problems and the stigma associated with them have already been discussed in some detail. Sorry if I came across the wrong way.</p>

<p>Derrick,</p>

<p>I recognize the possibility that there may be more admitted Whites than Blacks under socioeconomic affirmative action. </p>

<p>If people want a guaranteed increase of Black admissions, then this is not a way to do it. Socioeconomic affirmative action targets the entire set of disadvantaged Americans. You have observed that within this set, the subset of disadvantaged Whites is greater than the subset of disadvantaged Blacks.</p>

<p>If people want a policy to help the economically disadvantaged regardless of their race, then this is a way to do it.</p>

<p>let this die now... please</p>

<p>Cafe is CC-speak for fun :D</p>

<p>Yes.
They really are dumping all the trash thisaway.
Cafe means chill.
L0l.</p>

<p>well, the moderators moved this thread here .. i dont know why .. it was originally in college admissions forum.</p>

<p>"If you read the posts before this (which whenever i post i assume you have) you would see that i already said that racism is more significant amongst the lower class then the upper class. THAT is why the cycle of poor black people is so rampant; not because they or any race is less intelligent."</p>

<p>I totally agree, but note that african americans have only been free for approx. 2 generations--not long enough for poverty among blacks to be considered a "cycle".</p>

<p>and fabrizio, once again, i totally agree with you. socio-economic aa all the way.</p>

<p>they moved it here because they secretly want it to die :D</p>

<p>I can totally see them going "Oh boy, ANOTHER AA thread, let's just move it to the Cafe; when will these people learn?"</p>

<p>lmao exactly.</p>

<p>As this thread has entered the gratuitous spam zone, I expect it to get off topic ;)</p>

<p>Let's push it to 1000 (completely unrelated to AA) posts!!!!!!!!!!!
SPAM AWAY!</p>

<p>spaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm</p>

<p>baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam.
I can't find anything about adolf mas on google. Actually that's a lie. But nothing coherent. Wikipedia anyone?</p>