<p>I think want ethioman00 is saying is that there's no point in abolishing AA until an effective solution is found. Which I agree to.</p>
<p>He also didn't apply to Penn ED.</p>
<p>TheStonedPandas: Good job at copying verbatim your entire argument from Larry Elder's home page. Look! I can cut and paste too:</p>
<p>From ACLU: Between 1996 and 2001 the number of minorities admitted to the University of Texas at Austin has dropped by 35% following a lower court decision that struck down the University's affirmative action program. At the University of Washington, there has been a 40% drop in African American student enrollment, a 30% decline in Hispanic and Latino student enrollment, and a 20% drop in American Indian student enrollment since the passage of I-200, a state initiative banning affirmative action. (My take: biased source? Oh heck yes. But legit statistics. They are NOT implying that these institutions are racist! They ARE saying that when institutions consider heavily test scores and other statistics and give little or no credence to race or ethnicity, the success rate for URMs to enter college decreases significantly. And please don't retort with a "these are only two examples"...that's a dropped argument.)</p>
<p>From NACME (National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering): Enormous gains have resulted from well-designed affirmative action policies. Consider the engineering field. A quarter of a century ago, African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians--then 18 percent of the college-age population and the fastest growing component of the nation--comprised only one percent of the engineering workforce. Since 1974 annual minority graduates in engineering have grown more than 400 percent. (Now for my analysis: You cannot take the growth in the number of minorities in engineering to be merely the result of a population increase, or a greater distribution of wealth among minorities. Or if you do, you can't be serious. This incredible leap in enrollement is due to, as previously asserted, well-designed aff. ac. policies.)</p>
<p>From Gerhard Casper, president of Stanford University: "Affirmative action does not require, and does not mean, quotas or preferment of unqualified over qualified individuals. Indeed, such preferment may violate anti-discrimination laws. Affirmative action is based on the judgment that a policy of true equal opportunity needs to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups to be drawn into various walks of life from which they might otherwise be shut out. Barriers continue to exist in society, and therefore affirmative action asks us to cast our net more widely to broaden the competition and to engage in more active efforts for locating and recruiting applicants." (Here's a serious flaw that people keep overlooking: Affirmative Action is not founded upon numbers and quotas. This is an egregious misinterpretation of the policy itself. Someone started this horrendous urban legend and it's flipping not true. I've worked (interned) in a law firm that deals primarily with employment litigation and unlawful termination and I've filed and researched hundreds of cases that have delt with affirmative action in the workplace. IN NOT ONE of these cases have any systems that rely on quotas or slots or numbers been cited.)</p>
<p>Ok I am done with citing quotations from other people, I promise. Frankly, people can throw all the numbers and references they want into this board, but isn't it all just rhetoric? Furthoremore, I want to reply to something earlier that you said:</p>
<p>"(1) Show me why two wrongs make a right -- especially when the second wrong harms an unbiased third party."</p>
<p>It's funny that you are the one posting about logical fallacies when you make a few of your own here. First, you assume that Affirmative Action is inherently wrong. You call on the pro-AA people to prove to you that this defined (by you) wrong policy somehow corrects something else. Certainly, you can't possibly expect anyone to actually respond to this--otherwise, it would give justification to your idea that AA is horrendous. Additionally, in your question, you assume that it harms an unbiased third party. Aside from the fact that I have no idea what you mean by this, don't you think you're being a little slanted in your phrasing of the question? Apart from being a dolt question, I'll try to respond as coherently as possible (dubious...it's quite late over here). No one has yet proven that affirmative action has let someone in that had a 950 SAT (combined), a 2.3 GPA, and a 87/100 class rank into an Ivy League school. What it does do, however, is it allows students who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to attend a tier-one school (they have low SAT scores or low AP scores or whatever) to be admitted to this sort of college. I know someone already said this, but I will reiterate: Admissions committees are 100% positive, when they admit a minority with slightly sub-par statistics, that the acceptee will be fully capable of handling the workload. Affirmative action is not a scheme to hire unqualified people; rather it is a matter of ensuring that employers or admissions committees or whoever spread the net wide enough so as to encompass the composition of the society as a whole. Without appropriate policies of affirmative action in place at our nations top institutions or corporations, we are essentially overlooking decades of progress. Look, I understand that nothing I say will ultimately convince you (the collective "you") that Affirmative Action is indeed a necessity at universities. But at the very least, it will be an interesting four years...</p>
<p>Oh and just a retort to Larry Elder's point about how African-Americans should rely on hard work, dedication, and perserverance in order to succeed (and therefore they should not rely on affirmative action)...did anyone ever say that AA was an alternative to these qualities? Of course not, that's ridiculous. No one rebutts that these are the necessary characteristics of a successful black person; however, AA helps in initiating the first fundamental and tangible steps to this kind of success.</p>
<p>And finally (phew, I know), I just had to point this out because it made me cry I was laughing so hard. Today on Street Smarts (oh YES I watch that show), the question posed to one of the people on the street was "Tallahassee is the capital of which US state?". To which the person on the street replied "Thailand."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is our future!</p>
<p>"your mentality is not equal to the general black mentality."</p>
<p>i dont think he's said that at all. Havent we said that the differing mentality is what is wrong?</p>
<p>"The vast majority of Americans, even ones for a smaller government like myself, support the programs that you've suggested."</p>
<p>Do you really believe that? I mean if that were true, wouldn't the masses have risen long ago and fought to implement this kind of thing? But no, whenever legislature, or more acurately, our judicial system steps in to decry the atrocious inequalities that are perpetrated on poor and minority children, the folks in the burbs, in Torrance, in Manhattan Beach for example, raise up a hellstorm and pass Prop 13s. If what you've said were really true, then there wouldn't be a need for AA, there wouldn't be a need for people to fight for it, becuase America would have attacked the root of the problem. </p>
<p>As for your previous statement that a white person suffers for every "underqualified" "urm" that gets in, I think that is about the most overdramatic, ludicrous thing I have ever heard.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that he did apply to Penn Ed.</p>
<p>The fact is, davidrune, is that he still supports affirmative action, something which has been shown to hurt the very people that it is designed to help. YOU WILL NOT WILL NOT WILL NOT END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND MOVE ONTO SOMETHING BETTER BY SUPPORTING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Besides, I find it morally reprehensible.</p>
<p>I think we have found an effective solution. It is a matter of implementation.</p>
<p>Many: What's great is I think I mentioned that I copied it from him...</p>
<p>
[quote]
From ACLU: Between 1996 and 2001 the number of minorities admitted to the University of Texas at Austin has dropped by 35% following a lower court decision that struck down the University's affirmative action program. At the University of Washington, there has been a 40% drop in African American student enrollment, a 30% decline in Hispanic and Latino student enrollment, and a 20% drop in American Indian student enrollment since the passage of I-200, a state initiative banning affirmative action. (My take: biased source? Oh heck yes. But legit statistics. They are NOT implying that these institutions are racist! They ARE saying that when institutions consider heavily test scores and other statistics and give little or no credence to race or ethnicity, the success rate for URMs to enter college decreases significantly. And please don't retort with a "these are only two examples"...that's a dropped argument.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what's your argument here? That minorities didn't enter a university that more qualified people could have entered? Great and whoopdedoo! Of course minority enterences to desirable is going to go down. Are you insinuating there are no other options? Are you insinuating that those options fit the denied students less than a school that would have, no not would have, but is, a poorer fit?</p>
<p><em>Proof that it is a poorer fit</em> Affirmative action is also a big factor behind the higher than average drop-out rate among blacks in colleges and universities. In the California UC system, only 7.2% of minorities admitted under "special criteria" (code for affirmative action) graduated in four years, and less than 50% in six years. "White or other" students graduated at rates of 34.1% and 77.6%, respectively. This is the sports equivalent of athletes who could perform at the AA level, struggling at AAA ball. And those who could perform well at AAA, failing in the major leagues.</p>
<p><a href="Now%20for%20my%20analysis:%20You%20cannot%20take%20the%20growth%20in%20the%20number%20of%20minorities%20in%20engineering%20to%20be%20merely%20the%20result%20of%20a%20population%20increase,%20or%20a%20greater%20distribution%20of%20wealth%20among%20minorities.%20Or%20if%20you%20do,%20you%20can't%20be%20serious.%20This%20incredible%20leap%20in%20enrollement%20is%20due%20to,%20as%20previously%20asserted,%20well-designed%20aff.%20ac.%20policies.">quote</a>
[/quote]
Actually, had you read what I wrote, you would have found the affirmative action didn't lead to this increase at all. I mean, you're being a little ridiculous here.
<em>Proof that affirmative action isn't as responsible as you make it out to be</em> Black economist and ex-Federal Reserve Board member Arthur Brimmer studied the extent to which blacks owed their jobs to affirmative action. His conclusion: "I would say that most blacks I know did not get [their jobs] because of affirmative action, but it's impossible [to determine the exact number]."</p>
<p>Similarly, Ella Edmondson Bell, who teaches organizational studies at the MIT Business school, says that most blacks get hired through "determination [and] perseverance."</p>
<p>Jonathan Leonard, who teaches economics at University of California at Berkeley, said of affirmative action, "There's been some small effect, but certainly not worth all the rhetoric directed at it."</p>
<p>But hasn't affirmative action expanded the number of opportunities for blacks? Not really. Farrell Bloch, author of Anti-discrimination Law And Minority Employment, notes that affirmative action mostly rearranged the employment furniture. Pre-affirmative action, blacks tended to work for companies with fewer than 100 employees. Post-affirmative action, blacks tended to work for larger companies. Why? Big companies were under the gun to recruit blacks. Where did they get them? From smaller companies, or from workers who otherwise would have worked for smaller companies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, you assume that Affirmative Action is inherently wrong.
[/quote]
I ASSUME? ARE YOU SERIOUS? UMM, LAST I CHECKED, MANYAL, YOU BELIEVE THAT GIVING TREATMENT TO ONE PERSON BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN IS SOMETHING THAT IS BAD. This isn't some crazy theory I'm trying to prove to you. You can't really argue this point. This is allowing black people (regardless of where they come from or how thirsty they are) to drink at a water fountain instead of white people (regardless of where they come from or how thirsty they are), only this is in response to that same act happening in reverse generations ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Additionally, in your question, you assume that it harms an unbiased third party. Aside from the fact that I have no idea what you mean by this, don't you think you're being a little slanted in your phrasing of the question?
[/quote]
By offering admission to a URM who is less qualified over someone else who is more qualified, you are harming the more qualified person. And there is an excellent chance that person does not deserve the harm his deny had brought him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admissions committees are 100% positive, when they admit a minority with slightly sub-par statistics, that the acceptee will be fully capable of handling the workload.
[/quote]
As you can see by my stats above and in my last post, the fact that they are positive doesn't change the fact that the students, for the most part, can't keep up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really believe that? I mean if that were true, wouldn't the masses have risen long ago and fought to implement this kind of thing
[/quote]
This is fallacious. The vast majority of Californians do not support giving illegal immigrants drivers lisences. However, against the wishes of the vastest of majorities, it was still enacted. There are plenty of cases where the government goes against the will of the people. You also fail when you assume that people care enough. There are indeed many private programs like the ones you have talked about. What is important is getting the word out about them.</p>
<p>And please explain your last statement.</p>
<p>once again, i suggest you all read the first chapter of larry elder's book "The 10 things you can't say in America." it will make you all smarter. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312284659/qid=1104481547/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2331777-1153612?v=glance&s=books&n=507846%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312284659/qid=1104481547/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2331777-1153612?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a></p>
<p>davidrune you hit the nail on the head</p>
<p>i truly do wish affirmative action didnt have to exist i do see how it would be interpreted as "divisive" and "discriminatory" by whites who do not benefit from it. However, truly, no viable alternative to AA has ever actually been pushed, promoted, or explored - so it will remain until the government (or perhaps even private corporations) decide to tackle once and for all the plague on black america.</p>
<p>In addition, I'd like to ask you a question - do you truly believe that affirmative action somehow makes blacks lazy? Or promotes incompetent people? If you look at ivy league admissions, much more is taken into account than just test scores and GPAs... and being black and even remotely intellectual is a feat on its own in this country. The fact that colleges realize the barriers in place preventing many blacks from achieving their potential...is this a bad thing? I'd think it just falls under the "holistic evaluation of the application" that adcoms always talk about.</p>
<p>And yes, blacks DO get hired and DO achieve through hard work and perserverance - but affirmative action is there to ensure, as manyalasagna said, that schools and employers cast a wide enough "net" in the "sea" of applicants.</p>
<p>I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the United States to have maybe 1 or 2 percent of the students at its most elite universities be URMs. If the kid can handle the work, then he is inherently qualified. And that decision is left up to the adcoms, not us.</p>
<p>i think that one thing that gets some people all riled up about affirmative action is the feeling that there are scores of sinister wealthy blacks waiting in the wings, eager to pillage universities and steal all the seats there are, and while this is an incredibly amusing image, we need to take into account that for every middle class black accepted into a college due in part to aa, there are scores of lower class blacks from impoverished regions fighting it out for the remaining seats. what it all comes down to is that these 'megarich' black geniuses who are 'cheating' the system, don't exist, or at least not to the extent that they are portrayed to be.</p>
<p>thank you so much for the heavy dose of reality filmxoxo17</p>
<p>good post filmxoxo...unfortunately, it only takes one person who cheats the system to make it a flawed system...i'm not against aa for helping out the "impoverished"...it just seems that many people who do benefit the most are not necessarily the ones in struggling regions, simply those who fit the right skin chart. this leads to prejudice and racial tensions, which i AM against.</p>
<p>lol...I can't believe I got sucked into ANOTHER aa discussion...after I promised myself I would ignore them...:)</p>
<p>This is my problem with Affirmative Action. My family is part Native American, but we do not have documentation (somewhere along the Trail of Tears they forgot to give us papers to help me with college). If I had this documentation and put that on my applications, I would have a considerable advantage applying to college, because of my supposed diversity. However, I would still be the same person I am today, with the same advantages, and the same income. </p>
<p>I can not understand how this kind of diversity would "help" a campus. I certainly do not belief that all african american kids get in because of AA, but it does sometimes play a part. Sometimes, that part is worthwhile and helps students who were faced with disadvantages growing up have a better future. Other times, it gives an advantage to students who already had one.</p>
<p>Alita - I truly do believe that affirmative action helps more than it hurts - it may give an advantage to some kids who already had one, but then the argument is, they would have made it in anyways. Its those URMs who are promising, who have the intellectual spark that colleges are looking for, but just haven't been given the opportunity to succeed and to fully develop that spark - those are the kids that AA is around to help.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i truly do wish affirmative action didnt have to exist i do see how it would be interpreted as "divisive" and "discriminatory" by whites who do not benefit from it. However, truly, no viable alternative to AA has ever actually been pushed, promoted, or explored - so it will remain until the government (or perhaps even private corporations) decide to tackle once and for all the plague on black america.
[/quote]
Because white students should have gotten in over underqualified URMs. But look, the point is that in all 12 pages or so of this it was only recently you were a proponent for better alternatives. In fact, you even said "LONG LIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOREVER" or so a bunch of times. And I'm telling you that you are simply not going to get something better without calling for something better. We'd be (your race and my religion/ethnicity especially) in a lot of trouble if we never did something every time we thought it wouldn't work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the kid can handle the work, then he is inherently qualified. And that decision is left up to the adcoms, not us.
[/quote]
If you had read the thing that I quoted twice, you would have found out that while the adcoms might think that they were qualified, they were actually NOT able to handle the work.</p>
<p>The bottom line is I'd rather have as a doctor someone who didn't benefit from AA and got hired at a hospital through his own merits than a doctor who did.</p>
<p>Hey man, it's just going to make it easier for me:
Hurting those it's meant to help?</p>
<p>The Record (Bergen County, NJ); 12/28/2004; RICHARD H. SANDER</p>
<p>The Record (Bergen County, NJ)</p>
<p>12-28-2004</p>
<p>Hurting those it's meant to help?
By RICHARD H. SANDER
Date: 12-28-2004, Tuesday
Section: OPINION
Edtion: All Editions.=.Two Star B. Two Star P. One Star B</p>
<p>TRADITIONALLY, critics of affirmative action have focused either on its unfairness to those groups that don't receive preferences (usually whites and Asians) or on the inherent conflict between racial preferences and the legal ideal of colorblindness.</p>
<p>Over the last few years, however, a new and potentially even more damaging line of inquiry has emerged: the idea that racial preferences may materially harm the very people they are intended to benefit.</p>
<p>For instance, researchers Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber found that racial preferences at Ivy League colleges had a large and negative effect on the academic aspirations of black students.</p>
<p>The mechanism worked like this: Blacks admitted to elite schools with large preferences had more trouble competing with their classmates, and tended to get lower grades. Low grades, in turn, sapped the confidence of students, persuading them that they would not be able to compete effectively in Ph.D. programs. As a result, blacks at Ivy League schools were only half as likely as blacks at state universities to stick with plans for an academic career.</p>
<p>Dartmouth psychologist Rogers Elliot and three co-authors found that the same problem was keeping blacks out of the sciences.</p>
<p>Black students who received preferential admissions were at such a strong academic disadvantage compared with their classmates that fully half of those interested in the sciences tended to switch to majors with easier grading and less competition. Again, the net effect of preferential policies was to "mismatch" blacks with their academic environments.</p>
<p>My research over the last two years, using recent data that track more than 30,000 law students and lawyers, has documented even more serious and pervasive mismatch effects in legal education.</p>
<p>Elite law schools offer very substantial racial preferences for blacks, Hispanics and American Indians in order to create student bodies that are as racially diverse as their applicant pools. Because these elite schools admit the black students that second-tier law schools would normally admit, second-tier schools, to keep up their minority numbers, also offer big racial preferences. The result is a cascade effect down the law school hierarchy, leaving 80 percent to 90 percent of black students at significantly more selective schools than they would get into strictly on their academic credentials.</p>
<p>Most legal educators have traditionally assumed that this helps blacks by giving them a more elite degree, better connections and maybe even a better education.</p>
<p>But in fact, my data show, about half of black law students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes. Very low grades lead to much higher attrition (blacks are 2 1/2 times more likely to drop out of law school than whites) and to more trouble on the bar exam (blacks are six times as likely as whites taking the bar to never pass).</p>
<p>The other traditional justification for racial preferences by law schools was that they would increase the number of black lawyers. But over the years the pool of black applicants has become much larger and much more qualified. More than 85 percent of blacks admitted to law schools today would still get into some law school if preferences disappeared - albeit generally a lower-prestige school.</p>
<p>The modest pool-expanding effects of law school preferences may well be more than canceled out now by the greater attrition caused by the mismatch effect. My research suggests that in a race-blind system, the proportion of black law students graduating and passing the bar on their first attempt would rise from 45 percent to at least 65 percent, and the number of new, certified black lawyers each year would rise about 7 percent.
Some recent research by Princeton sociologist Marta Tienda found that minority preferences at elite undergraduate colleges had a harmful effect on class grades.
Obviously, it's difficult to predict how applicants would weigh the pluses and minuses of a race-neutral system; the point is that the attrition effects of the current system are so devastating that they threaten all its intended benefits.</p>
<p>Oy veh here we go again. First of all, I never implied that you had plagarized what Larry Elder wrote. I'm merely saying that I was a little disappointed that your argument (and, for that matter, your rebuttal against what I wrote) had been cut an pasted from someone else's argument. </p>
<p>Ok, first, your point about the significant numbers of dropping out rates of URMs v. Whites at the UC's is null. First contingency: the UC's suffer from a fairly guarunteed inability for an undergraduate to graduate in four years. With overpopulation, overcrowding, and budget cuts, the UC's have continually made it more and more difficult for anyone to graduate. Therefore, pointing out that blacks are even LESS likely to graduate isn't really legitimate...once you get below 40% being able to graduate in 4 years, the numbers don't carry much weight. Now, instead, let's focus our attention on a college more similar to Penn (contingency two)..let's take Princeton University. Here, the black graduation rate is in the 90% range. And at Vassar College, the black graduation rate is higher than the white graduation rate. (Source: The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education). I could go on with about 20 other top tier universities that have black graduation rates comprable or better than white grad rates, but instead, let's move on to next point:</p>
<p>Regarding what I posed concerning African-Americans in education and the subsequent statistics: if they aren't proof that Affirmative Action is, fundamentally, a well-designed system and policy, then what are they? Lest we not forget, I indeed said that hard work, perserverence, dedication, intelligence were all critical hard-core components of success. HOWEVER, the jump in engineering numbers isn't because suddenly URMs decided to aquire these characteristics--its because there was a system designed to allow them to exercise them. Of course successful minorities do not think of the reason they got where they are to be affirmative action. The system isn't a crutch, it's a leg up. </p>
<p>Oh man do I have some serious problems with Sander's article that you posted. If the true culprit is affirmative action "mismatching" black students at law schools where they are set up for failure, why is it that within Sander's main data set, among African Americans with the same entry credentials, attending higher-ranked law schools is consistently associated with higher graduation rates and higher bar passage rates? Please answer this question specifically, even if you ignore everything else I post! </p>
<p>Additionally, Stanford psychologist Claude Steele (source: LA Times) has shown that the fear of doing badly in school and thereby confirming racial stereotypes generates anxiety among black students that undermines academic performance. In addition, for many minority students, the lack of minority faculty heightens feelings of isolation and makes it difficult to find close mentors. And despite much progress, minority students still face discrimination on campus, both subtle and overt. Given these factors, it is folly to believe that eliminating affirmative action would eliminate the achievement gap. </p>
<p>I think you're misguided: we can't have our colorblind cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oy veh here we go again. First of all, I never implied that you had plagarized what Larry Elder wrote. I'm merely saying that I was a little disappointed that your argument (and, for that matter, your rebuttal against what I wrote) had been cut an pasted from someone else's argument.
[/quote]
I even think THAT's ridiculous! If someone else has already addressed the points I wanted to make, then do you honestly expect that I would waste my time summarizing him?
[quote]
First contingency: the UC's suffer from a fairly guarunteed inability for an undergraduate to graduate in four years. With overpopulation, overcrowding, and budget cuts, the UC's have continually made it more and more difficult for anyone to graduate. Therefore, pointing out that blacks are even LESS likely to graduate isn't really legitimate...once you get below 40% being able to graduate in 4 years, the numbers don't carry much weight.
[/quote]
Are you serious? I have a feeling that no matter the numbers I posted you go, "Well anything under X% just can't be considered!" The fact is, manyal, that blacks are doing worse in an environment that they were placed in because of affirmative action. No amount of ducking by you will change that fact. And, the following point counters your next series: The national graduation rate for black college students was 38 percent in 1999 21 points below the 59-percent rate for whites. But besides that, manyal, I get the feeling that you're trying to win a debate and not trying to uncover facts. At princeton, the white graduation rate for the year that you spoke of was 5 points higher then the black graduation rate. And, to let me quote from my summary of your report: " "Overall, 26 of the 54 colleges in our survey report a black graduation rate that is 10 percentage points or more below the graduation rate for white students," the journal said. "There are eight high-ranked colleges and universities at which the black graduation rate gap is a huge 20 percentage points or more below the graduation rate for white students. ... At Bates College, the racial graduation rate gap is a whopping 28 points."
At Rutgers University, the state university of New Jersey, the racial gap was 14 points 76 percent for whites and 62 percent for blacks." And I'm not sure exactly where you got your information from, but my copy of that information included this from the journal: " "High graduation rates at these schools are likely to result from the fact that these schools attract the very best and brightest of both black and white students who are likely to succeed in college," the journal said." Also, in my summary of the information, the only schools that blacks scored better than whites were: Vassar and Mount Holyoke College. Mount Holyoke!!!
You can't disagree with the quoted part, manyal. Hell, I agree with it. No one is saying that a black with a 980 and a 1.2 GPA who misspelled the university's name on her application is going to get in. The discrepancies come at the higher levels of achievers for the top schools you mentioned.
[quote]
OWEVER, the jump in engineering numbers isn't because suddenly URMs decided to aquire these characteristics--its because there was a system designed to allow them to exercise them. Of course successful minorities do not think of the reason they got where they are to be affirmative action. The system isn't a crutch, it's a leg up.
[/quote]
You assume that prior to things like affirmative action blacks had just as many opportunities to gain degrees like the ones you posted. Any time you have an oppressed people that can now, finally, rise up, rising up is what they are going to do. The fact is that study after study has shown that AA is not what pushed them up. Hard work and perseverance did. AAs effect was minor. I have one of the studies posted above but I dont want to transcribe it (my fingers hurt and its also against the law) so I can show it to you at Penn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the true culprit is affirmative action "mismatching" black students at law schools where they are set up for failure, why is it that within Sander's main data set, among African Americans with the same entry credentials, attending higher-ranked law schools is consistently associated with higher graduation rates and higher bar passage rates? Please answer this question specifically, even if you ignore everything else I post!
[/quote]
I hope I understand your question correctly, because what I think it means is just such a ridiculous question. Among <em>everyone</em> going to a better law school generally means you are more qualified than those who went to a worse law school. Better law schools also do a better job of teaching than worse law schools. So, those who go to a better law school are generally more competative when compared to someone of their same socioeconomic class in a worse law school and those in a better law school are taught better. Thus, they pass and graduate more often than someone in their same socioeconomic class in a worse law school. However, within a law school, the general trend is that those who have been bumped up fall down more often than those who have not been bumped up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Given these factors, it is folly to believe that eliminating affirmative action would eliminate the achievement gap.
[/quote]
Well, affirmative action sure hasnt been working to correct these factors, chief. I think its undeniably racist that you think black students need black mentors to thrive. Larry Elder write about this in his book, which I highly suggest you read. My math teacher at UCLA this past summer, aside from being one of the most brilliant men Ive ever met, was a Brown Muslim. The T.A was an Indian from England. Im an American White Jew and I felt perfectly comfortable accepting these people as mentors because my parents taught me not to judge a person based on the color of their skin. Further, I was one of only a handful of white students in my both of my classed and I still went on to finish first in my multivariable calc class and second in physics with calc. In addition, every minority group, Jewish, Black, Gay or otherwise, is going to feel some discrimination regardless of their population on campus. I fail to see how affirmative action solves this problem. What fixes them is what is described here: Princeton bends over backward to give students support, said Assistant Dean Marcia Y. Cantarella.
"It's very hard for students to fall between the cracks," Ms. Cantarella said. "We work hard and are continuing to improve our track record ... so students of color can feel comfortable and excited.
"I really feel the faculty has an extraordinary willingness to work with any student that needs additional help," Ms. Cantarella said. "They're very sensitive to what's going on with students."
She said each of the residential colleges has a minority-affairs advisor to help students deal with diversity and race-relations issues.
She also said the Third World Center gives minority students a place to congregate. A campus chapter of the Association of Black Engineers mentors black engineering students. One black engineering student was one of three Princeton students who was a finalist for a Rhodes Scholarships, she said.</p>
<p>Have an awesome dominating superduper killer New Year.</p>
<p>I think you have an ok chance</p>
<p>bumpppppppppppp</p>
<p>i like affirmative action. it gives a poor black guy like me a shot. i never had any fancy SAT prep courses or parents threatening to take away my nonexistant luxuries if i didn't do well in school. i recieved no encouragement from my family, friends, school, or community.</p>
<p>i think affirmative action should be available to everyone who has had to struggle..people who haven't had the opportunities that other people have, but at the same time demonstrate self-motivation and drive in both academics and other activities. in this respect, i don't believe that affirmative action should necessarily be limited to minorities, especially when many of these applicants come from advantaged backgrounds (not necessarily coming from money, but you know..like asians - african/carribbean immigrant parents press their children to do well in school).</p>
<p>on the flipside, universities also need URMs to help get their diversity numbers up..just like they need athletes to get their sports teams up and insanely rich people/legacies to keep their funding up. being born into quadruple legacyship is not any more under your control than being born as an affluent URM, right? so where should the line be drawn? ultimately, it's up to the college. we all accept that there is no set standard for getting into Harvard. i can't just do "this, this, and this" and know that i'll be accepted. in the end, Harvard admissions is trying to glorify the institution in as MANY ways as possible. sure, they could fill up the class with academic allstars, but they aren't worried about doing that because so many of them apply</p>
<p>i skipped a whole lot of the thread so maybe somebody has talked about this, but lots of people seem to be complaining about how a less qualified urm will get in over them and how thats not fair... but how do you define less qualified. if a poor inner city black person has lower sat scores and a lower gpa and fewer strong ecs, thats not necessarily a true indication of his ability or of how qualified he is, but rather an indication of how he fared in the environemnt in which he grew up. so basically i feel like aa (at least in theory but maybe less so in practice) makes up for the differences caused by one's environenment.
if that same inner city black person had grown up in an affluent suburb, he would have had higher sats and a higher gpa, etc. i guess this also shows that a blanket policy coverming all members of a race isnt perfect, but for the few it does help, i think its worth it.
and for all the 'qualified' whites and asians who 'loose their spots' to urm people with lesser numbers, if you are more qualified, then you should do very well in a slightly less prestigous school and things should work themselves out in the long run. the difference between the top 10 and the top 100 isnt big enough to cancel out differences in ability.
there are problems with aa but i think that in theory at least its a good idea.</p>