home

The Other Affirmative Action

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 11:32:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Via atrios and TAPPED, Jack and Jill Politics and my old blogging friend Prometheus 6:

At the elite colleges - dim White kids
By Peter Schmidt

September 28, 2007

AUTUMN AND a new academic year are upon us, which means that selective colleges are engaged in the annual ritual of singing the praises of their new freshman classes.

Surf the websites of such institutions and you will find press releases boasting that they have increased their black and Hispanic enrollments, admitted bumper crops of National Merit scholars or became the destination of choice for hordes of high school valedictorians. Many are bragging about the large share of applicants they rejected, as a way of conveying to the world just how popular and selective they are.

What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

White Man's Burden.

< Cheers and Jeers for S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom | Duke Players File Civil Suit Against Nifong and Durham >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Other Affirmative Action | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The point of this statistic (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    "White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race."

    One of the arguments used to argue against affirmative action is that unqualified students are being admitted.

    This statistic demonstrates that if indeed affirmative action is a problem for the institution because it grants admission to unqualified students, its effect is insignificant to the institution as the absolute number of failures is twice as large for whites than for others.

    To wit, the concern about the admission of so-called "unqualified" students is a red herring as it has, at best, a limited effect on the institution.

    That is the point of the statistic.

    No-- (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:50:05 PM EST
      There is no showing that either the rich kids or the minorities granted waivers are "unqualified." They are simply less qualified (in the narrow sense of grades and test scores)  than some other applicants who are not admitted.

      "Unqualified people would not be able to pass their classes and graduate. If someone --regardless of the method of selection-- is capable of doing the work and graduating then by definition they were qualified.

      And, you really should have quit while behind, because if two times as many white students flunk out of a population 80% white then the minority students are failing at a significantly higher rate.

      100 students
        80 white
       20 minority

       8 whites   --10%-- flunk out 4 minority 20%.

    Parent

    You Make BTD's Point (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    The failing minority numbers are hardly significant enough to support the standard argument against affirmative action. Hiding behind percentages gives false strength to the anti affirmative action crowd.

    Parent
    I tried a hypothetical (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    to see if he understands the point that way.

    Parent
    5:00 Friday (none / 0) (#54)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:55:07 PM EST
      If you feel compelled to beat on this some more I'll check in Monday but i'm heading to the mountains.

    Parent
    No need (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    Enjoy the weekend.

    I think when you come back you will see your error.

    Parent

    Unqualified here meaning (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    based solely on academic records (or "merit" as some want to describe it.)

    Unqualifed to be accepted.

    Frankly, you still have no idea what the point is.

    I'll use the hypothetical I just gave Pancho to see if you can understand the point:

    Let's consider a hypothetical.
    Let's say you are a student, a white student, with no special factors that weigh in favor of your admission except your academic record.
    You apply to a school.

    It has 1000 slots. Of those slots, a certain number x, are likely to go to students because of factors other than academic record.

    0.67x of those students admitted are white.

    0.33x of those students admitted are non-white.

    Which of the preferences applied is most likely to cause you to lose a place that, absent consideration of those factors. you would otherwise have?

    What is more likely to cause "unfairness" to you?

    That is the point. The statistic clearly overwhelmingly supports that point.

    [


    Parent

    Sorry, the point of the statistic (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    is to support the point of the article, to whit:
    What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

    and not at all that
    the concern about the admission of so-called "unqualified" students is a red herring as it has, at best, a limited effect on the institution.


    Parent
    You Must Be Kidding (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    Seemed exactly the point of the article:

    the concern about the admission of so-called "unqualified" [Affirmative Action] students is a red herring as it has, at best, a limited effect on the institution.

    Maybe without the words Affirmative Action, which you left out of the quote, you would have a point. If anything this piece is a argument that Affirmative Action is a good thing.

    A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility, our nation's selective colleges appear to be thwarting it, by turning away applicants who have excelled given their circumstances and offering second chances to wealthy and connected young people who have squandered many of the advantages life has offered them.
    When social mobility goes away, at least two dangerous things can happen. The privileged class that produces most of our nation's leaders can become complacent enough to foster mediocrity, and less-fortunate segments of our society can become resigned to the notion that hard work will not get them anywhere.


    Parent
    Thanks for admitting I have a point. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:51:55 PM EST
    the concern about the admission of so-called "unqualified" students is a red herring as it has, at best, a limited effect on the institution.
    particularly since this is the exact quote, nothing was left out except BTD's "To wit," that started the sentence.

    Anyone home?

    Parent

    Anyone Home? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:11:45 PM EST
    Considering that whole context of the quote was Affirmative action and the whole point of the article was refuting the BS claims about the harm from Affirmative Action, the quote is exactly what the article is about. That you say that it has nothing to do whatsoever with the point of the article is beyond odd.

    And I have to agree with BTD that there is no substantive difference between your two quotes.

    Are you nitpicking in order to save face? If so it is not even clear what your nitpick is.

    Parent

    Saving face (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:44:19 PM EST
    Thery missed the point of the article and arenow saving face.

    Remember, this started with them actually attacking the article, not me.

    See where the aim is now.

    Parent

    Last Resort (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:56:21 PM EST
    Shoot the messenger at close range, and still miss.

    Parent
    If your point is that you and BTD choose to infer (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    from the article that because there are 1/2 as many dim AA kids in colleges than dim non-AA kids, that dim AA kids don't harm or have little effect on the college, then sure, infer away.

    But that was not in any way the point of the article and in fact that is not ever even discussed in the article.

    The point of the article, and the quote in discussion, is that many "select" students are elbowed aside, and, numerically, most of them are elbowed aside by by dim white kids with connections.

    BTD chose to infer that that meant that dim AA kids have little effect on the colleges, and I chose to recognize, in a kinda humorous twist, to me anyway, that, from the quote, numerically, dim whites and Asians were underrepresented in the colleges and that dim black and Hispanics are over represented.

    But I never said (or if I did, it was a poorly worded comment, I'm too lazy to actually go back and look at the comments) that my point was the point of the article or the quote.

    You and BTD seem to think, adamantly, that your inference is the point of the article.

    That humors me also.

    Parent

    WTF (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    A degree from a selective college can open many doors for a talented young person from a humble background. But rather than promoting social mobility.....

    Affirmative Action is the program that promotes social mobility. You do not have to be an Einstein to get that from the article which is pro "social mobility".

    More from Peter Schmidt:

    Amazon.com: Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education ...
    Rather than serving as routes to social mobility, many college admission ... Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action by Peter Schmidt $16.47 ...


    Parent
    We must be reading different articles. (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:10:39 PM EST
    This is the one BTD linked to.

    Parent
    Google Search (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    Affirmative Action + Social Mobility brings up a quote from the aurhor Peter Schmidt. The very same author of the linked article.

    His position, which seems obvious to me, but obscure to you, is that "Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action". The subtitle or his book Color and Money

    Parent

    Oh fer cripe's sake, there you go. (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:10:34 AM EST
    Everyone else here is talking about the linked article - the actual subject of the thread - and you're talking about something completely different that you googled.

    What a waste of time.


    Parent

    Are You Drunk? (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    Everyone else here is talking about the linked article - the actual subject of the thread - and you're talking about something completely different that you googled.

    Peter Schmidt, the author of the thread's linked article,  wrote the book "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action." which is the subject of this thread,
     even if you refuse to believe it.

    You have argued that Peter Schmidt's linked article above has nothing to do with Affirmative Action. That couldn't be more wrong. And you complain that my mention of his book is unrelated to the subject of this thread, when it is the exact same topic of this thread is simply nuts.

    About the book:

    The elite U.S. universities remain "bastions of privilege" in spite of decades of affirmative action and a stated commitment by schools to diversify their campuses, says the author of a new book on college admissions.
    In "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action," higher education journalist Peter Schmidt argues that many select schools give admissions preference to white applicants and that, while people resent race-conscious admissions, they ignore admissions based on wealth or influence. "As it stands now, if anyone is winning the war over college affirmative action, it's wealthy white kids," says Schmidt, a deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education.

    link

    Parent

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:46:50 AM EST
    Here is more of a waste of time for you Peter Schmidt's blog about the subject at hand The Other Affirmative Action


    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    IF you think those are somehow not the same thing, go for it.

    Parent
    I know what the article said, (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:54:44 PM EST
    and I know what you wrote that it said. They are not the same thing.

    Sorry, but you brought your preconceived notions into the thinking here.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 06:43:09 PM EST
    Go for it.

    Parent
    Class (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    This seems to be more about class (present and/or future) than about race. Which is why I've always been against present day affirmative action and for a class based affirmative action. A poor white kid needs a helping hand more than a rich or middle class African American child.

    Asian Americans tend to be overrepresented on campuses so is there bias in this stat also?

    hahahhah (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    You miss the point. This is not about middle class vs lower class, this is an upper class thing. But I guess that you have lot of friends that are upper class and black.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    You miss the point.

    Affirmative Action is for people who need assistance through the racial and gender barriers. Middle class, by definition, implies that the person has 'made' it through.

    And the fact my wife is African-American and my two sons are half African American should shut you up. I doubt it, but it should.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    you can divert the topic all you want but this thread is about Upper Class morons who get vip treatment over more qualified applicants. A fact that shines a spotlight on a problem that is well hidden and more pervasive than than affirmative action that you and your pals endlessly jawbone about.

    Not far from the silence you guys have about corporate welfare that makes welfare for the poor look like chump change.

    Parent

    The entire thread (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    has been an exercise in white male resentment - at the wrong people.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    It is amazing that a super small elite gets continually propped up by those that they have utter contempt for.

    Parent
    I guess you are saying (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    you do have a lot of friends who are upper class and African American.

    I am curious, what did you find offensive in what Squeaky wrote?

    Parent

    the original affirmative action (none / 0) (#2)
    by diogenes on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 12:49:20 PM EST
     Traditional Affirmative action for admissions to elite colleges mainly benefits children of middle class/rich blacks and children of black immigrants.
    Go ahead and stop alumni affirmative action-it'll help my kids too.

    It's not what you know but who (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    that helps you get into elite mostly private colleges (and/or businesses/jobs/preschools/soccer travel teams/nightclubs/politics/law firms that represent big name corporate clients/etc., etc.)?

    Well, I guess that's news to some people.

    But I guess the good news for the underrepresented dim non-white kids is that as more and more smart non-white kids go to these schools that'll increase the probability that down the line more dim non-white kids will "know" someone such that they can get in and that'll leave fewer spots open for the dim white kids. Or something...

    Connections trump ability.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    everytime.  Damn right that ain't news.

    But what I find very dim is spending 20k plus on an education you can get for free at the public library, or for semi-enlightened discussion you can get for free on Talkleft.  To borrow from Will Hunting...

    You're buying a golden-ticket piece of paper that makes it easier to get a high paying job...you're not buying an education.

    Parent

    There is a lot of truth to that, (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    but in many fields there is no substitute for a college education. It would be very difficult to be a self taught engineer or doctor, and it is not unreasonable to require a degree in these fields, as well as many other fields.

    Parent
    Of course.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    Doctors, engineers and such require specialized training you can't from a book.

    A business degree?  Waste of dough.

    Parent

    Right on. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    and, in my experience, there are only a few institutions who's diploma really does open important doors. Certainly way fewer than the 147, or whatever, this article researched. iow, the grads of the other 137 schools wasted their dough...if opening "important" doors was their only goal.

    Parent
    Now that affirmative action (none / 0) (#7)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:26:57 PM EST
    is apparently benefitting rich white kids more than minorites, maybe we can all agree to just end it altogether.

    It's about that time Pancho..... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    I'm with ya on this one.  I think the time for discrimination to right past discrimination is due to end...and just say discrimination on anything other than ability is just plain wrong, case closed.

    Parent
    Assuming we can measure (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    "ability" with scientific precision and what you advocate is possible do you see no benefit to discriminating to promote:

    opportunity, advancement, remediation ...?

     diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, background, values, viewpoints, fields of future endeavor...?

    tradition, community, financial and other institutional support...?

     I can see good arguments for discriminating on these often conflicting bases even if we assume we have capability to rank people accurately in terms of ability. There are also arguments against such forms discrimination but I think the most likely "wrong" position is that nothing but supposedly objective measures of performance should be considered.

    Parent

    Should we allow certain judgemental (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    discrimination based on diversity or the ability to donate funds? Sure. Should we require it? No.

    Private schools should certainly have great leeway in their decision making.

    I was once given a supervisory position based on the fact that both of my brothers were employed by a company and were both excellent workers. That was a reasonable and ultimately smart decison by this company, as I not coincidentally was proven to be just as hard of a worker as they were.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:41:15 PM EST

    Here's a good SAT question:

     Why does this statistic fail to establish the author's point?

    "White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race."

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    A) 1/2 as many black and Hispanic kids applied.
    B) 2X as many white kids applied.
    C) Rove did it.
    d) All of the above.

    Parent
    When in doubt.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    go with "c"...it worked on my SAT's:)

    Parent
    You're accepted (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:07:24 PM EST
      Non-Hispanic  whites  are  approximately 75% of the population (and Asians  another 4-5%.

      Undoubtedly an even higher percentage of the applicant pools at elite universities are white or Asian, so that statistic would establish that something  less (perhaps considerably less) than 20% of the applicants are receiving nearly 50% of the requirement waivers.

    Parent

    Are you suggesting, dear sir, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    that the dim non-white kids are getting preferential treatment over the dim white kids?

    Cur is too nice a word for you.

    Parent

    I'm suggesting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:21:22 PM EST
      I think the suggestion would be that the worst thing to be (in terms of being admitted) is a white male lacking family  money or connections or a stellar academic record and SAT scores. You're going to get passed over for both the legacies and bribers and the diversity applicants. In other words you have no shot.

      Between the legacies and bribers and the minorities we need more data to determine who is best situated. It may be that the number of legacy and briber applicants is roughly equal to the number of minority applicants but it's also possible that the minority applicants significantly outnumber legacy and briber applicants or, I suppose vice versa.

      Be all that as it may, that does not mean i think that stellar academic records and SAT scores should be the only criteria.

    Parent

    White man's burden. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:27:01 PM EST
    I think the suggestion would be that the worst thing to be (in terms of being admitted) is a white male lacking family  money or connections or a stellar academic record and SAT scores.


    Parent
    Yes, But (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    just being white is a huge advantage in order to get a pass in most other situations. Class always trumps race.  Although, you'd think that whites who get out classed would pick up a bit of empathy for blacks who have to deal with exclusion on a daily basis. But no, that rarely happens. I guess it is trickle down exclusion.


    Parent
    As I have said repeatedly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:51:18 PM EST
      I think it is proper to discriminate for reasons other than "merit." We can't as a society provide everyone with exactly what they want therefore some people will always be excluded from beneficial things. I can empathize both with those who belive they should be given preferential inclusion  now because of past exclusion of their ancestors and with those presently excluded who feel it is unfair for them to bear the burden of past wrongs they did not commit or condone.

     

    Parent

    Reasons other than merit (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    IT is staring you in the face now.

    Just finish the thought.

    You might get admitted.
     

    Parent

    Now you come closer (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    Keep thinking this one through.

    We now have you wait listed.

    Parent

    You're rejected (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    You miss the point of the statistic.

    Parent
    The point of the statistic (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    was to mislead.

    Parent
    Oh well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    I trhought we was learnin' through the thread.

    Now I see you still do not get it.

    No matter.

    Keep railing.


    Parent

    If you have a point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    make it and I will address it. Babbling serves no purpose.

    Parent
    I am sorry (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    You started with a stupid SAT construct in an attempt to show off your superrior intelligence when you utterly missed the point. I think you can not now complain about babbling when you first comment was a clear deomnstration of it.

    Tell me what you think the question demonstrates. And then I will respond to you.

    Let's see what you make of that statistic. What does it prove to you?

    Parent

    the point of the article you linked (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:09:15 PM EST
     was to suggest that white guys grumbling about having to go to their safety school should direct their resentment at rich kids whose daddy's procured them an admission and not at minority preference programs.

      That's a valid if debatable argument. MY joking question was aimed only at the use of a misleading statistic to buttress the argument which as with most arguments are better made when one doesn't try to get cute with the numbers and mislead because once the deception is exposed it actually detracts from the principal argument.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    You reveal your error. you write:

    [the point of the article] was to suggest that white guys grumbling about having to go to their safety school should direct their resentment at rich kids whose daddy's procured them an admission and not at minority preference programs.

    That's a valid if debatable argument. MY joking question was aimed only at the use of a misleading statistic to buttress the argument which as with most arguments are better made when one doesn't try to get cute with the numbers and mislead because once the deception is exposed it actually detracts from the principal argument.

    You claim the statististic used was misleading. Why do you think it is misleading? What deception do you think you exposed?

    Parent

    I guess you also (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    won't be responding to my query.

    Also fine by me.

    Parent

    I've already (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    as has Sarc explained why the stat is misleading.

      If 50% of the white waiver admittees come from an applicant pool 4 times larger than the pool of minority pool which also gets 50% of the waivers then a minority is actually four times as likely to receive a waiver--- and almost all the white waivers are going to rich kids leaving the middle class white guy out of luck.

      this is just undeniable fact--- and I'm not in any way opposed to minority preferences despite that reality. I'm just opposed to intellectual dishonesty even whe used to manipulate people into agreeing with a position i share.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    That has nothing to do with the point of the statistic.

    You simply misunderstood what the author was using the statistic for.

    See my comment in this thread.

    Sorry, but you brought your preconceived notions into the thinking here. You simply misunderstood the author.

    Parent

    Classic BTD. (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    Here is your statement.
    You miss the point of the statistic.
    Fair enough, we miss it. Tell us what the point of the statistic is. Make a stand on substance. See if it can bear critique.

    Parent
    tell me what you think it is? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    I think your point is that affirmative action other than that based on race is NOT discriminatory because it does not have a disparate racial impact.

    Before I go further, answer me, is that what you think the statistic means? If not, what do you think it means?

    Parent

    Then you can't read (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:19:19 PM EST
     i could not have more clearly stated above  that discrimination takes many forms AND that I think good arguments can be made in favor of many of them. Even pure "merit based" criteria are a form of discrimination. The only "non-discriminatory" method of selecting anythig is a random drawing.

    Parent
    I wasa talkiing to (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    SAO.

    I have a different problem with your interpretation.

    Why don't you read the responses addressed to you?

    Parent

    You said we miss the point. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    Tell us, then, what the point is. The onus is on you. Edumacate us.

    Parent
    You miss the points for different reasons (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    You did not answer my question.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    I guess we are not going to continue this discussion.

    Ok by me.

    Parent

    Actually, you refuse to answer mine. (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    You tell us we miss the point of the statistic. So, tell us what the point of the statistic is. It's your thread, make a stand on your own material. It's just a dopey blog for god's sake.

    Parent
    I did (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    And you STILL refuse to answer my question.

    Now, come up with your rationalizations.

    Parent

    You are confusing the (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    point of the statistic, with the reality of the statistic.

    BTD is not concerned that the stat does not support his intended point.

    Parent

    I think it underlines my intended point (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    Let's consider a hypothetical.

    Let's say you are a student, a white student, with no special factors that weigh in favor of your admission except your academic record.
    You apply to a school.

    It has 1000 slots. Of those slots, a certain number x, are likely to go to students because of factors other than academic record.

    0.67x of those students admitted are white.

    0.33x of those students admitted are non-white.

    Which of the preferences applied is most likely to cause you to lose a place that, absent consideration of those factors. you would otherwise have?

    What is more likely to cause "unfairness" to you?

    That is the point. The statistic clearly overwhelmingly supports that point.

    Parent

    Your point appears valid, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    and I appreciate the rational response, but it only serves to illustrate the ridiculousness of preferences.

    My overall take on the issue is that no one should count on preferences to get into an elite school and in the companies where I've worked there have been an overwhelming majority of top executives from State U, and Western State U. Does the Ivy League open up certain doors? Yes, but it is not entirely without merit.

    If your goal is to have a happy life, you will do just fine at State U. If you want upward class mobility, then maybe you better work hard, move to a great school district and have your kids study like hell in accelerated classes so they can get into Elite U. How many people really care about that?

    Parent

    Most People (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    If you want upward class mobility, then maybe you better work hard, move to a great school district and have your kids study like hell in accelerated classes so they can get into Elite U. How many people really care about that?

    Not having kids myself it is hard to really know why they do it but almost everyone I know does whatever they can to get their kids into the top tier. What they put the kids and themselves through is astounding and a bit gross IMO,  and I am not so sure that it ultimately helps the kid become a better human being or member of society.

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Pancho on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    I think that for a certain top 1% or less of students there may be a great value in certain top schools, but getting back to affirmative action, there is a very strong affirmative action program in place in corporate America right now for minorities with college degrees. We need programs to keep minorities in school and to emphasize the value of education so that they can go to a university, any university.

    Parent
    1000 slots for dim students. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    80% of dim students in population are white & Asian, 25% black and Hispanic.

    In a racially equitable system, of those 1000 dim slots 80% should be given to dim whites and Asians, and 20% to dim blacks and Hispanics.  

    Yet, only 67% are given to dim white and Asian students, and 33% are given to dim black and Hispanic students.

    While it appears the author's point is correct, that dim whites (and presumably Asians) are elbowing aside more worthier applicants than the dim blacks and Hispanics admitted by racial preferences are, that fact is that dim blacks and Hispanics are very much over-represented (and whites and Asians very much underrepresented) in the total group of dim students elbowing aside worthier applicants.

    See my commnet #19.

    (This is setting aside the strong argument that, in reality, the % of applications from black and Hispanic students is likely much less than equal to their 20% of the population, and therefor the applications of white and Asian much higher than 80%, which would make the 67% admission rates of whites and Asians even more problematic.)

    Parent

    Sorry, that should have read: (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    "80% of dim students in population are white & Asian, 20% black and Hispanic."

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    While it appears the author's point is correct, that dim whites (and presumably Asians) are elbowing aside more worthier applicants than the dim blacks and Hispanics admitted by racial preferences are . .

    That's the point.

    Parent

    bzzzzt! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    You fail your SAT test for thinking that is the relevant question.

    See if you can figure out why.

    Parent

    Affirmative action at its worst: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    Emerald investors include Sandra Degnan, wife of former mayoral aide Tim Degnan; Chaz Ebert, wife of Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert; Connie Payton, widow of Chicago Bear Walter Payton, and former Chicago Bear Shaun Gayle.

    These were shares in a casino that were assigned to these members of "disadvantaged" groups, although they are all wealthy.

    Chaz Ebert is a black woman, I don't know if Degnan is black or not, but she is certainly wealthy.

    AA nice try (none / 0) (#77)
    by allcopslawyersandjudgesareevil on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 08:26:13 PM EST
    Any program or idea that would prefer one individual over another, gives an unfair advantage where otherwise the field should be even. If for some reason the field is not even to begin with, forcing the issue does not create a balance and solve as a solution, but instead creates a new problem for others to deal with. A more proper solution would be to solve the problem, not create another one. I have been the victim of AA in the past, I felt first hand it's stinging venim, and know it is reverse discrimination. Both discrimination and reverse discriminatoin (sadly should just be called discrimination but is not), are equally problems that surround us all in our everyday lives. The true solution lies with how we educate our children, so they don't repeat the same mistakes of their elders, with this and so many other issues.

    The Other Affirmative Action | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment