NationStates Jolt Archive

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

In case you didn't know, that's a HUGE amount of points. Some people can study for years, and manage to only raise their score by a hundred or so. Any average black person, can outdo the smartest Asian person in chances of getting accepted. This is just going to help give a HUGE unfair advantage against Asians and Whites. I think this should be known to EVERYBODY applying to college.

Is anyone going to reply?

Is anyone going to reply?

Sorry, I'm just taking the time to actually read the long scientific article that you posted.

In the meantime, I would note that the researchers find that athletic preferences and legacies apply comparable weights to individual admissions-probabilities. Thus, if Affirmative Action is wrong on principle, these policies must be as well.

I would also note, for those who do not care to read the article, that the researchers find that it is well-qualified minority applicants -- who already have high SAT scores and grades -- who benefit from Affirmative Action. The beneficiaries are not underqualified. Given this fact, and the well-known fact that standardized test scores and grades are not particularly precise measures of academic promise (i.e. someone with high scores is likely to do better than someone with lower scores, but scores very close to each other do not really differentiate one student from another), it would be difficult to say that the decision to differentiate qualified students on other characteristics is "unfair." As long as Affirmative Action policies are applied within a qualified candidate pool, I do not see the problem with them.

To quote the article posted above:

Our results show that removing consideration of race would have a minimal effect on white applicants to elite universities. The number of accepted white students would increase by 2.4 percent, and the white acceptance rate would rise by just 0.5 percentage points—from 23.8 to 24.3 percent. Many rejected white applicants may feel they would have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action, but such perceptions probably exaggerate the reality. It would be difficult to tell from the share of white students on campus whether or not the admission office was engaged in affirmative action.

That's page 6.

Did you even read the article before you posted it?

They are benefiting from racism. I was the under the impression that the liberal left considered racism bad.

if you went to the princeton campus i dont think you would be amazed at the high number of black faces you see. i see nothing wrong with trying to attract a more diverse student population.

Page 9:

If the time trends detected earlier in Espenshade, Chung, and Walling
(2004) persist, there may come a time when the rising preference for athletes
in combination with a relatively stable bonus for legacies is sufficient to fully
offset the weakening preferences for underrepresented minority applicants.

Page 9:

Once again, they are benefiting from racism, we can throw in ‘classism’ as well because legacies should be thrown out as well.

Page 10:

At the five academically selective schools for which they
have admission data, acceptance rates for African-American applicants
would fall from 42 to 13 percent if the race of applicants were ignored, while
the proportion of white applicants admitted would only increase from 25 to
26.5 percent (assuming that whites filled all the seats created by accepting
fewer African-American applicants).

So, the huge impact, one way or another, is on African-Americans, not whites.

I don't know what has whites so bent out of shape. I guess they just can't stand to see a few more black faces on campus.

if you went to the princeton campus i dont think you would be amazed at the high number of black faces you see. i see nothing wrong with trying to attract a more diverse student population.

Then why don't you just tell Blacks and Hispanics to START STUDYING.

Racism against Whites and Asians won't stop anything.

Diversity? Why do you need Diversity?

It's not like Black people and White people are any different other then in Apperance. So what's this Diversity ****.

Page 10:



So, the huge impact, one way or another, is on African-Americans, not whites.

I don't know what has whites so bent out of shape. I guess they just can't stand to see a few more black faces on campus.

What bends people out of shape (other than your inability to realize that a large percentage change in a small population equates to a small percentage change in a larger population) is that this is nothing but reverse rascism being selectively applied. That generally pisses people off.

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.

So, Serapindal...

How's that egg taste?

;)

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.

WTF?

How are Black People Opressed?

They get treated the same just as any white or asian people.

IN FACT, Black people are opressing against Whites and Asians.

if you went to the princeton campus i dont think you would be amazed at the high number of black faces you see. i see nothing wrong with trying to attract a more diverse student population.

damned board not putting up my reply...

Diverse in skin color or diverse in thought? Lets go ahead and start polling the schools for their political party and get them equalized in the number of democrats, republicans, communists, green, libertarian, anarchists etc... and get some real diversity rather than "hey you've got black skin, therefor you MUST before so totally different than me." Currently the only people 'diversity' benefits are middle class blacks (ie the qualified candidates) and white women. For some reason being Asian doesn't make you a minority.

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.
This forum doesn't prove shit. If it represented the main stream, then possibly. When you have gays, Nazis, Socialists, Capitalists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheist, Liberals, liberals, Conservatives, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, etc. all on the same board, you shouldn't use it as proof.

WTF?

How are Black People Opressed?

They get treated the same just as any white or asian people.

IN FACT, Black people are opressing against Whites and Asians.

For start because ethnic diversity in elitist regimes is a threat to the homogenous bourgeois dictatorship.

Secondly, if admittance to college = racial oppression, then whites are oppressing asians according to the statistics.

Grow up and get a fucking social analysis.

Yours in headkicking privleged white male, heterosexuals

The Jingoistic States of Grayshness

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.

Explain how structural racism works. In addition, discuss how the university system is 'structurally' racist or 'structurally oppresses' minorities. I guess I'm just stupid, but I didn't know this "fact."

Also, for you guys who keep saying, "White people just don't want to see black faces around," you're committing the fallacy of strawman and ad hominem. Stop it. Nobody in this thread and nobody in the study said, "I hate black people and I don't want to see black people succeed in life," or anything even remotely like that. We're talking about affirmative action at the university level, so let's keep the debate within those bounds, okay? Implying your opponents have racist motives for opposing preferential treatment is just intellectually dishonest.

This forum doesn't prove shit. If it represented the main stream, then possibly. When you have gays, Nazis, Socialists, Capitalists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheist, Liberals, liberals, Conservatives, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, etc. all on the same board, you shouldn't use it as proof.

It proves that there are still the same priveleged myopic terds perpetuating their unanalytical bourgeois norms on all of us.

From the notation on page 9.

We prepared an alternate simulation by ranking applicants on the basis of their SAT
scores and admitting students having the top 9,988 scores (the actual number of students
accepted). This is the closest that any of our simulations comes to choosing a class solely on
the basis of academic merit. Applicants in this simulation average 1512 on their SATs.
Compared to students who were actually admitted, the shares of most student groups decline
in the simulation—from 51.4 percent to 47.7 for whites, from 9.0 to 0.9 for African
Americans, from 7.9 to 2.2 for Hispanics, from 10.2 to 1.9 for athletes, and from 6.5 to 3.2
for legacies. Only the share of Asians increases when SAT scores dominate—from 23.7 to
38.7 percent. These results are qualitatively similar to effects reported by Klitgaard (1985:29)
had Harvard’s Class of 1975 been chosen on the basis of SAT verbal scores alone. The
percentage of admitted students who were alumni sons would have declined from 13.6 to 6.1,
of athletes from 23.6 to 4.5, and of African Americans from 7.1 to 1.1. The proportion of
scholarship students would have remained unchanged at 55 percent.

Sure, straight SAT scores shouldn't be the only method. But damned if it doesn't show how much we throw academics out to make things 'fair.'

Explain how structural racism works. In addition, discuss how the university system is 'structurally' racist or 'structurally oppresses' minorities. I guess I'm just stupid, but I didn't know this "fact."

Also, for you guys who keep saying, "White people just don't want to see black faces around," you're committing the fallacy of strawman and ad hominem. Stop it. Nobody in this thread and nobody in the study said, "I hate black people and I don't want to see black people succeed in life," or anything even remotely like that. We're talking about affirmative action at the university level, so let's keep the debate within those bounds, okay? Implying your opponents have racist motives for opposing preferential treatment is just intellectually dishonest.

Did i say the university system structurally oppresses people, go back and read what I wrote before you attack

It proves that there are still the same priveleged myopic terds perpetuating their unanalytical bourgeois norms on all of us.
Not really.

It proves that there are still the same priveleged myopic terds perpetuating their unanalytical bourgeois norms on all of us.

Oh my god, are you trying to be a Marxist stereotype?

Not really.

Not really what?

Did i say the university system structurally oppresses people, go back and read what I wrote before you attack


Did I say you said that? Read the whole thread before you attack me.

Oh my god, are you trying to be a Marxist stereotype?
...but I am certainly not a neo-conservative pig.

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.

Actually, most studies show that AA programs tend to benefit the already priviliged minorities, in other words, upper-middle class ones. Rather than giving a leg up to those who could actually use it, it gives spots to qualified minority candidates rather than qualified non-minority ones. If we wanted to give people a leg up, we chould do it based on socio-economic status rather than on racial/ethnic status.

For start because ethnic diversity in elitist regimes is a threat to the homogenous bourgeois dictatorship.

America is a democracy, whose politicians come from all classes, and races. Most tend to start life rich, but not all.

Secondly, if admittance to college = racial oppression, then whites are oppressing asians according to the statistics.

no, the collegiate system is systematically oppressing Asians and White to introdouce more Hispanics and Blacks...

Grow up and get a fucking social analysis.

Yours in headkicking privleged white male, heterosexuals

The Jingoistic States of Grayshness

Why don't you try growing up enough to stay away from insults?

damned board not putting up my reply...

Diverse in skin color or diverse in thought? Lets go ahead and start polling the schools for their political party and get them equalized in the number of democrats, republicans, communists, green, libertarian, anarchists etc... and get some real diversity rather than "hey you've got black skin, therefor you MUST before so totally different than me." Currently the only people 'diversity' benefits are middle class blacks (ie the qualified candidates) and white women. For some reason being Asian doesn't make you a minority.
when there are a numbers of black college students way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population, we can worry that they are doing something wrong. until then its fine by me.

is there still some kind of affirmative action for female students? arent there already more women in college than men?

...but I am certainly not a neo-conservative pig.

Neither am I. I guess we have something in common, buddy.

Did I say you said that? Read the whole thread before you attack me.

You used direct quotes from something I posted I'm assuming that considering no-one else mentioned structural oppression in this forum you were referring to me

But hey I could be wrong, it's still 2005

They are benefiting from racism.

No, the white kids benefit from racism. Black kids suffer from it. Affirmative Action is the attempt to eliminate it.

I could go into the history of these races... how one oppressed the other for hundreds of years, resulting in great wealth for themselves and poverty for the other... how eventually the oppressors decided they were wrong, threw up their hands and said "sorry" (wait, did they?), and determined that "from now on" everything would be equal... as if history could just be ignored.

But let's look past all that. Let's look at the fact that all available evidence indicates that white students have advantages that black students do not. That white students go to schools that offer small class sizes, tutoring resources, SAT prep courses, and aggressive college guidance programs.

Taking all of that into account, if a white student gets a 1500 on the SAT while the black student gets a 1300, I'd actually be inclined to call the African-American student's score the greater accomplishment.


Meanwhile, according to this article, the effect of Affirmative Action on any individual white applicant is practically negligible. If this small hurdle is the only price we have to pay to make strides toward attaining true racial equality... well, we whites should count ourselves lucky.

Then why don't you just tell Blacks and Hispanics to START STUDYING.

Racism against Whites and Asians won't stop anything.

Diversity? Why do you need Diversity?

It's not like Black people and White people are any different other then in Apperance. So what's this Diversity ****.
If that's true, then why do black and hispanic candidates always underperform on standardised testing? There is a racial bias in educational opportunity.

How about this one though: despite being of a lower standard when going to college, beneficiaries of AA are not by any statistically significant degree more likely to drop out or get lower grades than other students. They are also statistically speaking more likely to "give back" to society, going into public sector jobs at a markedly higher proportion than other students.

You weren't the only one who said it. But since you were on that bandwagon, why don't you defend your assertion. I'm sure you could find something in Das Kapital to back up your claims.

How are Black People Opressed?

They get treated the same just as any white or asian people.

IN FACT, Black people are opressing against Whites and Asians.
Yeah, in bizzaro world maybe

No, the white kids benefit from racism. Black kids suffer from it. Affirmative Action is the attempt to eliminate it.

I could go into the history of these races... how one oppressed the other for hundreds of years, resulting in great wealth for themselves and poverty for the other... how eventually the oppressors decided they were wrong, threw up their hands and said "sorry" (wait, did they?), and determined that "from now on" everything would be equal... as if history could just be ignored.

But let's look past all that. Let's look at the fact that all available evidence indicates that white students have advantages that black students do not. That white students go to schools that offer small class sizes, tutoring resources, SAT prep courses, and aggressive college guidance programs.

Taking all of that into account, if a white student gets a 1500 on the SAT while the black student gets a 1300, I'd actually be inclined to call the African-American student's score the greater accomplishment.


Meanwhile, according to this article, the effect of Affirmative Action on any individual white applicant is practically negligible. If this small hurdle is the only price we have to pay to make strides toward attaining true racial equality... well, we whites should count ourselves lucky.


I was the under the impression that the liberal left considered racism bad.

Right, you're talking about historical racism. Can we talk about present-day racism? Yes, you point out that white students seem to do better and have more advantages. Can you trace this to racism or could poverty be the factor behind these statistics? Or do you think all black poverty results from racism? I'm going to need a little more than what you're giving me for me to believe that widespread and rampant racism severely disadvantages African Americans to the point of affirmative action.

Once again, they are benefiting from racism, we can throw in ‘classism’ as well because legacies should be thrown out as well.

Well, you have at least the virtue of being consistent. I appreciate that.

Of course, the reality is that universities are not going to throw out athletic preferences or legacies any times soon. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that they are on the rise.

And as long as people are willing to quietly accept these forms of preference, it is hypocritical to attack Affirmative Action on the grounds that it is "unfair." Athletic preference (not to mention athletic scholarships) are unfair to non-athletes.

The question, however, is one of cost/benefit analysis -- of opportunity cost, as discussed in this article -- and the evidence is that the cost of Affirmative Action to whites (like the cost of athletic preference to non-athletes) is pathetically small, while the benefit to racial equality is enormous.

"America is a democracy, whose politicians come from all classes, and races. Most tend to start life rich, but not all."

It's also geared to oppress people, capitalism in it's current form has to have poor people in order to maintain itself

"no, the collegiate system is systematically oppressing Asians and White to introdouce more Hispanics and Blacks..."

You can't oppress white people, just like you can't oppress men or the wealthy, IF suddenly more poor people attended a university then rich does this make the rich oppressed NO!

You clearly don't know what oppression is my unenlightened individual

From the notation on page 9.



Sure, straight SAT scores shouldn't be the only method. But damned if it doesn't show how much we throw academics out to make things 'fair.'
so according to that quote, the only ones who should be personally pissed are the top flight asian applicants. if things were "fair" even fewer white boys would be admitted

"America is a democracy, whose politicians come from all classes, and races. Most tend to start life rich, but not all."

It's also geared to oppress people, capitalism in it's current form has to have poor people in order to maintain itself

"no, the collegiate system is systematically oppressing Asians and White to introdouce more Hispanics and Blacks..."

You can't oppress white people, just like you can't oppress men or the wealthy, IF suddenly more poor people attended a university then rich does this make the rich oppressed NO!

You clearly don't know what oppression is my unenlightened individual

Right, so I guess you've decided not to explain how the American university system is structurally racist.

Actually, most studies show that AA programs tend to benefit the already priviliged minorities, in other words, upper-middle class ones. Rather than giving a leg up to those who could actually use it, it gives spots to qualified minority candidates rather than qualified non-minority ones. If we wanted to give people a leg up, we chould do it based on socio-economic status rather than on racial/ethnic status.
I would certainly have no problem accepting an economic standard instead of a racial one. However there is the issue of being able to appear to have a low income for the purpose of filling out a form, especially if you're self employed or running a small business, as many upper-middle class people are.

Right, so I guess you've decided not to explain how the American university system is structurally racist.

I NEVER SAID THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OPPRESSED PEOPLE DID I. YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE SOMETHING UP THAT I SAID IN ORDER TO HIDE THE FACT YOU WERE SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES AND HAVE NO CONJECTURE LEFT IN YOUR BASTION OF CONSERVATISM

so according to that quote, the only ones who should be personally pissed are the top flight asian applicants. if things were "fair" even fewer white boys would be admitted

Yep

Why have an economic or racial standard? Let's make the system meritocratic. If you think minorities don't score as well on tests or earn very good grades, then whether or not those two are true as a result of poverty or racism, the fact is that they're probably not academically prepared for college, especially the ivy league. I think if you're going to do anything to curb racism and poverty, you'll have to start at the elementary school level.

Yep
are you asian?

when there are a numbers of black college students way out of proportion to their numbers in the general population, we can worry that they are doing something wrong. until then its fine by me.

Perhaps you can explain how the proportion of the general population matters? proportion shouldn't matter for anything. The only thing that should matter is the qualifications of each individual student. Racism to enforce some fictional 'well since 13% of the population eats kiwis, 13% of all CEOs should eat Kiwis, and if they don't we need to change the system damnit!" is bullshit.

is there still some kind of affirmative action for female students? arent there already more women in college than men?

Who it has helped historically. And still continues to help in the workplace and college admissions to male dominated areas (sciences, engineering, math)

If that's true, then why do black and hispanic candidates always underperform on standardised testing? There is a racial bias in educational opportunity.

.

As someone who has taught at the middle school and highschool level in the United States, I agree that there is racial bias in educational opportunity here.

However, I don't agree that black and hispanic candidates always underperform on standardized testing. Having been a test proctor for a year, and administered state level standardized testing, I have seen several Hispanic and African American students get perfect scores on several sections. The overall trend may be that Hispanic and/or African American students score lower on average, but this is likely a combination of test-inherent bias and poor schools.

As an interesting trivia note, Will Smith (not impoverished, I realize) got an 800 on his SAT Verbal section, and Greg Geraldo (prominent Hispanic comic) scored perfect on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test).

Then why don't you just tell Blacks and Hispanics to START STUDYING.

Ah, but they are, aren't they?

If you had read the article, you would see that the students benefiting from Affirmative Action are scoring in the 1200-1300 range on the SATs. Impressive scores for anyone!!

Yet the problem remains: according to a large body of scientific research, systemic racism (and the legacy of racism) prevents black (and Hispanic) students from competing effectively with whites (and Asians) when it comes down to "the numbers."

But more importantly, the more of them get into the best universities, the sooner this situation is expected to end... because well-educated blacks can bring to their own children the same benefits that white students systematically receive.

In other words, with Affirmative Action in place, over time we should expect to see more and more minority students who are doing just as well as whites on the SATs. When we have that, we can do away with Affirmative Action. But not before.

are you asian?

Well my name is German for Blueshield (or sign depending), not Japanese or Cantonese for Blueshield. What do you think?

I NEVER SAID THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OPPRESSED PEOPLE DID I. YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE SOMETHING UP THAT I SAID IN ORDER TO HIDE THE FACT YOU WERE SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES AND HAVE NO CONJECTURE LEFT IN YOUR BASTION OF CONSERVATISM

One last time, silly person: I am not a conservative. Do you see this? If you call me a conservative one more time, I'm going to stop being nice to you.

The point of affirmative action is about recognising that black people are structurally oppressed and white people a priveleged. THIS IS FACT. You make it sound like black people are this amazing force that are dominating society when black people are still structurally oppressed. THIS FORUM PROVES IT.

Okay, explain what structural racism means. Explain what system in the world or this country is structurally racist. See, since we're discussing education, I falsely assumed you meant the university system, but maybe you just mean the US government. So, please, explain yourself thoroughly so the real debate can begin.

i'm pissed because I'm asian and the admissions officers people do not think highly of my test scores. However I also know that if i were black, I'd support AA wholehartedly. Because to me it is a matter of making my life easier, not some highminded ideal of just rewards and societal good and what not. That is the pitiless truth about my selfishness. I'm paranoid and i think the vast majority of people think the way I do about this. Marx was right, the only history is economic history, people are motivated by personal material gain, and humans are greedy pigs.

Well my name is German for Blueshield (or sign depending), not Japanese or Cantonese for Blueshield. What do you think?
i think that an asian person can choose a german nation name

Ah, but they are, aren't they?

If you had read the article, you would see that the students benefiting from Affirmative Action are scoring in the 1200-1300 range on the SATs. Impressive scores for anyone!!

Since when was a 12 or 1300 impressive? Are you on mushrooms or something? If I had gotten a 1300 I would of been rightly pissed off.

Yet the problem remains: according to a large body of scientific research, systemic racism (and the legacy of racism) prevents black (and Hispanic) students from competing effectively with whites (and Asians) when it comes down to "the numbers."

And Asians didn't have that problem? What with coming to this country to build railroads and get called chinks?

But more importantly, the more of them get into the best universities, the sooner this situation is expected to end... because well-educated blacks can bring to their own children the same benefits that white students systematically receive.

In other words, with Affirmative Action in place, over time we should expect to see more and more minority students who are doing just as well as whites on the SATs. When we have that, we can do away with Affirmative Action. But not before.

Bullshit. Meritocracy. Now. With the ability to let black parents send their children where they wish and money to create a better (non-union/tenure) public education system.

What bends people out of shape (other than your inability to realize that a large percentage change in a small population equates to a small percentage change in a larger population)

Actually, that is the point of the article. What you seem unable to realize is that this means the white reaction against Affirmative Action is out of all proportion to its actual effects on white individuals.

is that this is nothing but reverse rascism being selectively applied. That generally pisses people off.

First of all, even if this were racism -- which it is not -- whites are in no position to be up on a high horse about it!!

The fact is that racism involves discrimination designed to disenfranchise someone on the basis of race. But no one is trying to hurt anyone for being white... (Moreover, according to this study, whites are "hurt" about as much for being white as they are for not being on the yearbook committee.) Rather, they are doing their best to correct an historical injustice, and to generate a more diverse campus. (And believe it or not, universities are actually ranked on their diversity because this is a quality that students -- even white students! -- seek out!)

are you asian?

I am.

WTF?

IN FACT, Black people are opressing against Whites and Asians.

Speaking as a half-white half-asian mutt, let me just say that if Black people are supposedly oppressing me, they aren't doing it often or very hard.

Ah, but they are, aren't they?

If you had read the article, you would see that the students benefiting from Affirmative Action are scoring in the 1200-1300 range on the SATs. Impressive scores for anyone!!

Yet the problem remains: according to a large body of scientific research, systemic racism (and the legacy of racism) prevents black (and Hispanic) students from competing effectively with whites (and Asians) when it comes down to "the numbers."

But more importantly, the more of them get into the best universities, the sooner this situation is expected to end... because well-educated blacks can bring to their own children the same benefits that white students systematically receive.

In other words, with Affirmative Action in place, over time we should expect to see more and more minority students who are doing just as well as whites on the SATs. When we have that, we can do away with Affirmative Action. But not before.

I got a fucking 1350 in 8th grade. If I was Black, I would have gotten into Harvard before High School.

Why are you all for affirmative action? I don't understand. Do you think that our society is just so overwhelmingly racist at the individual and structural levels that minorities have absolutely no chance to compete with privileged Caucasians? Or are you admitting that minorities just don't do as well in school and on standardized tests? Or are you trying to attribute this academic failure to poverty? Or are you trying to say that poverty results from systemic racism? I guess I'm just confused. I'd like a well-though-out rationale, if anybody doesn't mind.

Right, you're talking about historical racism. Can we talk about present-day racism? Yes, you point out that white students seem to do better and have more advantages. Can you trace this to racism or could poverty be the factor behind these statistics? Or do you think all black poverty results from racism? I'm going to need a little more than what you're giving me for me to believe that widespread and rampant racism severely disadvantages African Americans to the point of affirmative action.
Black poverty does result from racism, you can trace it all the way back to when ships full of Africans got taken to Europe and the US and got paid nothing for their labour. In modern day terms, if the slaves had gotten paid, black people in America would be 1.7 trillion dollars better off (slaves held x hours worked x market value of manual labour). 13% of a 280 million population are black, that means you'd be looking at about $47,000 a head, or thereabouts. Then of course you can factor in the fact that if after emancipation, every place of work in the country hadn't been run by a white person who didn't want to give a job to some negro, then yeah, I think its fair to say that slavery and then racism might have something to do with the reason that black people are the poorest single group in the US.

i think that an asian person can choose a german nation name

:yawn: They would tend to be less likely to. But whatever. You should already know the answer to the question you asked.

As someone who rejects the traditional idea of race, I find it disappointing that colleges use such archaic methods to get a “diverse” student body. However, as long as they are private institutions they are free to accept whoever they wish, as long as the state is not forcing these quotas on them.

When Asian people first came to America, we were treated pretty badly, but through hard-work, we were able to come on on top. If we can do it, why can't Blacks and Hispanics.

IF you're FAILING IN SCHOOL, it's your OWN FUCKING FAULT. It's not because "oh, whitey is opressing me, teh KKK is at my school. Yaaah!"

Black poverty does result from racism, you can trace it all the way back to when ships full of Africans got taken to Europe and the US and got paid nothing for their labour. In modern day terms, if the slaves had gotten paid, black people in America would be 1.7 trillion dollars better off (slaves held x hours worked x market value of manual labour). 13% of a 280 million population are black, that means you'd be looking at about $47,000 a head, or thereabouts. Then of course you can factor in the fact that if after emancipation, every place of work in the country hadn't been run by a white person who didn't want to give a job to some negro, then yeah, I think its fair to say that slavery and then racism might have something to do with the reason that black people are the poorest single group in the US.

You're still not addressing my point. All you're talking about is historical racism. Unless you can prove widespread and systemic racism in 2005, you don't have much of a case for why affirmative action is needed in 2005, unless you think America just sort of 'owes' it to black people for screwing 'em over for so long. Incidentally, the first Africans to arrive here (the English colonies of the Chesapeake in the 17th century) were indentured servants, not slaves.

One last time, silly person: I am not a conservative. Do you see this? If you call me a conservative one more time, I'm going to stop being nice to you.



Okay, explain what structural racism means. Explain what system in the world or this country is structurally racist. See, since we're discussing education, I falsely assumed you meant the university system, but maybe you just mean the US government. So, please, explain yourself thoroughly so the real debate can begin.

One last time...Although I shouldn't have to educate you because if you are goping toengage intelligenetly in forums you should know hat you are talking about...

Structural oppression occurs through white privelege and heterosexist societal machinations.

Structural in the term structural oppression refers to a fucntionalist perspective of society developed by Talcott parsons, where certain people are inherently privelged, the structure is maintained through a variety of different machinations such as the law in order to enact homogeneity on society whereby people outside this homogeneity are marginalised and disadvantaged.

Also, for you guys who keep saying, "White people just don't want to see black faces around," you're committing the fallacy of strawman and ad hominem.

Actually, I was committing hyperbole... I never used it as a serious part of my argument. :)

Implying your opponents have racist motives for opposing preferential treatment is just intellectually dishonest.

While my statement was hyperbole, I do think that my opponents have racist motives for opposing Affirmative Action. I reach this conclusion because, a) their reaction is out of all proportion to the (alleged) "problem"; and b) they have some heavy duty blinders on when it comes to the scientific consensus regarding the effects of racism on African Americans. They remind me of creationists... and when a conversation produces that comparison, I believe I am justified in believing that a certain degree of prejudice must be involved.

As someone who has taught at the middle school and highschool level in the United States, I agree that there is racial bias in educational opportunity here.

However, I don't agree that black and hispanic candidates always underperform on standardized testing. Having been a test proctor for a year, and administered state level standardized testing, I have seen several Hispanic and African American students get perfect scores on several sections. The overall trend may be that Hispanic and/or African American students score lower on average, but this is likely a combination of test-inherent bias and poor schools.

As an interesting trivia note, Will Smith (not impoverished, I realize) got an 800 on his SAT Verbal section, and Greg Geraldo (prominent Hispanic comic) scored perfect on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test).Sorry, yes, I should've been clearer. I didn't mean that every black or latino student does worse than every white student, I meant that at pretty much every school, every city, every year, the average for black and hispanic students is lower than for white people.

Perhaps you can explain how the proportion of the general population matters? proportion shouldn't matter for anything. The only thing that should matter is the qualifications of each individual student. Racism to enforce some fictional 'well since 13% of the population eats kiwis, 13% of all CEOs should eat Kiwis, and if they don't we need to change the system damnit!" is bullshit.



Who it has helped historically. And still continues to help in the workplace and college admissions to male dominated areas (sciences, engineering, math)
when your society has been historically fucked up. when whole groups of people have been denied basic human rights as well as educational opportunities, sometimes you need to do things to balance that out.

i believe there was a quote in an earlier post that stated that the "legacies" of black scholars and athletes in ivy league schools would end up balancing out the black/white proportions in a fairly short amount of time.

when black and hispanic students see black and hispanics in ivy league schools in equal proportions to their populations in society, they know that if they are smart and study hard they can end up there too.

we currently waste way too much minority talent by leaving them with the impression that their only future lies in rap music, athletics and drug dealing. changing that is good for everyone

(no i dont think that all black and hispanic youth think that way but i DO think that too many do, especially in poor neighborhoods)

Asians were treated just as badly as blacks. So why the HELL CAn't BLACKS succed.

Simple, it's their fault. That's all.

Hispanics were treated better then both blacks and Asians, and they still do poorly. It's their OWN DAMN FAULT.

Black poverty does result from racism, you can trace it all the way back to when ships full of Africans got taken to Europe and the US and got paid nothing for their labour. In modern day terms, if the slaves had gotten paid, black people in America would be 1.7 trillion dollars better off (slaves held x hours worked x market value of manual labour). 13% of a 280 million population are black, that means you'd be looking at about $47,000 a head, or thereabouts. Then of course you can factor in the fact that if after emancipation, every place of work in the country hadn't been run by a white person who didn't want to give a job to some negro, then yeah, I think its fair to say that slavery and then racism might have something to do with the reason that black people are the poorest single group in the US.

And you know what, they were making GREAT progress. Really really good progress.

That is until organized crime and drug-lords made it possible for black gangs in ghettos to make a moderate living selling crack... and the glamorization of said job in the communities itself and on and on the downward spiral went. Sucks for them. Why have sympathy for a 'group' of people when given the chance fucked it up? People today rise and fall based on their own merits. If they're not strong enough to make it out of the culture they grew up in, too bad.

You're still not addressing my point. All you're talking about is historical racism. Unless you can prove widespread and systemic racism in 2005, you don't have much of a case for why affirmative action is needed in 2005, unless you think America just sort of 'owes' it to black people for screwing 'em over for so long. Incidentally, the first Africans to arrive here (the English colonies of the Chesapeake in the 17th century) were indentured servants, not slaves.


Black people are still over -represented in poorly paid, labour and complex non-manegerial professions than professional ones. Why? The white persons answer is well God wants black people to be poor.

when your society has been historically fucked up. when whole groups of people have been denied basic human rights as well as educational opportunities, sometimes you need to do things to balance that out.

i believe there was a quote in an earlier post that stated that the "legacies" of black scholars and athletes in ivy league schools would end up balancing out the black/white proportions in a fairly short amount of time.

when black and hispanic students see black and hispanics in ivy league schools in equal proportions to their populations in society, they know that if they are smart and study hard they can end up there too.

we currently waste way too much minority talent by leaving them with the impression that their only future lies in rap music, athletics and drug dealing. changing that is good for everyone

(no i dont think that all black and hispanic youth think that way but i DO think that too many do, especially in poor neighborhoods)

If they buy into the crap that their only future is athletics and drug dealing, they simply don't deserve a place in college, nor success.

Asians were treated just as badly as blacks. So why the HELL CAn't BLACKS succed.

Simple, it's their fault. That's all.

Hispanics were treated better then both blacks and Asians, and they still do poorly. It's their OWN DAMN FAULT.


RACIST

Black people are still over -represented in poorly paid, labour and complex non-manegerial professions than professional ones. Why? The white persons answer is well God wants black people to be poor.

Roflmao. This is the worst argument in the world. Go back to your hole troll.

Actually, I was committing hyperbole... I never used it as a serious part of my argument. :)



While my statement was hyperbole, I do think that my opponents have racist motives for opposing Affirmative Action. I reach this conclusion because, a) their reaction is out of all proportion to the (alleged) "problem"; and b) they have some heavy duty blinders on when it comes to the scientific consensus regarding the effects of racism on African Americans. They remind me of creationists... and when a conversation produces that comparison, I believe I am justified in believing that a certain degree of prejudice must be involved.

There's nothing hotter than someone with analysis...doo da..doo ...da

when your society has been historically fucked up. when whole groups of people have been denied basic human rights as well as educational opportunities, sometimes you need to do things to balance that out.

Yeah, you give them an even playing field, the ability to go to highschool and get good grades and earn their own way to the top. You don't arrange a special elevator for them.

i believe there was a quote in an earlier post that stated that the "legacies" of black scholars and athletes in ivy league schools would end up balancing out the black/white proportions in a fairly short amount of time.

Why don’t you take the time to find it? Better yet, lets all realize that legacies should be dropped as well eh?

when black and hispanic students see black and hispanics in ivy league schools in equal proportions to their populations in society, they know that if they are smart and study hard they can end up there too.

And they're too dumb, too stupid, too incapable, too much of a bunch of dumbasses that they can't look at US News, see what it takes to get in and do it? They need to see other people there first? They're a bunch of sheep who can't do somethign untill someone else does it for them? Who the fuck wants a bunch of sheep in an Ivy League College?

we currently waste way too much minority talent by leaving them with the impression that their only future lies in rap music, athletics and drug dealing. changing that is good for everyone

(no i dont think that all black and hispanic youth think that way but i DO think that too many do, especially in poor neighborhoods)

If that impression exists, it is an impression they have created for themselves. It is their responsibility (each of them as individuals. Forget their race, as it matters for jack) to change it.

Yeah, you give them an even playing field, the ability to go to highschool and get good grades and earn their own way to the top. You don't arrange a special elevator for them.



Why don’t you take the time to find it? Better yet, lets all realize that legacies should be dropped as well eh?



And they're too dumb, too stupid, too incapable, too much of a bunch of dumbasses that they can't look at US News, see what it takes to get in and do it? They need to see other people there first? They're a bunch of sheep who can't do somethign untill someone else does it for them? Who the fuck wants a bunch of sheep in an Ivy League College?



If that impression exists, it is an impression they have created for themselves. It is their responsibility (each of them as individuals. Forget their race, as it matters for jack) to change it.

Well said. Very well-said.

Asians were treated just as badly as blacks. So why the HELL CAn't BLACKS succed.

Simple, it's their fault. That's all.

Hispanics were treated better then both blacks and Asians, and they still do poorly. It's their OWN DAMN FAULT.
Early Chinese and Japanese VOLUNTARILY came here as wage earners. THere were half-assed anti-immigration laws, but Asians were completely free to move wherever they wanted. But blacks' lives were tool for the slave owners profit, and blacks were highly restricted by laws for most of the nation's history. It's ridiculous to compare the condition of Asians in America with blacks. Blacks were horrifically treated, and it is arrogant for Asians to compare their plight with the horrible suffering of black slaves. And I speak as an Asian myself.

Hispanics can't succeed because their culture sucks. I don't oppose AA if it helps in beating the lazy Mexican out of them and instilling in them the Confucian/Protestant work ethic. (half-serious on the last sentence)

Roflmao. This is the worst argument in the world. Go back to your hole troll.

Actually it's not the worst in the world but NEARLY everyone on this list won't engage with the real arguments because they are so redneck they can't understand words more than three sylla.. I mean sounds long and actually need ME to explain terms to them and then go "oh that's to hard might have to think about somehting," that's why I made a facile post for facile people.

Actually, most studies show that AA programs tend to benefit the already priviliged minorities, in other words, upper-middle class ones.

Well, this is partly true.

At the most prestigious universities (as in the study under discussion), it is the upper-middle class minorities who wind up getting in... But on the other hand, lower-class whites are not getting in to these schools either.

For less prestigious schools, the effects of Affirmative Action step down the economic ladder, right along with the economic status of the white student body.

Rather than giving a leg up to those who could actually use it, it gives spots to qualified minority candidates rather than qualified non-minority ones.

Right... which is only fair. Even I would oppose giving a "leg up" to students who are not even qualified to attend the school!!

If we wanted to give people a leg up, we chould do it based on socio-economic status rather than on racial/ethnic status.

Unfortunately, despite the broad overlap between economic hardship and race, studies of "affirmative action" directed along socio-economic rather than racial lines reveal that these programs disproportionately benefit the white poor. The African-American poor still miss out. Of course, I also think the white poor deserve some help. But this should be in addition to racial Affirmative Action at all levels of academic prestige.

While my statement was hyperbole, I do think that my opponents have racist motives for opposing Affirmative Action. I reach this conclusion because, a) their reaction is out of all proportion to the (alleged) "problem"; and b) they have some heavy duty blinders on when it comes to the scientific consensus regarding the effects of racism on African Americans. They remind me of creationists... and when a conversation produces that comparison, I believe I am justified in believing that a certain degree of prejudice must be involved.

You would be incorrect because a mere hatred of the idea of preferential treatment giving to anyone can inspire such treatment. However the important point is, as I noted before, your inability to grasp that a small percentage change in the white or asian population is a large percentage change in the black and hispanic and vice versa. That a mere ~1% change is all that would happen is reason enough to be pissed off. Or in the case of asians a rather big change.

You're still not addressing my point. All you're talking about is historical racism. Unless you can prove widespread and systemic racism in 2005, you don't have much of a case for why affirmative action is needed in 2005, unless you think America just sort of 'owes' it to black people for screwing 'em over for so long. Incidentally, the first Africans to arrive here (the English colonies of the Chesapeake in the 17th century) were indentured servants, not slaves.Okay, how about this one. If your parent's were poor, then you are more likely to be. If your grandparents were poor, then your parents were more likely to be, then you are more likely to be. If your great grandparents were poor... you see where I'm going here.

America is a country built on the back of slave labour. Yes, the US does "owe" something to the black people who created the money for everything else, but that is not the arguement I'm trying to make for affirmative action. The simple fact is that universities recognise that the SATS and GPAs are not sufficient to correctly gauge the potential for how someone will do at college.
They shouldn't be taking on minority students out of some kind of liberal guilt or an attempt to even 'the score', they should take the people who they believe will do best in the years that they are at university. Assessing that accurately requires that you take account of the student's background to some degree.

Early Chinese and Japanese came here as wage earners, completely free to move wherever they wanted. THere were half-assed anti-immigration laws, but the blacks were enslaved, their lives were tool for the slave owners profit, and blacks were highly restricted by laws for most of the nation's history. It's ridiculous to compare the condition of Asians in America with blacks. Blacks were horrifically treated, and it is arrogant for Asians to compare their plight with the horrible suffering of black slaves. And I speak as an Asian myself.

Hispanics can't succeed because their culture sucks. I don't oppose AA if it helps in beating the lazy Mexican out of them and instilling in them the Confucian/Protestant ethic. (half-serious on the last sentence)

The Chinese and Japanese came here in the 1900's.

By that time, the Blacks were freed, and just in the same condition as the Asians.

AND THEY DIDN'T SUCCEED. It's their own fault.

Many black people are successful, and deserve it, but it doesn't shake the point, that many of them don't deserve it, adn the fact that they are failures, is their own fucking damn fault.

is there still some kind of affirmative action for female students? arent there already more women in college than men?

My understanding is that few (if any) schools continue affirmative measures for female students across the board. However, they do have such programs in certain fields (like engineering) in which women continue to be underrepresented.

Actually it's not the worst in the world but NEARLY everyone on this list won't engage with the real arguments because they are so redneck they can't understand words more than three sylla.. I mean sounds long and actually need ME to explain terms to them and then go "oh that's to hard might have to think about somehting," that's why I made a facile post for facile people.
My friend. Never use a large word when a diminutive one will suffice. In this case you spouted off a bunch of hyperbole with no actual argument. Just a bunch of hyperbole. That would be the reason no one bothered with you.

My understanding is that few (if any) schools continue affirmative measures for female students across the board. However, they do have such programs in certain fields (like engineering) in which women continue to be underrepresented.

It's their own damn fault.

If women are stupid enough to buy into the mentality that Women don't need to be educated, it's their own damn fault, and they shouldn't be at college.

My understanding is that few (if any) schools continue affirmative measures for female students across the board. However, they do have such programs in certain fields (like engineering) in which women continue to be underrepresented.

'Underrepresented’, apply in smaller numbers and are overall less qualified... you know... all the same thing.

One last time...Although I shouldn't have to educate you because if you are goping toengage intelligenetly in forums you should know hat you are talking about...

Structural oppression occurs through white privelege and heterosexist societal machinations.

Structural in the term structural oppression refers to a fucntionalist perspective of society developed by Talcott parsons, where certain people are inherently privelged, the structure is maintained through a variety of different machinations such as the law in order to enact homogeneity on society whereby people outside this homogeneity are marginalised and disadvantaged.

Going to engage intelligently in forums? Are you seriously going to lecture me about intelligence? How old are you, like 16 years old? You just picked up your first copy of the Communist Manifesto or Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals or whatever commie-pomo literature you're reading this week and you've decided to talk down to me as your intellectual inferior? If you knew the first THING about political philosophy, you wouldn't ignorantly label your opponent--a person whose ideology you know nothing about--a "conservative." This is also completely hilarious because you've been misspelling the word 'privilege' this entire time and it's been consuming all my strength not to tell you.

THANK YOU for finally, if half-assedly, defining structural oppression. Now please tell me what laws structurally oppress minorities or individuals.

Actually, I was committing hyperbole... I never used it as a serious part of my argument.

No, hyperbole is an exaggeration. You were committing logical fallacies. You attacked the motives of the people you were debating, motives that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether or not they're racist doesn't really matter if they make cogent points, which is why I accused you of ad hominem. I also accused you of strawman because you presented a weaker version of their cases by labeling them bigots without sufficient proof.

While my statement was hyperbole, I do think that my opponents have racist motives for opposing Affirmative Action. I reach this conclusion because, a) their reaction is out of all proportion to the (alleged) "problem"; and b) they have some heavy duty blinders on when it comes to the scientific consensus regarding the effects of racism on African Americans. They remind me of creationists... and when a conversation produces that comparison, I believe I am justified in believing that a certain degree of prejudice must be involved.

I don't think you had the right to call them racists without something more substantive.to support your claim. People can oppose affirmative action quite passionately without racism being a motive. I assume you can support affirmative action without racism factoring into your decision-making promise. It'd be pretty easy for me, as an opponent of AA, to say that you support the policy because you think minorities are too stupid to succeed on their own. But that'd just be stupid of me say without real proof that you believed it. And besides, like I said above, their motives are irrelevant as long as their points are cogent.

Asians were treated just as badly as blacks. So why the HELL CAn't BLACKS succed.

Simple, it's their fault. That's all.

Hispanics were treated better then both blacks and Asians, and they still do poorly. It's their OWN DAMN FAULT.
Blacks are... racially disposed to be lazy, is that it?

The Chinese and Japanese came here in the 1900's.

By that time, the Blacks were freed, and just in the same condition as the Asians.

AND THEY DIDN'T SUCCEED. It's their own fault.

Many black people are successful, and deserve it, but it doesn't shake the point, that many of them don't deserve it, adn the fact that they are failures, is their own fucking damn fault.
The Chinese-built intercontinental railroads were finished in the 1860s. Learn your history. We've been here for quite a while. And Asians have never been targetted by large scale organized discrimination, like the blacks have in the South, where lynchings, beatings, and economic discrimination were even condoned by the police all the way until the 1960s. Asians have had it good out in California.

My friend. Never use a large word when a diminutive one will suffice. In this case you spouted off a bunch of hyperbole with no actual argument. Just a bunch of hyperbole. That would be the reason no one bothered with you.


But you just used diminutive...lol

None of it was hyperbole, sorry there just isn't another word for heterosexism.

Hyperbole in my understanding is deliberate exaggeration for effect...

None of what I said was exaggeration.

Unfortunately, despite the broad overlap between economic hardship and race, studies of "affirmative action" directed along socio-economic rather than racial lines reveal that these programs disproportionately benefit the white poor. The African-American poor still miss out. Of course, I also think the white poor deserve some help. But this should be in addition to racial Affirmative Action at all levels of academic prestige.

Lets see, a method that helps out poor people helps out the white poor disproportionately? And how does it do that? You mean there are more poor whites than anyone else? Well damn....

Affirmative Action is just this generation's Jim Crow Laws, except onto Asians, and partially on Whites, but mostly Asians.

But you just used diminutive...lol

None of it was hyperbole, sorry there just isn't another word for heterosexism.

Hyperbole in my understanding is deliberate exaggeration for effect...

None of what I said was exaggeration.

I could instead just call it Bullshit if you like. But hyperbole is more fun to type.

Okay, how about this one. If your parent's were poor, then you are more likely to be. If your grandparents were poor, then your parents were more likely to be, then you are more likely to be. If your great grandparents were poor... you see where I'm going here.

America is a country built on the back of slave labour. Yes, the US does "owe" something to the black people who created the money for everything else, but that is not the arguement I'm trying to make for affirmative action. The simple fact is that universities recognise that the SATS and GPAs are not sufficient to correctly gauge the potential for how someone will do at college.
They shouldn't be taking on minority students out of some kind of liberal guilt or an attempt to even 'the score', they should take the people who they believe will do best in the years that they are at university. Assessing that accurately requires that you take account of the student's background to some degree.

Thank you. And I agree that grades and standardized tests aren't everything and I'd even agree that consideration of one's background might not be such a bad idea. There's a limit to that, of course, because even though they're not everything, they still are a good indication about your academic potential. What does race really tell you, though? I mean, black people are just as diverse as white people at the individual level. These universities are implementing objective criteria--black people = more points--when the black people applying to the universities might not even consider race as part of their identity. They might have come from more privileged than most white people. I also said this in an earlier post: once you're in high school, if you're not making the grades to get into a good college, then you're probably not academically prepared to handle college. Even if that is a result of historical racism and poverty, you're still not prepared and you shouldn't be let into a university. And if you are prepared for college and you have the grades and the test scores and all the rest to get into a good school, then why do you need an extra boost over the rest of the students? Obviously they succeeded despite any disadvantages that faced them, so let them compete meritocratically.

Blacks are... racially disposed to be lazy, is that it?

Racially? No. Culturally? No.

Blacks work just as hard as the rest of us. Their culture seems to have a strong aversion to 'acting like whitey' and as a consequence they don't seem to direct their efforts towards college, or other 'white' things.

Yes, you point out that white students seem to do better and have more advantages. Can you trace this to racism or could poverty be the factor behind these statistics?

While wealth is a powerful influence on scholastic aptitude, race seems to be an even stronger factor. Regressed for wealth, black students still do worse than white students in school. In other words, poor blacks are worse off the poor whites. Perhaps because poor white schools -- such as the public school I attended in a mostly-impoverished rural area -- still manage to pull in more funds, resulting in smaller classes and better teachers, than poor black schools. (Although I am sure there are other factors as well, such as the fact that racist textbooks -- right down to the pictures they use -- reinforce for blacks that they have little hope of success in the white world. Try doing well in school when the whole world is attacking your academic self-esteem.)

Orangians

I Have never actually read the communist manifesto and re my age I was probably reading before you were in itch in your fathers pants.

Witht that out of the way...

Here's an example of law that oppresses people, banning same -sex marriage, it reinforces a heterosexist society whereby anyone not to playing a part in heterosexual privilege is discriminated against and oppressed.

Is that enough for you? or do you need more EDUCATION shall I INDULGE your fanciful ideas that racism and sexism do not exist

so according to that quote, the only ones who should be personally pissed are the top flight asian applicants. if things were "fair" even fewer white boys would be admitted

Indeed!

Yet I have hardly heard of an Asian American movement to do away with Affirmative Action...

And people wonder why I think the opposition is racist?!

While wealth is a powerful influence on scholastic aptitude, race seems to be an even stronger factor. Regressed for wealth, black students still do worse than white students in school. In other words, poor blacks are worse off the poor whites. Perhaps because poor white schools -- such as the public school I attended in a mostly-impoverished rural area -- still manage to pull in more funds, resulting in smaller classes and better teachers, than poor black schools. (Although I am sure there are other factors as well, such as the fact that racist textbooks -- right down to the pictures they use -- reinforce for blacks that they have little hope of success in the white world. Try doing well in school when the whole world is attacking your academic self-esteem.)

Of course, things would work out if PEOPLE STOPPED FUCKING CARING ABOUT YOUR RACE!

I don't care if your Asian, African, American, Martian, Sithlord, I don't care. It makes no difference. You should get no special treatment just because you look different.

It's as stupid and petty as giving preferences to people with a certain eye color, a certain length penis, or maybe depending on how long their nose is. It's just as stupid and petty as that.

Blacks are... racially disposed to be lazy, is that it?
There is so much bull crap on this thread it is insane. This is just an example. You just called him racist. Do you actually think he is a racist, or can you not argue the point?

Race doesn’t exist. It has been concluded that, in the United States, the average black man has somewhere around twenty percent of his DNA from European origins. Think about that. Think about the fact that I could be more genetically similar to a black guy than a white guy. Race isn’t real. It is a fabrication of society, and until everybody stops endorsing it, from affirmative action supporters to racists of all stripes, we will continue to have the same problems that we have always had.

And you know what, they were making GREAT progress. Really really good progress.

That is until organized crime and drug-lords made it possible for black gangs in ghettos to make a moderate living selling crack... and the glamorization of said job in the communities itself and on and on the downward spiral went. Sucks for them. Why have sympathy for a 'group' of people when given the chance fucked it up? People today rise and fall based on their own merits. If they're not strong enough to make it out of the culture they grew up in, too bad.
Two guys have a race. One of them runs a hundred metres along the flat, the other runs a hundred metres up a hill. The second guy gets to the post a half second behind the first guy. Who would you pick for your running team? If someone beats poverty, drugs, going to the worst schools and more often than not the death of a friend or family member and ends up only a couple of SAT points behind a guy who didn't have to deal with any of that, who do you think has better potential to suceed? We're not talking about sending crack dealers to college, these students are only just a very little bit less qualified than their counterparts, but clearly are at least as brilliant or driven.

Racially? No. Culturally? No.

Blacks work just as hard as the rest of us. Their culture seems to have a strong aversion to 'acting like whitey' and as a consequence they don't seem to direct their efforts towards college, or other 'white' things.

Why is college a 'white thing,' your level of racism is astounding

Orangians

I Have never actually read the communist manifesto and re my age I was probably reading before you were in itch in your fathers pants.

Witht that out of the way...

Here's an example of law that oppresses people, banning same -sex marriage, it reinforces a heterosexist society whereby anyone not to playing a part in heterosexual privilege is discriminated against and oppressed.

Is that enough for you? or do you need more EDUCATION shall I INDULGE your fanciful ideas that racism and sexism do not exist

How the hell is discriminating against Homosexuals racist or sexist? I'm for Homosexual Rights, but Homosexuals isn't a Race, nor a Sex.

Two guys have a race. One of them runs a hundred metres along the flat, the other runs a hundred metres up a hill. The second guy gets to the post a half second behind the first guy. Who would you pick for your running team? If someone beats poverty, drugs, going to the worst schools and more often than not the death of a friend or family member and ends up only a couple of SAT points behind a guy who didn't have to deal with any of that, who do you think has better potential to suceed? We're not talking about sending crack dealers to college, these students are only just a very little bit less qualified than their counterparts, but clearly are at least as brilliant or driven.

280 fucking SAT points is not a little.

It's a huge amount.

About 100 times people get a 1320, then a 1600.

Orangians

I Have never actually read the communist manifesto and re my age I was probably reading before you were in itch in your fathers pants.

Witht that out of the way...

Here's an example of law that oppresses people, banning same -sex marriage, it reinforces a heterosexist society whereby anyone not to playing a part in heterosexual privilege is discriminated against and oppressed.

So they can't enter into a contract with the government that forces them to give up half their stuff to their partner when they break up? Good for them. The government shouldn't be involved in Marriage in the first place.

Is that enough for you? or do you need more EDUCATION shall I INDULGE your fanciful ideas that racism and sexism do not exist

Racism virtually doesn't exist, and sexism also virtually doesn't exist. And where it does it gets sued to hell instantly.

How the hell is discriminating against Homosexuals racist or sexist? I'm for Homosexual Rights, but Homosexuals isn't a Race, nor a Sex.

Again you said asked me for any law that oppressed a minority, I gave you one, won't admit defeat but pull out some hearty diatribe.

If you think minorities don't score as well on tests or earn very good grades, then whether or not those two are true as a result of poverty or racism, the fact is that they're probably not academically prepared for college, especially the ivy league.

If that were true, you would see them dropping (or failing) out... which is not the case.

The fact is that, as the article explains, universities begin with a qualified applicant pool -- but one larger than the class they are prepared to admit. Affirmative Action occurs in the selection process after the determination of merit.

I think if you're going to do anything to curb racism and poverty, you'll have to start at the elementary school level.

I agree. But there is no reason to stop there.

So they can't enter into a contract with the government that forces them to give up half their stuff to their partner when they break up? Good for them. The government shouldn't be involved in Marriage in the first place.



Racism virtually doesn't exist, and sexism also virtually doesn't exist. And where it does it gets sued to hell instantly.

Yep, and look privilege doesn't exist nor do computers, I'm hoping this is ironic or post-modernist, or are you that stupid?

There is so much bull crap on this thread it is insane. This is just an example. You just called him racist. Do you actually think he is a racist, or can you not argue the point?
Read what he posted, the question is far from unjustified. I haven't called anyone a racist here.

The overall trend may be that Hispanic and/or African American students score lower on average, but this is likely a combination of test-inherent bias and poor schools.

Yep.

Yep, and look privilege doesn't exist nor do computers, I'm hoping this is ironic or post-modernist, or are you that stupid?

The only thing keeping Racism from going away, is Affirmative Action, by inflaming Racial Tensions.

It sure did it for me.

Whenever I think of Affirminative Action, I get a little and possibly a little more Racist. And I normally aren't.

Orangians

I Have never actually read the communist manifesto and re my age I was probably reading before you were in itch in your fathers pants.

Witht that out of the way...

Here's an example of law that oppresses people, banning same -sex marriage, it reinforces a heterosexist society whereby anyone not to playing a part in heterosexual privilege is discriminated against and oppressed.

Is that enough for you? or do you need more EDUCATION shall I INDULGE your fanciful ideas that racism and sexism do not exist

If you're older than I am, then your education did you a disservice. You spell horribly and your thinking is, well, cluttered. It's hard to follow you because you're all over the place. I maintain what I said before: I think you're about 16 years old and you're just starting to become interested in the world around you. That's great, you know, I wish everyone your age were so passionate about politics and philosophy, but don't condescend to me when you're still clearly not up to the challenge of this debate.

1. I never said sexism or racism didn't exist. I challenged you to explain structural racism/oppression. 2. You successfully named a structurally oppressive law, but I notice you had to venture into sexism - an issue we haven't even discussed yet. Again, I'm not a conservative, so please don't assume I'm pro-sexism or anti-gay marriage. Hell, even if I were a conservative, still don't assume it. 3. Now that you've explained structural racism and named something structurally oppressive, maybe we can get down to the real issue: tell me a law that's structurally *racist.* I'd like to keep within the focus of the debate, please.

Also, stop insulting me and my intelligence. I really, really don't want to get mean.

Read what he posted, the question is far from unjustified. I haven't called anyone a racist here.

He meant Grayshness.

He called me a Racist. He's partially correct, but only because of Affirminative Action.

Indeed!

Yet I have hardly heard of an Asian American movement to do away with Affirmative Action...

And people wonder why I think the opposition is racist?!
Well then you've been in the wrong circles. AA is almost universally hated by Asians, my parents are always complaining about the black kids who get it so easy, and so does every Asian parent. But Asians are culturally not disposed to organizing large political movements, that's why we don't run for office that much. Asian kids are told to suck it in after high school, go to State U., and go to a good grad school, where AA disappears without a trace and all the lazy bums gets kicked out because grant money is on the line and performance matters.

Oh, and don't think you whites have the monopoly on racism. People in China who don't speak a word of ENglish will say to avoid the black neighborhoods in America. In today's world at least, East Asians are master practitioners of racism, the white man doesn't even come close. ;)

280 fucking SAT points is not a little.

It's a huge amount.

About 100 times people get a 1320, then a 1600.
Yeah, but you'd still be pissy if it was ten SATS points, so what difference does it make? I'm in favour of the most accurate gauging of potential. I don't know how exactly that's to be calculated, but we're talking a little more abstractly than that here.

If that were true, you would see them dropping (or failing) out... which is not the case.

The fact is that, as the article explains, universities begin with a qualified applicant pool -- but one larger than the class they are prepared to admit. Affirmative Action occurs in the selection process after the determination of merit.

And that matters somehow "Oh, I got a letter that said I wasn't accepted, but they felt I merited place, just didn't have enough room for me since they wanted some more black students." Yeah, people would love getting that letter.

I agree. But there is no reason to stop there.

There's no reason to let people in who only get a place because of their race. If the schools decide that they have more candidates that merit a place than places they need to start rolling the dice and selecting students at random.

If that were true, you would see them dropping (or failing) out... which is not the case.

The fact is that, as the article explains, universities begin with a qualified applicant pool -- but one larger than the class they are prepared to admit. Affirmative Action occurs in the selection process after the determination of merit.



I agree. But there is no reason to stop there.

But that's exactly what I said. If they're qualified enough to get into the ivy league or college on their own, then let them compete meritocratically. If they're not qualified enough to get into college on their own, then they're probably not academically prepared for the demands of college.

Read what he posted, the question is far from unjustified. I haven't called anyone a racist here.
It was suggested. You know he wasn’t saying that, yet you made that comment just to be difficult.
I did read what he posted. He was criticizing black culture, a culture of self-destruction that they posses because they think they are supposed to be that way because they believe in a nonexistent concept of race. The concept their culture is based on is no different from the concept that the kkk is based on.

Well then you've been in the wrong circles. AA is almost universally hated by Asians, my parents are always complaining about the black kids who get it so easy, and so does every Asian parent. But Asians are culturally not disposed to organizing large political movements, that's why we don't run for office that much. Asian kids are told to suck it in after high school, go to State U., and go to a good grad school, where AA disappears without a trace and all the lazy bums gets kicked out because grant money is on the line and performance matters.

Oh, and don't think you whites have the monopoly on racism. People in China who don't speak a word of ENglish will say to avoid the black neighborhoods in America. In today's world at least, East Asians are master practitioners of racism, the white man doesn't even come close. ;)

They're sadly right. YOU DO WANT TO AVOID THE BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS.

It's not because their black. It's just because Black Neiborhoods have tons of crime and stupid people. They'd say the same if it was the same with White Neighborhoods, Russian Neibhorhoods, and etc. etc. It's simple Pragmatiscm.

He meant Grayshness.
Well he quoted me

Affirminative Action is the Physical Manifestation of Satan.

DAMN YOU AFFIRMINATIVE ACTION! If it wasn't for you, we'd still be in the damn Garden of Eden.

DAMN YOU TO HELL!

Oh wait...that didn't make sense.

There's nothing racist about criticizing a culture. All cultures have positives and negatives, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all cultures are equal. For example, a culture that devalues life I would consider problematic at the least.

Since when was a 12 or 1300 impressive? Are you on mushrooms or something? If I had gotten a 1300 I would of been rightly pissed off.

I too would have been disappointed in myself... but clearly we both have high expectations.

The test is designed so that the median score is 1000. Even at Princeton, the median score is 1360... which would put 1200-1300 in the lower range at Princeton, but that is in itself quite impressive.

There's nothing racist about criticizing a culture. All cultures have positives and negatives, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all cultures are equal. For example, a culture that devalues life I would consider problematic at the least.

Yes. It's nothing genetic. Genetic differences between races? BS.

Black Culture is inferior. I'll say that. It deserves to flop. Black Culture hurts blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and just everyone. I'm sorry if I sound racist, but it's the blunt truth.

I too would have been disappointed in myself... but clearly we both have high expectations.

The test is designed so that the median score is 1000. Even at Princeton, the median score is 1360... which would put 1200-1300 in the lower range at Princeton, but that is in itself quite impressive.

Yeah. But tons of Asians get in the high 1580's, but still get rejected from most schools. I know tons of guys like that. simple. It's just not possible to succeed as an Asian today, because of Affirminative Action.

I got a fucking 1350 in 8th grade. If I was Black, I would have gotten into Harvard before High School.

You might have gotten in to Harvard anyway. I can guarantee you that there are white students there right now who earned a 1350 on the SAT.

If you're older than I am, then your education did you a disservice. You spell horribly and your thinking is, well, cluttered. It's hard to follow you because you're all over the place. I maintain what I said before: I think you're about 16 years old and you're just starting to become interested in the world around you. That's great, you know, I wish everyone your age were so passionate about politics and philosophy, but don't condescend to me when you're still clearly not up to the challenge of this debate.

1. I never said sexism or racism didn't exist. I challenged you to explain structural racism/oppression. 2. You successfully named a structurally oppressive law, but I notice you had to venture into sexism - an issue we haven't even discussed yet. Again, I'm not a conservative, so please don't assume I'm pro-sexism or anti-gay marriage. Hell, even if I were a conservative, still don't assume it. 3. Now that you've explained structural racism and named something structurally oppressived,

OPPRESSIVED WHO SPELLS HORRIBLY? HOW IRONIC!

THE CONCEPT OF PRIVILEGE WHICH I HOPE DOESN'T REQUIRE FURTHER EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES SOME OVER OTHERS.

maybe we can get down to the real issue: tell me a law that's structurally *racist.* I'd like to keep within the focus of the debate, please.

I AM ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE IN AMERICA, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXMAPLE OF A STRUCTURALLY OPPRESSIVE RACIST LAW IN AUSTRALIA.

IN NORTHERN QLD THERE ARE "DRY AREAS" AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRINK THERE. BUT ONE OF OUR OWN WHITE POLITICANS DRANK WINE THERE WITHOUT LEGAL RECOURSE.

IF I KNEW THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM BETTER OR COULD BE ASSED INVESTIGATING IT I WOULD GIVE YOU AN AMERICAN EXAMPLE

I HOPE NOW YOU GET IT UNFORTUNATELY IT TAKES A WHILE TO SINK IN CLEARLY

SECONDLY, REFERRING TO SEXISM WHILST TALKING ABOUT HETEROSEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA OR RACISM IS NOT A PROBLEM AS THEY ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE PATRIARCHY, IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER EXPLANATION LET ME KNOW.

FINALLY WITH REGARDS TO MY SPELLING, I JUST TYPE FAST AND I AMS ORRY FOR THAT BUT CLEARLY IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF YOU UNDERSTOOD SUFFICIENTLY TO COME UP WITH MORE RHETORIC.

You might have gotten in to Harvard anyway. I can guarantee you that there are white students there right now who earned a 1350 on the SAT.

I know tons of kids with 1600. Where I live, a 1600 is nothing special.

No student has ever gone to the Ivy League.

At least none of the Asian Students, despite 8/10 of the kids wtih a 1600 is Asian.

You might have gotten in to Harvard anyway. I can guarantee you that there are white students there right now who earned a 1350 on the SAT.
Are their daddy’s oil magnates? :p

It was suggested. You know he wasn’t saying that, yet you made that comment just to be difficult.
I did read what he posted. He was criticizing black culture, a culture of <snip>
No, he wasn't. Not in the post that I quoted anyway. And I don't much care for you telling me why I say what I do. If he doesn't think its about poverty or discrimination or other environmental factors, then what's left is genetics, unless you can point out something I've not thought of. And its still the case that I didn't call him a racist.

Yes. It's nothing genetic. Genetic differences between races? BS.

Black Culture is inferior. I'll say that. It deserves to flop. Black Culture hurts blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and just everyone. I'm sorry if I sound racist, but it's the blunt truth.

Race is a concept I don't really buy into a whole lot. Genetically speaking, the biggest 'racial' differences are in humans' phenotypes, not genotypes. And for non-biology nerds, that means our biggest racial differences are the things we can see, like skin color, hair, and facial features. Besides a few regionally specific diseases, like sickle cell anemia and malaria, there's nothing substantively different between Africans, Asians, and Caucasians. There are culture differences, but they don't always coincide with what some people would call 'race.'

However the important point is, as I noted before, your inability to grasp that a small percentage change in the white or asian population is a large percentage change in the black and hispanic and vice versa.

As I pointed out before, that is the point of the article. I am still mystified by your reluctance to deal with the fact that Affirmative Action barely affects white applicants, rather than making the "HUGE" difference that the thread-starter claims.

That a mere ~1% change is all that would happen is reason enough to be pissed off. Or in the case of asians a rather big change.

Then why are the opponents of Affirmative Action so predominantly white? If "fairness" were the real issue, I should think that Asian-American organizations would be leading the charge!!

If you're older than I am, then your education did you a disservice. You spell horribly and your thinking is, well, cluttered. It's hard to follow you because you're all over the place. I maintain what I said before: I think you're about 16 years old and you're just starting to become interested in the world around you. That's great, you know, I wish everyone your age were so passionate about politics and philosophy, but don't condescend to me when you're still clearly not up to the challenge of this debate.

1. I never said sexism or racism didn't exist. I challenged you to explain structural racism/oppression. 2. You successfully named a structurally oppressive law, but I notice you had to venture into sexism - an issue we haven't even discussed yet. Again, I'm not a conservative, so please don't assume I'm pro-sexism or anti-gay marriage. Hell, even if I were a conservative, still don't assume it. 3. Now that you've explained structural racism and named something structurally oppressived,

OPPRESSIVED WHO SPELLS HORRIBLY? HOW IRONIC!

THE CONCEPT OF PRIVILEGE WHICH I HOPE DOESN'T REQUIRE FURTHER EXPLANATION ADVANTAGES SOME OVER OTHERS.

maybe we can get down to the real issue: tell me a law that's structurally *racist.* I'd like to keep within the focus of the debate, please.

I AM ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE IN AMERICA, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXMAPLE OF A STRUCTURALLY OPPRESSIVE RACIST LAW IN AUSTRALIA.

IN NORTHERN QLD THERE ARE "DRY AREAS" AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRINK THERE. BUT ONE OF OUR OWN WHITE POLITICANS DRANK WINE THERE WITHOUT LEGAL RECOURSE.

IF I KNEW THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM BETTER OR COULD BE ASSED INVESTIGATING IT I WOULD GIVE YOU AN AMERICAN EXAMPLE

I HOPE NOW YOU GET IT UNFORTUNATELY IT TAKES A WHILE TO SINK IN CLEARLY

SECONDLY, REFERRING TO SEXISM WHILST TALKING ABOUT HETEROSEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA OR RACISM IS NOT A PROBLEM AS THEY ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE PATRIARCHY, IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER EXPLANATION LET ME KNOW.

FINALLY WITH REGARDS TO MY SPELLING, I JUST TYPE FAST AND I AMS ORRY FOR THAT BUT CLEARLY IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF YOU UNDERSTOOD SUFFICIENTLY TO COME UP WITH MORE RHETORIC.

"OppressiveD" was a typo, not a spelling error. I know the difference enough to see that you're not just making typos like I made. Yes, I'm American and I believe that structural racism exists in Australia, but this debate is about American universities, therefore I expect the discussion of structural racism to address the American system. Yeah, I know the argument about patriarchy and blah blah blah blah. I'm done with you. I can't handle this B.S. anymore.

I too would have been disappointed in myself... but clearly we both have high expectations.

The test is designed so that the median score is 1000. Even at Princeton, the median score is 1360... which would put 1200-1300 in the lower range at Princeton, but that is in itself quite impressive.

Well Princeton has always been the dog of the Ivy League... However a 1360 is the median score. And the average was? 1360 median, average of 1450 isn't that hard to make happen.

Yeah. But tons of Asians get in the high 1580's, but still get rejected from most schools. I know tons of guys like that. simple. It's just not possible to succeed as an Asian today, because of Affirminative Action.
Its a mark of absurdity that you consider the only possibility or proof of sucess as acceptance into an Ivy League school. Especially when you just did three pages on the achievements of asian immigrants who never went to college.

Does anyone know who Sho Yano is?

Sho Yano was an Asian-American, who reputedely has the highest I.Q. in the entire known world. (far exceeding 200)

Despite that, he was unable to enter any prestigious college. Wonder why, *cough* Affirminative Action *cough*

Does anyone know who Sho Yano is?

Sho Yano was an Asian-American, who reputedely has the highest I.Q. in the entire known world. (far exceeding 200)

Despite that, he was unable to enter any prestigious college. Wonder why, *cough* Affirminative Action *cough*
Just did a quick google search on Sho Yano. He's currently enrolled in the University of Chicago's school of medicine, at age 14.

See? Exactly. If he wasn't Asian, he would have gotten into any college he wanted to, and PLUS, he would have been well-knowned. But pity, he's Asian, so no one cares.

"OppressiveD" was a typo, not a spelling error. I know the difference enough to see that you're not just making typos like I made. Yes, I'm American and I believe that structural racism exists in Australia, but this debate is about American universities, therefore I expect the discussion of structural racism to address the American system. Yeah, I know the argument about patriarchy and blah blah blah blah. I'm done with you. I can't handle this B.S. anymore.


Why can't you handle it?

Because it's the truth!


RACIST AMERICAN LAWS: INVESTIGATE PROPOSITION 200 IN ARIZONA PAST ONLY 8 MONTHS AGO

This will limit access to university for hispanics...mu hu ha ha ha... I win and all it took was 5 minutes research

Does anyone know who Sho Yano is?

Sho Yano was an Asian-American, who reputedely has the highest I.Q. in the entire known world. (far exceeding 200)

Despite that, he was unable to enter any prestigious college. Wonder why, *cough* Affirminative Action *cough*Wow, that argument was so full of shit. Do you know how many MENSA members are college dropouts or unemployed? IQ is a really very poor predictor of conventional sucess. Its a pretty poor predictor of intelligence as well, but that's not important. Also, is this Sho Yano the one at the University of Chicago? Four years before you'd expect someone to go to college? It would hardly be stunning evidence of anti-asian discrimination if a 14 year old wasn't admitted to college I think.

Why can't you handle it?

Because it's the truth!


RACIST AMERICAN LAWS!

Yes. America is very racist. Blacks and Hispanics are constantly discriminating against Whites and Asians.

There is so much bull crap on this thread it is insane. This is just an example. You just called him racist. Do you actually think he is a racist, or can you not argue the point?

Race doesn’t exist. It has been concluded that, in the United States, the average black man has somewhere around twenty percent of his DNA from European origins. Think about that. Think about the fact that I could be more genetically similar to a black guy than a white guy. Race isn’t real. It is a fabrication of society, and until everybody stops endorsing it, from affirmative action supporters to racists of all stripes, we will continue to have the same problems that we have always had.
race might not exist but racism certainly does.

See? Exactly. If he wasn't Asian, he would have gotten into any college he wanted to, and PLUS, he would have been well-knowned. But pity, he's Asian, so no one cares.
Nobody would care even if he was white. Nobody cares about these things. Besides, there are plenty of prodigies, of all colors, at no name colleges.

Also, the best schools don't like to take in these child prodigies because 1.) these are unpredictable people who often burn out before they're 25 years old, and 2.) they are woefully immature socially.

As I pointed out before, that is the point of the article. I am still mystified by your reluctance to deal with the fact that Affirmative Action barely affects white applicants, rather than making the "HUGE" difference that the thread-starter claims.

Huge is conditionaly to whether you or not you want to accept that even 1, just one person, being displaced because of racism is huge or not.

Then why are the opponents of Affirmative Action so predominantly white? If "fairness" were the real issue, I should think that Asian-American organizations would be leading the charge!!

Asians are pissed off.

i personally think affirmative action is complete bullshit. isnt racism supposed to be over? arent black people calling for equality? oh i guess they dont care when they are being favored. college acceptance should be based purely on performance and i guess people playing sports. but there should be absolutely no favoritism based on color. think about how much of an outrage there would be if a primarily black college did the same thing with holding out smarter black people for dumber white people.

the elite colleges should accept people based on performance and skills not on color. racism is supposed to be over. i shouldnt be kicked out of school because im not the "right" color.

Yes. America is very racist. Blacks and Hispanics are constantly discriminating against Whites and Asians.


Racism is not just discrimination, my terd.

Racism is about systematic privilege.

The only thing keeping Racism from going away, is Affirmative Action, by inflaming Racial Tensions.

Riiiight.... By that logic, I suppose that Civil Rights business of the 60s made things worse, because it sure did inflame racial tensions!!

When the oppressed stand up to demand equality, they will always "inflame" the oppressor. It's a hell of a lot better than standing there to take it.

He meant Grayshness.

He called me a Racist. He's partially correct, but only because of Affirminative Action.
so knowing that if things were "fair" less white kids would get in and more asian kids would get in really pisses you off?

yes and right now the white people are being oppressed

this is for the post above the one above this

Then why are the opponents of Affirmative Action so predominantly white? If "fairness" were the real issue, I should think that Asian-American organizations would be leading the charge!!
Asians do hate AA, as much as whites do. But as I've said before, Asians in general are culturally not keen on organizing political initiatives cuz that goddamn Confucius told us to keep our heads down and respect the authorities. I can't even name any prominent Asian-American organization off the top of my head. There's lots of political apathy going on in the asian community, and there's also the pervasive Confucian belief that as long as we keep our mouths shut and work our asses off in school and on the job, somehow the world will inevitably treat us right in the end. (But no matter how many times my people try to straighten me up, I keep on being a lazy motherfucker.)

Also, as i've said before, I think the issue here is neither racism nor fairness. It is pure selfishness. No matter what our color, most of us want things to go our way. I'd bet that most people wouldn't mind having an AA program that benefits just them at the expense of everyone else including people of their race. There is no central ideology of racism or fairness motivating most people in the AA debate. It's just about selfishly getting ahead with the least difficulty.

Riiiight.... By that logic, I suppose that Civil Rights business of the 60s made things worse, because it sure did inflame racial tensions!!

When the oppressed stand up to demand equality, they will always "inflame" the oppressor. It's a hell of a lot better than standing there to take it.


SNAPS TO THAT

Asian kids are told to suck it in after high school, go to State U., and go to a good grad school, where AA disappears without a trace and all the lazy bums gets kicked out because grant money is on the line and performance matters.

Really? Because I happen to know for a fact that I was not admitted to one graduate program due to diversity considerations. (I got in to others -- my first choice in fact -- so it was no hardship for me. Of course, this is almost always the case with qualified white and Asian applicants who are displaced due to Affirmative Action: we have plenty of other options.)

so knowing that if things were "fair" less white kids would get in and more asian kids would get in really pisses you off?

Well it pisses me off that less asians are getting in because more whites are...

and as noted earlier, I'm white. Damn.... weird ol me. Not thinking in terms of race...

yes and right now the white people are being oppressed

Black Americans can't oppress white Americans as white Americans hold the power you idiot, just like poor people can't oppress rich people or women can't oppress men.

Wake up!

And that matters somehow "Oh, I got a letter that said I wasn't accepted, but they felt I merited place, just didn't have enough room for me since they wanted some more black students." Yeah, people would love getting that letter.

It's no worse than "Oh, I got a letter that said I wasn't accepted, while they felt I merited admission, but they didn't have enough room for me because they wanted some more athletes." If fairness is the issue, you'll have to start there.

As a university instructor, I can tell you that it is much easier to tell which white students were accepted due to athletic preference than it is to tell which minority students benefited from Affirmative Action.

If the schools decide that they have more candidates that merit a place than places they need to start rolling the dice and selecting students at random.

That's utter nonsense. Given a qualified applicant pool, the university has every reason to make decisions based on producing a diverse campus community. Once individual merit has been satisfied -- they are all qualified individuals -- there is no reason to ignore communitarian concerns. They want the best campus community possible, not the most random one.

All should heave a sigh of relief I am moving on to less racist pastures...

Have a nice day

Really? Because I happen to know for a fact that I was not admitted to one graduate program due to diversity considerations. (I got in to others -- my first choice in fact -- so it was no hardship for me. Of course, this is almost always the case with qualified white and Asian applicants who are displaced due to Affirmative Action: we have plenty of other options.)
Probably because you are majoring in the liberal arts. In which case I don't know how your side works, but the vast vast majority of Asian college kids go into the hard sciences, and in the hard sciences AA does not exist, period. Principal Investigators tear out their hair trying to eke every last penny out of NIH for grant money, and the only consideration about who to hire to work that million dollar remote surgery device is knowledge and ability. Walk into any science lab in the country and 90% of the folks are white Jews, south Indians, or Chinese. That's because Jewish, Indian, Chinese cultures are obsessed with education in general and memorizing math equations in particular.

Yeah. But tons of Asians get in the high 1580's, but still get rejected from most schools. I know tons of guys like that. simple. It's just not possible to succeed as an Asian today, because of Affirminative Action.

What utter nonsense!!

Just look at the extremely high acceptance rate of Asian Americans at every major university!!

First of all, even if this were racism -- which it is not -- whites are in no position to be up on a high horse about it!!Why not? We are affected by it, however 'marginally', and have as much a right to an opinion on it as anyone else.

The fact is that racism involves discrimination designed to disenfranchise someone on the basis of race. But no one is trying to hurt anyone for being white... So they promote others who might be less qualified over them solely based on race, not merit. Yeah, it doesn't hurt them at all. Of course not. (sarcasm)

Rather, they are doing their best to correct an historical injustice...What precise injustice has happened to the majority of black people applying for colleges (18-25yo or so)? They certainly never experienced slavery, and I've no intention of pretending they did so. I've personally never treated blacks or other minorities any different from whites. I *owe* them nothing more than for them to be treated the same as I treat everyone.

AA = racism.

It's no worse than "Oh, I got a letter that said I wasn't accepted, while they felt I merited admission, but they didn't have enough room for me because they wanted some more athletes." If fairness is the issue, you'll have to start there.

Eh yes and no.... schools value their sports teams greatly and most schools are private institutions. I don't have a problem with them making allowances for scholarship athletics. Well, if its a public university I do. A private one ultimately makes its own choices.

As a university instructor, I can tell you that it is much easier to tell which white students were accepted due to athletic preference than it is to tell which minority students benefited from Affirmative Action.

Uh, so what?

That's utter nonsense. Given a qualified applicant pool, the university has every reason to make decisions based on producing a diverse campus community. Once individual merit has been satisfied -- they are all qualified individuals -- there is no reason to ignore communitarian concerns. They want the best campus community possible, not the most random one.

And I thought we all agreed that being black didn't change anything about you other than your skin color and thus didn't matter a damned? I go back to what I said earlier. Diversity of thought and action matters. Diversity of skin color means jack shit and is a bullshit method.

I know tons of kids with 1600. Where I live, a 1600 is nothing special.

Then you live in an extremely unusual neighborhood.

Or you're lying.

Or your friends have lied to you.

No student has ever gone to the Ivy League.

Well, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Statistically speaking, if they all applied to Ivy League schools (and their grades reflect the same high scores), it would be almost impossible for no one amongst "tons of kids with 1600" on the SAT to be utterly excluded from the Ivy League schools. 1600 is high even there. (The highest median score for any Ivy League school is about 1500.)

Of course, it is also possible they did not apply. I got a 1550 on the SAT, well within the Ivy League range, but since I was not anticipating much in the way of financial aid... I didn't bother. I would not have been able to afford it without MASSIVE loans, and I already had an offer for a free education at a less prestigious institution.

And everything worked out just fine by grad school. ;)

Are their daddy’s oil magnates? :p

Oh, if Daddy is an oil magnate, one never takes a test... The College Board just sends in your "scores" wrapped inside a giant check. ;)

Well Princeton has always been the dog of the Ivy League... However a 1360 is the median score. And the average was? 1360 median, average of 1450 isn't that hard to make happen.

What difference would it make? The median is the better measure. (People on these forums really need a lesson in basic statistics.)

Besides which, I strongly suspect that the average is lower than the median. Ivy League schools are likely to accept a large number of high scores, then to make exceptions for a few "extremely" low scores. This would result in a negative skew -- meaning a mean lower than the median.

What difference would it make? The median is the better measure. (People on these forums really need a lesson in basic statistics.)

It would make a very large difference. You need to go back and take stats again I'm afraid. The Median and the Mean are useful in different places at different times.

100 scores of 1350
1 of 1360
100 of 1600.

Median is... oh yes, 1360.
Mean is... well you can see how it would change I'm sure.

Besides which, I strongly suspect that the average is lower than the median. Ivy League schools are likely to accept a large number of high scores, then to make exceptions for a few "extremely" low scores. This would result in a negative skew -- meaning a mean lower than the median.

Perhaps you could find it? I'm not coughing up cash to get the US News online account.

Eh yes and no.... schools value their sports teams greatly and most schools are private institutions. I don't have a problem with them making allowances for scholarship athletics.

Well, schools also value their diversity greatly, and most schools are private institutions. I guess that's the end of the discussion... right?

Uh, so what?

My point is that it is, in my experience as an instructor, the athletic teams who turn "merit" on its head. When I teach, I figure out within a week which students are in my class, not because they belong in college, but because they can hit a ball. On the other hand, I have very rarely encountered a minority student that caused me to think he/she did not belong in college, and might be there due to Affirmative Action... on the few times that this thought has occurred to me, it turned out that the student in question was a jock, too.

Well, schools also value their diversity greatly, and most schools are private institutions. I guess that's the end of the discussion... right?

Not quite because we as a society have decided its illegal for private institutions to discrimiante based on race or sexual orientation. You can call up the Boy Scouts and most of Corporate America for references.

My point is that it is, in my experience as an instructor, the athletic teams who turn "merit" on its head. When I teach, I figure out within a week which students are in my class, not because they belong in college, but because they can hit a ball. On the other hand, I have very rarely encountered a minority student that caused me to think he/she did not belong in college, and might be there due to Affirmative Action... on the few times that this thought has occurred to me, it turned out that the student in question was a jock, too.

Or perhaps its because as noted the only people AA is actually 'helping' are middle class minorities anyway, without helping the poor much at all. You can do just as well at Harvard with a 1250 as a student with a 1500. But a Student with a 1350 should probably have been admitted over that 1250 anyway. Besides, ‘C’ work is ‘should be in college’ right?

It would make a very large difference. You need to go back and take stats again I'm afraid.

No... You do. In a skewed distribution, the median is always the better measure of the "average" individual in a population.

Of course, people get confused because statisticians use two different meanings of the word "average." On the one hand, the "average" is used as a synonym for the mean. But when one refers to "the average individual", one means something quite different.

Basically, the question is this:

If I were to pick a student at random, and I wanted to guess her/his SAT score, what should I guess in order to have the best chance of guessing very close to her/his score?

In other words, what does the average (commonly found) member of this population look like?

The median, since it is not affected by extreme scores on either side, is the "best guess." It tells me more about what the "average student" looks like. There is a reason that medians are published rather than means.

100 scores of 1350
1 of 1360
100 of 1600.

Median is... oh yes, 1360.
Mean is... well you can see how it would change I'm sure.

Find me a applicant pool that looks like that, and we'll talk. Actually, better to leave me out of it, since you wouldn't want me to steal your discovery: a distribution that violates every statistical likelihood one can possibly imagine.

My guess (admittedly, just a guess) that the mean SAT score of an incoming class is probably lower than the median is based on what I know about the population in question, and the policies of the school. They are likely to take as many high-scoring students as they can, while making exceptions for only a few students on the low end.

Your "example" is based on pure fantasy.

I cannot find (on a cursory search) average scores for Princeton.

I have however found averages and medians for the University of Pennsylvania.

Median: 1400.
Mean: 1383.

As I suspected, the mean is lower, indicating a negative skew.

;)

Perhaps more importantly, since we can assume that U of P has more than a few students who scored 1600 on the test, we can conclude that the lower range of scores extends below 1200.

Not quite because we as a society have decided its illegal for private institutions to discrimiante based on race or sexual orientation. You can call up the Boy Scouts and most of Corporate America for references.

Actually, the Boy Scouts got away with it.

Also, I suggest you look up the term "invidious discrimination," which is what is at issue. Discrimination for perfectly good reasons is also perfectly legal. So, the argument gets back to whether or not universities have a "good reason," not whether what they do can be referred to with the term "discrimination."

So, back to the fray!

You can do just as well at Harvard with a 1250 as a student with a 1500. But a Student with a 1350 should probably have been admitted over that 1250 anyway.

Not necessarily. With the exception of law school admissions, any admissions personnel (not to mention psychologist) will tell you that the numbers are not that helpful. If there were such a big difference between 1250 and 1350, the schools would just set their minimum qualifications higher.

But they don't. For the most part, college admissions works like this:

Step One: Everyone with extremely high scores is admitted. For instance, a school might decide that anyone with 1560 SAT and up, with straight A's in the top 5% of their high school class, gets in automatically. (Hence my suspicion that some posters' claims that 1600's are not being admitted may be... well, full of shit.)

Step Two: Set minimum qualification numbers. These, for an Ivy League School, will be down around 1200 SAT and an 'A/B' average in high school. Now the school has a set of "qualified" candidates, which is much larger than the class they are prepared to admit.

Step Three: Pick out most of the class. In this stage, scores still matter... but not as much. The reason is that, after deciding that all of these students are "qualified," score differences within this range are no longer a very good indicator of who will be the best student. So, they introduce other factors as well. Among these is a desire for geographical diversity, which may "unfairly" hurt local or regional students, who apply in disproportionate numbers. Schools may also want students with a variety of interests... some members of drama clubs, some yearbook editors, (yes, some athletes), and so on. And, you guessed it, if a lot of musical people applied that year, then band members are going to have some unfair competition. Among these considerations are race and ethnicity.

Step Four: Along the way, admissions personnel may have set aside applications that did not meet minimum requirements (or barely) met them, but which exhibited promise for other reasons. Perhaps someone wrote a very touching personal essay about the hardship he/she has endured. In any case, some of these may be added as exceptions to the rule... but they are rather rare. The numbers do, for the most part, rule.

So before you get on your high horse about "merit," think about the fact that after considerations of "qualification", all admissions decisions are unfair to someone. Given that fact, and the fact that we live in the real world, opportunity cost becomes an important measure of the desirability of a decision-rule, as discussed in the article with which this thread begins.

In other words, if white individuals were severely affected by Affirmative Action, I would probably oppose it. The effects on Asians are, by the available evidence, worse... and I would therefore support reforms to alleviate this affect.

But I continue to believe that white people are so worked up because they just can't stand to see black people getting ahead.

Besides, ‘C’ work is ‘should be in college’ right?

I guess that depends on who you talk to.

Actually, the Boy Scouts got away with it.

Also, I suggest you look up the term "invidious discrimination," which is what is at issue. Discrimination for perfectly good reasons is also perfectly legal. So, the argument gets back to whether or not universities have a "good reason," not whether what they do can be referred to with the term "discrimination."

So, back to the fray!

:yawn: I don't happen to believe the 'reasons' given make much sense, so there ya go.

Not necessarily. With the exception of law school admissions, any admissions personnel (not to mention psychologist) will tell you that the numbers are not that helpful. If there were such a big difference between 1250 and 1350, the schools would just set their minimum qualifications higher.

But they don't. For the most part, college admissions works like this:

Step One: Everyone with extremely high scores is admitted. For instance, a school might decide that anyone with 1560 SAT and up, with straight A's in the top 5% of their high school class, gets in automatically. (Hence my suspicion that some posters' claims that 1600's are not being admitted may be... well, full of shit.)

Step Two: Set minimum qualification numbers. These, for an Ivy League School, will be down around 1200 SAT and an 'A/B' average in high school. Now the school has a set of "qualified" candidates, which is much larger than the class they are prepared to admit.

Step Three: Pick out most of the class. In this stage, scores still matter... but not as much. The reason is that, after deciding that all of these students are "qualified," score differences within this range are no longer a very good indicator of who will be the best student. So, they introduce other factors as well. Among these is a desire for geographical diversity, which may "unfairly" hurt local or regional students, who apply in disproportionate numbers. Schools may also want students with a variety of interests... some members of drama clubs, some yearbook editors, (yes, some athletes), and so on. And, you guessed it, if a lot of musical people applied that year, then band members are going to have some unfair competition. Among these considerations are race and ethnicity.

Step Four: Along the way, admissions personnel may have set aside applications that did not meet minimum requirements (or barely) met them, but which exhibited promise for other reasons. Perhaps someone wrote a very touching personal essay about the hardship he/she has endured. In any case, some of these may be added as exceptions to the rule... but they are rather rare. The numbers do, for the most part, rule.

So before you get on your high horse about "merit," think about the fact that after considerations of "qualification", all admissions decisions are unfair to someone. Given that fact, and the fact that we live in the real world, opportunity cost becomes an important measure of the desirability of a decision-rule, as discussed in the article with which this thread begins.

:yawn: I'm familiar with the current college acceptance scheme.

In other words, if white individuals were severely affected by Affirmative Action, I would probably oppose it. The effects on Asians are, by the available evidence, worse... and I would therefore support reforms to alleviate this affect.

Great, so you support an effort to allievate racism in school selection. Alright so we get the Asians in based on their merit level. Who takes the cut in admittance seeing as we're taking more Asians and thusly we are going to taking less of?

But I continue to believe that white people are so worked up because they just can't stand to see black people getting ahead.

Ah thats nice.

I guess that depends on who you talk to.

Seems you didn't answer my question. What is 'should be there' grades in your mind?

I cannot find (on a cursory search) average scores for Princeton.

I have however found averages and medians for the University of Pennsylvania.

Median: 1400.
Mean: 1383.

As I suspected, the mean is lower, indicating a negative skew.

;)

Perhaps more importantly, since we can assume that U of P has more than a few students who scored 1600 on the test, we can conclude that the lower range of scores extends below 1200.

In this case you selected Penn. Which is more selective than Princeton and has a higher median. My belief is that Princeton has a 'floor' SAT Score and goes from there. Thereby having a good deal of 1290s, 1300-1350s but nothing below that general range. With a mean inline with or above the median. I also have no reason to believe that Ivy League admissions follows the normal curve.

No... You do.

You’ll find that I, and likely my stats teacher disagrees. I’m quite happy with my 98% grade.

In a skewed distribution, the median is always the better measure of the "average" individual in a population.

:yawn: It is a better measurement. It however does nothing to tell you in what way the distribution is skewed since you only have one of them. And even then when they are close to each other it still doesn’t tell you much. Certainly not enough to actually make an argument based off of them. Not that that stopped you.

Find me a applicant pool that looks like that, and we'll talk. Actually, better to leave me out of it, since you wouldn't want me to steal your discovery: a distribution that violates every statistical likelihood one can possibly imagine.


My guess (admittedly, just a guess) that the mean SAT score of an incoming class is probably lower than the median is based on what I know about the population in question, and the policies of the school. They are likely to take as many high-scoring students as they can, while making exceptions for only a few students on the low end.

My belief is that the applicant pool is qualified. So 1300 and above. That means that the mean and median will be somewhere above 1300 and below 1600. Great. It will probably be closer to 1300 than 1600 because more people score closer to 1300. But since we know that the Universities use a ‘qualified’ method we know that there shouldn’t be anyone with an 1100 seeing as the cutoff is 1300. Eh?

Your "example" is based on pure fantasy.

No shit.

:yawn: I don't happen to believe the 'reasons' given make much sense, so there ya go.

I've noticed. My point was that you actually have to discuss those reasons. Saying that "all discrimination is discrimination" sounds nice, but it's not an argument.

Great, so you support an effort to allievate racism in school selection. Alright so we get the Asians in based on their merit level. Who takes the cut in admittance seeing as we're taking more Asians and thusly we are going to taking less of?

Well, since the whites are already not really hurting, and -- as has frequently been pointed out -- a large difference in a small population can be offset by a very small difference in a large population... I'd say that white applicants can probably offset additional Asian admissions without much damage to individual whites' chances at admission. This is a cost/benefit analysis. I consider all of these measures a "necessary evil"... but although necessary, I do believe in limits.

But you probably already guessed that.

What is 'should be there' grades in your mind?

It depends on what you mean. If you are asking what high school grades justify college admission, then it depends on the school. I would definitely raise an eyebrow at a 'C' student in an Ivy League school... but I do think 'C' students are capable of succeeding -- sometimes even excelling -- in college. 'D' students would probably be wasting their time (and mine, as an instructor).

If you are talking about college grades, then that also depends... on grade inflation, for one thing. In my personal opinion, 'C' work is acceptable but not very good... but inflationary pressures are such that today the 'average' student seems to fall somewhere in the 'B' range. Students who, in my opinion, should get 'Bs' are getting 'As', and students who should be getting 'Cs' are getting 'Bs'. Worst of all, I have seen students who have earned no better than a 'D' go walking away with a 'C'.

So, to answer your question... In principle, 'C' students "should be there": they are capable of completing college-level work. However, with the way grades have been inflated in most universities, I think there are plenty of 'C' students who don't really deserve to be there. By my standards, they should have failed out.

My belief is that Princeton has a 'floor' SAT Score and goes from there.
They all have a "floor" SAT score, to which they nevertheless make few exceptions.

Thereby having a good deal of 1290s, 1300-1350s but nothing below that general range.

That would actually make them more selective than Penn, which has been shown to have scores below 1200. If anything, we should expect Princeton to have a slightly more negative skew than Penn!!

I also have no reason to believe that Ivy League admissions follows the normal curve.

Indeed, I have already proven that they do not. They follow a curve with negative skew. On the normal curve, the mean and median are the same.

Grayshness: I strongly suggest that you quit with the flaming right now. Resulting to insults just because someone doesn't agree with you is a horrible way to debate.

You’ll find that I, and likely my stats teacher disagrees. I’m quite happy with my 98% grade.

Well, I and my (summa cum laude) math degree -- not to mention my 'A' in two semesters of graduate methodology -- will be happy to take you on... if, that is, you really want to make this a matter of comparing dicks.

:yawn:

Perhaps your statistics would benefit from better sleep?

It is a better measurement. It however does nothing to tell you in what way the distribution is skewed since you only have one of them.

Sure it does. Mean > median... positive skew. Mean < median... negative skew.

Problems only occur in distributions such as the one you produced -- in which case neither figure tells you very much, and you have to move on to the statistics you learned in the second week of your class. Thus, one has to make some reasonable assumptions about one's population... and from what we know of the SAT, my analysis is much much more likely than yours.

And even then when they are close to each other it still doesn’t tell you much.

"Close" to each other is a relative term. In a population of hundreds or thousands of student scores, a difference of ten or twenty points between the median and the mean indicates a relatively significant skew. If there were only a few "extreme" data-points, they would hardly stand out from the many other "normal" scores.

Certainly not enough to actually make an argument based off of them.

Actually, you don't need much at all for an argument. Just basic math.

My belief is that the applicant pool is qualified. So 1300 and above.

Why 1300?

That means that the mean and median will be somewhere above 1300 and below 1600. Great. It will probably be closer to 1300 than 1600 because more people score closer to 1300.

Yes, in the general population. But we're talking about the class admitted to an Ivy League school now, remember?

But since we know that the Universities use a ‘qualified’ method we know that there shouldn’t be anyone with an 1100 seeing as the cutoff is 1300. Eh?

In that case, again, Princeton would be mysteriously more selective than U.Penn, despite U.Penn's higher median score. Is it my turn to yawn?

You need to think about what the real populations must look like, rather than what you would like them to look like.

I think Japan has the best current college system.

You take an exam.

Nothing else matters.

If you were the Emperor's Son, you'd still have to take the exam.

I have to say, they do have the best system...

Hell, I'm going to College in Japan now. >_<