An affirmative action thought experiment

[Metaphor]

I present the following scenarios, which are of course fictive but constructed to illustrate the deficiencies I see in arguments supporting affirmative action.

i) Nathalie has just been told that she has not made the U.S. Olympic team for figure skating. She is upset, because at the final tryouts, she scored higher than some of the people that made the team. She questions the decision with Jane from the selection panel.

"Why didn't I make the team, when I know I scored higher than at least two people who did make the team? Charity made the team, and I noticed the edge violation on her Lutz."

Jane sighs. "Nathalie, we were impressed with your routine, which is illustrated by your high mark. But, we're not letting in people strictly by score, because that wouldn't take into account the advantages you've had."

"Advantages? What do you mean?"

Jane continues. "Well, you're of Asian descent, so that's given you an ice-skating privilege, and we don't want to perpetuate privilege"

Nathalie is upset. "What "privilege"?"

"People of Asian descent, as a group, are shorter than Whites and Blacks, and as you know, a lower centre-of-gravity gives you a slight, but very real advantage in figure skating."

Nathalie ponders this but objects. "Even if that's true, can't you just measure our heights and figure out the advantage based on that? I'm actually taller than both girls who scored worse than me but made the team, even though they're not Asian."

"Oh Nathalie, we're not interested in actually figuring out how advantaged or disadvantaged you were as a person; we're just going to apply the group average to you."

"But you could measure us all right now! It would take five minutes!"

"I'm sorry Nathalie, no. But height wasn't the only advantage. Your parents really encouraged you, didn't they?"

"Of course, but I don't see what that--"

Jane cuts her off. "We believe you have a 'Tiger Mom', that really pushed you harder than the other girls were pushed by their parents"

"So??"

"So, it's unfair that you had a disciplined environment that led you to being a better figure skater. Some of these girls had to take the bus to practice, and their parents wouldn't know a Salchow from an Axel".

"So, you're taking points off because I worked really hard and practised harder than most of the other girls?".

"That's the gist of it, Nathalie."


ii) Danica is hurt. She didn't get into medical school. But she's discovered something curious -- several of her male friends got in, and their GPA and MCAT scores were lower than hers. Ben from the selection panel has called her to discuss her application.

"Danica, you did really well at interview, but your grades and MCAT didn't put you in the top quarter of women that applied"

"You mean the top quarter of people, right? Did you accept only the top quarter of applicants?"

"We accepted a quarter of the female applicants but about 2/3 of the male applicants"

"Oh, were female applicants weaker this year, compared to men?"

"Well, yes and no. In fact, women did better at interview on average, had higher GPAs on average, and got slightly higher MCAT scores, compared to men".

"I'm confused then: wouldn't that lead to more women than men being selected?"

"It would, if we weren't setting aside 75% of slots for men".

Danica can't believe she heard this right, so she asks Ben to repeat what he just said.

"We've set aside 75% of slots in the incoming class for men. That means that men didn't have to do as well in grades or MCAT or interview to be selected, since there were more slots for them".

"How is that fair??"

"Well, we've got research to show that people are prejudiced against female doctors, especially female surgeons. People trust men more, they're rated as more authoritative and knowledgeable, even when they're presenting the same information and have the same experience. It's easy to see how male doctors are more effective, isn't it? You're more likely to seek treatment when you need it, and comply with the treatment recommended, when you find your doctor authoritative and knowledgeable, right?".

"That's completely unfair! Why should you indulge people's prejudices like that?"

Ben is getting impatient. "Do you think you are more important than the health of the nation?"

"Of course not, that isn't what I implied".

"Do you think you deserve a medical school slot, just because you worked hard and got good grades and prepared like crazy and it's your lifelong dream?"

"It's not a matter of 'deserve', it's a matter of fairness and playing by the rules and expecting not to be discriminated against by gender".

"We would love to admit more women -- but there's a shortage of male doctors, compared to the demand for male doctors. I'm sorry."

"Is there anything I can do to increase my chances, like if I'm from a minority background?"

"Oh no. That would be racist".

 

[Rhea]

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

 

[Toni]

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

Use of the word 'thought' and of the word 'experiment' are a bit generous, imo.

 

[Metaphor]

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

- - - Updated - - -

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

Use of the word 'thought' and of the word 'experiment' are a bit generous, imo.

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

 

[Toni]

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

- - - Updated - - -

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

Use of the word 'thought' and of the word 'experiment' are a bit generous, imo.

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

 

[Metaphor]

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

- - - Updated - - -

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

Use of the word 'thought' and of the word 'experiment' are a bit generous, imo.

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

I have never, not once here, on the old board, on any message board ever, in real life, to my friends, publically, privately, at any point in my life said everything boils down to test scores and GPA, or should boil down to it. You want to believe I believe it, but I don't believe it, I've never believed it, and your continuous references to it were never amusing but are now thoroughly fucking grating.

But I can see you'll dodge this, too.

 

[Metaphor]

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

- - - Updated - - -

Thought experiment to elicit responses that say, "Is that Jack Chick?"

Use of the word 'thought' and of the word 'experiment' are a bit generous, imo.

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

I thought the arguments would have been more transparent; they were merely analogues of arguments being made right now in the other thread. Arguments like 'Black doctors serve Black people better', so Black students need to have relaxed entry standards into medical school. I find it entirely plausible that male doctors are regarded as more authoritative and more knowledgeable by both men and women: after all, people have irrational prejudices. And since irrational prejudices can be indulged as long as it benefits some people (at least if you buy the 'Black people need Black doctors' argument), then there should be more men in medical school than women, even if it means discriminating against women.

It's telling that you refuse to respond.

 

[Rhea]

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

Metaphor, no. You made straw-men. And that is why I'm not going to play the game in this thread. It's cartoonish. It's Jack Chick like in it's strawmanness. So first I'd have to fight to get the actual argument up there, and only then can we talk about what I think about it, and from this, I can only guess that since you feel (I assume this is sincerely posted and not a deliberate strawman) that the OP represents what I've been saying elsewhere, I don't suppose I can change the discussion into being about something that I actually believe. So I don't want to play the game of defending a strawman that does not represent my actual beliefs. That's why I won't answer it. It's not a question, it's a game. And a not fun one.

 

[Metaphor]

My scenarios used arguments that are routinely made by supporters of affirmative action. Have you nothing to say about those arguments? Do you think the scenarios demonstrate desirable outcomes?

Metaphor, no. You made straw-men. And that is why I'm not going to play the game in this thread. It's cartoonish. It's Jack Chick like in it's strawmanness. So first I'd have to fight to get the actual argument up there, and only then can we talk about what I think about it, and from this, I can only guess that since you feel (I assume this is sincerely posted and not a deliberate strawman) that the OP represents what I've been saying elsewhere, I don't suppose I can change the discussion into being about something that I actually believe. So I don't want to play the game of defending a strawman that does not represent my actual beliefs. That's why I won't answer it. It's not a question, it's a game. And a not fun one.

What strawman? What have I misrepresented? Everything I've written in the scenarios is taken from arguments made on this board or the previous one.

 

[Togo]

I thought the arguments would have been more transparent; they were merely analogues of arguments being made right now in the other thread.

I'm not seeing the analogy. Maybe the difference between the arguments on the other thread and these is too great? Remember, to convince people, you need to make the analogies sound like the arguments they think they're making, rather than the arguments you think they're making. Otherwise you're just arguing with yourself.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

Are there any posts by any users on any boards which have ever made that argument? If they're used routinely, it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with a single example.

 

[Rhea]

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

Are there any posts by any users on any boards which have ever made that argument? If they're used routinely, it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with a single example.

you mean like this one?

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

(never mind the error of him saying I embrace this, since I don't, look at his words and what he claims to embrace, not what he claims are my thoughts)

If two people with the exact same score have exactly the same chance of gaining admission and he couldn't agree more, THEN NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE SCORE to him, or they wouldn't have the same chance of getting in with no other information than having the same score.

If any other thing at all matters in admission, then the statement with which metaphor couldn't agree more flips to not having the same chance with the same scores.

So that's one....

 

[Metaphor]

(never mind the error of him saying I embrace this, since I don't, look at his words and what he claims to embrace, not what he claims are my thoughts)

If two people with the exact same score have exactly the same chance of gaining admission and he couldn't agree more, THEN NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE SCORE to him, or they wouldn't have the same chance of getting in with no other information than having the same score.

If any other thing at all matters in admission, then the statement with which metaphor couldn't agree more flips to not having the same chance with the same scores.

So that's one....

This is a misrepresentation of my position, and you've dishonestly highlighted parts to misrepresent me, in a post meant to illustrate to you your own hypocrisy about scores.

But since apparently it needs clarification, I'll say it once more: race should play no part in the selection of medical students, yet, when we hold constant MCAT and GPA, we see massive discrepancies by race. So far, no-body has explained to me exactly what additional criteria, that provides additional predictive value above grades and aptitude, that Asians are the worst at, followed by Whites, with Latinos and Blacks in the lead.

I am willing to believe that the differential admission rates by race could be due to a factor or factors unknown to me, which for some reason Blacks and Latinos have a far higher mean on compared to Whites and Asians, despite the fact that Universities do not make a secret of the fact that they use race in admissions.

But since Rhea believes that ethnic groups don't differ in their inherent abilities, why are Blacks and Latinos being admitted at higher rates than Whites and Asians? How can they offer anything different from Whites and Asians, since there are no differences in abilities?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

Are there any posts by any users on any boards which have ever made that argument? If they're used routinely, it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with a single example.

you mean like this one?

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

(never mind the error of him saying I embrace this, since I don't, look at his words and what he claims to embrace, not what he claims are my thoughts)

If two people with the exact same score have exactly the same chance of gaining admission and he couldn't agree more, THEN NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE SCORE to him, or they wouldn't have the same chance of getting in with no other information than having the same score.

If any other thing at all matters in admission, then the statement with which metaphor couldn't agree more flips to not having the same chance with the same scores.

So that's one....

I fail to see how it would ever be remotely possible to assume that Metaphor was actually making that argument as opposed to speaking about another argument without reading that one part of a sentence in complete isolation from any of the context of even the complete sentence it was part of.

He specifically says that this is what it seems to him that Rhea is saying. It's in the part of the sentence that you didn't highlight.

So, other than taking half sentences out of context so that you can reference them as the opposite of what's being said, do you know of anyone who's ever held the position you claim you're arguing against?

 

[dismal]

Let's try and see if anyone disagrees with these two propositions:

1) we can directly assess the merit of individual candidates
2) skin color is not one of the criteria that allow us to assess merit of a candidate

We may disagree on how much to weigh various criteria, but it seems as long as we all agree it is possible to evaluate merit we should do so. If it is not possible to assess merit the reasonable alternative would be to select all candidates by lottery.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

So far, no-body has explained to me exactly what additional criteria, that provides additional predictive value above grades and aptitude, that Asians are the worst at, followed by Whites, with Latinos and Blacks in the lead.

Basketball, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Running, Jumping, Dancing,



aa

 

[EricK]

So far, no-body has explained to me exactly what additional criteria, that provides additional predictive value above grades and aptitude, that Asians are the worst at, followed by Whites, with Latinos and Blacks in the lead.

Basketball, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Running, Jumping, Dancing,

My mother has always recommended choosing the weediest looking doctor you can find, to ensure they didn't get into medical school based partly on their sporting prowess, and they will have likely spent more time studying when there.

 

[doubtingt]

I disagree. They use arguments routinely made by those who oppose affirmative action: that everything boils down to test scores and GPA. It doesn't and frankly, it never has done.

Are there any posts by any users on any boards which have ever made that argument? If they're used routinely, it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with a single example.

In anticipation of Toni or Rhea misrepresenting my arguments in the way that Metaphor's were, let me preemptively point out that nothing I have said argues that "everything boils down to test scores and GPA". What I have said is that those factors are more empirically predictive of college performance and graduation than other factors (shown by countless studies), and that most schools use them as the initial criteria to eliminate the majority of applicants. IF your scores are below what is typical for a schools amdittees, then you need stellar levels on all the other factors, and if your scores are high enough scores on those, then pretty much nothing else will matter, you're in. As Metaphor rightly pointed out, the other factors considered (mostly secondary to GPA and test scores) do not favor minority applicants. They tend to be correlated with GPA and test scores (because despite ideological objections, GPA and test scores are valid indicators of intellectual and motivational readiness for college). In addition if minorities were just being admitted via criteria generally considered among applicants, then there were be no need for AA at all. There would be no difference between a school that used AA and one that does not. In reality, AA comes down to nothing but using race as a criteria to admit students with low GPA and test scores AND who do not have strong enough applications in the other valid criteria that predicts success and graduation. AA is the practice of admitting students that would not be admitted, no matter how fairly and thoroughly their application was evaluate, unless their race was used as a factor to lower the standards on all criteria.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But since apparently it needs clarification, I'll say it once more: race should play no part in the selection of medical students, yet, when we hold constant MCAT and GPA, we see massive discrepancies by race. So far, no-body has explained to me exactly what additional criteria, that provides additional predictive value above grades and aptitude, that Asians are the worst at, followed by Whites, with Latinos and Blacks in the lead.

I am willing to believe that the differential admission rates by race could be due to a factor or factors unknown to me, which for some reason Blacks and Latinos have a far higher mean on compared to Whites and Asians, despite the fact that Universities do not make a secret of the fact that they use race in admissions.

But since Rhea believes that ethnic groups don't differ in their inherent abilities, why are Blacks and Latinos being admitted at higher rates than Whites and Asians? How can they offer anything different from Whites and Asians, since there are no differences in abilities?

This is the best answer I have seen so far

It's a very good proxy for "having had to deal with racism", and specifically and as a consequence thereof fairly good proxy for "not having received all the encouragement someone with your talents should have received".

That's not even disputable. It is an empirical fact that people in positions to make an impact - teachers, potential hirers, etc. - on aggregate rate the exact same performance lower when they believe they're dealing with a black person (or a woman) than when they believe it's a white male.

These are handicaps that are directly caused by being black in the US of today. Not because "genetic", not because "parental/cultural", but because (mostly implicit) racism.

Rhea and Toni have made the same point. If black people have a worse cultural perception than asian people and white people, and that perception impairs them, putting racist roadblocks in their way that whites and asians don't have to deal with, and yet they overcome those obstacles and do well anyway, that is a testament to their work ethic and drive.

But this doesn't seem to me to make sense when looking at Asians and whites. Are whites suffering a worse cultural perception than Asians? Are white people pre-judged as being less competent than Asians, blocking their path with obstacles Asians dont have to overcome? Does merely being white i this society make it more difficult to succeed than being Asian? Does a white person have to put in more effort to succeed than an Asian person with the same background aside from race?

I have asked a few times in the other thread, and have yet to receive a response, if AA would help or hinder this racial perception and pre-judgment issue. I tend to think it could do more harm than good to set a lower bar for black people, if the problem is that black people are perceived as less competent. By setting the lower bar you seem to justify the prejudice. It isn't racist to wonder if the new black hire is competent if you know black people are being hired due to AA, just like everybody suspects if the boss' kid will be competent.

The argument Jokodo makes presumes racism, and setting the bar based on race presumes equal amount of racism being faced by all people of a particular race, which in itself is problematic. In a weird sort of way it seems to spin racism around into being a self perpetuating and almost positive and useful thing for some individuals within the minority target group.

Only when society is race blind will racism end. Society will not become race blind if you push race as so important that you officially discriminate between races on an institutional level.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"People of Asian descent, as a group, are shorter than Whites and Blacks, and as you know, a lower centre-of-gravity gives you a slight, but very real advantage in figure skating."

Nathalie ponders this but objects. "Even if that's true, can't you just measure our heights and figure out the advantage based on that? I'm actually taller than both girls who scored worse than me but made the team, even though they're not Asian."

Short height is not a trait of all Asians. Toni and Rhea are saying (and they can correct me if I am wrong) that facing racism is a trait of all black people. Take two poor people, and the black guy is poor plus has racism to deal with. Take two rich people, and the rich guy is rich, but still has racism to deal with. Take Obama, the president of the United States. He's far more privileged than most white people are, but he's got barriers white president's don't. I think that's the argument?

"Oh Nathalie, we're not interested in actually figuring out how advantaged or disadvantaged you were as a person; we're just going to apply the group average to you."

"But you could measure us all right now! It would take five minutes!"

And that's where the race based entry argument falls apart. Yes, race may be a factor, but there are a million other factors that makes up how hard a given person has it. Singling out race and giving an easier entrance to people based on race alone is therefore unjust. You wind up with rich black people getting advantage over poor white people. This is why in the other thread I asked if there is affirmative action based on socioeconomic status.

There are lots of other factors that are difficult or impossible to measure or compare; A lot harder than measuring heights in five minutes. It could take a long time and cost a ton of money to do such an analysis of all candidates fairly. Extra points for growing up in a broken home? Points taken off for having a tiger-type-mom (this isn't just Asians - that's racist)? Points taken off for people who are good at cramming for tests but don't actually remember it the next week? The list would go on and on and on.

So to simplify matters, they look mostly at your grades and test scores.

"Well, we've got research to show that people are prejudiced against female doctors, especially female surgeons. People trust men more, they're rated as more authoritative and knowledgeable, even when they're presenting the same information and have the same experience. It's easy to see how male doctors are more effective, isn't it? You're more likely to seek treatment when you need it, and comply with the treatment recommended, when you find your doctor authoritative and knowledgeable, right?".

"That's completely unfair! Why should you indulge people's prejudices like that?"

It really depends on the situation and what your priorities are in that particular case.

Is it wrong for women to prefer female doctor's to examine their naked bodies? You have to weigh gender equality vs modesty.

Is it wrong for police departments to want some black officers for black neighbourhoods where they know the mere race of the officer may make law enforcement smoother and safer for the police? You have to weigh racism vs police safety and effectivenes.

This really isn't as simple an issue as either side seems to think.