An affirmative action thought experiment

[doubtingt]

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.

Their stated mechanism that makes experiencing racism relevant for college admissions is that it is means you faced obstacles to reach whatever level you have reached on the criteria being examined. Thus, a 19 ACT score supposedly reflects more skill, drive, and determination than a score of 20, if the person with a 19 faced more obstacles. Therefore, the actual variable being claimed as the justification for AA and for which race is being used as a proxy is the degree to which the person overcame obstacles. Like height, it is a continuous variable on which group averages may differ, but the distributions are mostly overlapping, with many people (a large minority) in the group with the lower average "obstacles" actually having more obstacles than most people in the group with the higher average obstacles. Thus, the analogy is quite apt and accurately points out the grave injustice of the very frequent false positives and false negatives that using race as a proxy leads to.
This won't convince AA proponents, because the arguments about "obstacles" are a red herring. If your obstacle isn't due to your race, then they do not care. They don't actually care about injustice or obstacles overcome. They care about race and making sure that outcomes for racial groups are equal, by any means necessary. Classic racism is about making group outcomes unequal by any means necessary. AA is just a form of counter-racism (which does not counter racism, the hyphen is important) that identical to classic racism ignores the actual relevant attributes of individuals and uses their group membership to determine their outcomes, because the goals is about impacting the relative standing of the group outcomes.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If your obstacle isn't due to your race, then they do not care. They don't actually care about injustice or obstacles overcome. They care about race and making sure that outcomes for racial groups are equal, by any means necessary.

This seems to be the crux of it.

I don't think it has to be mutually exclusive. You can care about obstacles people have to over come and also want equality in group representation in various fields. And wanting to correct some barriers doesn't mean you don't care about others. If being black really does in itself cause a barrier, and all black people face the same level of racism, then I can see why their argument may make some sense.

Perhaps an argument could be made that race and economic status are easier to measure that other obstacles, so correct for what you can. You could also measure for single parent families, domestic abuse instances, etc. Put that all into some complicated calculation and off you go. Of course that complication will probably lead to "wholistic views", which will create a shroud for hidden agendas, such as the one you accuse them of here; wanting equal distributions more than fairness for individuals.

I can see how having high representation of group x may encourage members of group x to go into that same field, and I can see how low or no representation may somewhat discourage them. But I don't think that is any reason to practice blatant racism or discriminate against people just to even out numbers.

I also think folks such as Rhea and Toni (and again they can correct me if I am wrong) think that a group having a lower representation within a field proves racism against that group. I disagree. Just because there are fewer male teachers than female teachers and fewer female doctors than male doctors, does not mean sexism is the reason. And just because there are more white hockey players than black ones, and more black basketball players than white ones, doesn't mean racism is the cause.

 

[fromderinside]

So there's this idea that if a group is socially disadvantaged, say, brought over here as slaves not of their own free will not permitted to practice cultural traditions for up to 250 years and then declared free, but, are never accorded the presumption of being born equal, that there may be some necessity to provide a hand up to make up for all the prejudiced obstacles they still face. There's this other idea that if institutions provided new billets for these people by adding to the number of billets already available at a particular institution of learning, say Michigan, that there should be no problem for those others who will have exactly the same constraints to admission. But no. The others now want to claim some right to these new billets because they either see it as unfair or a weakening of standards.

Since it is true that being black also makes it likely one is also going to be a member of the poor that its OK to provide for the poor,but, it's not OK to provide for the black since some of them can get in under the existing standards.

Its pretty apparent that what I've written is true so I'm going to declare anyone who feels diminished, unfairly excluded, from the other group as a racist.

 

[Metaphor]

So there's this idea that if a group is socially disadvantaged, say, brought over here as slaves not of their own free will not permitted to practice cultural traditions for up to 250 years

How extraordinarily long-lived Blacks are.

and then declared free, but, are never accorded the presumption of being born equal, that there may be some necessity to provide a hand up to make up for all the prejudiced obstacles they still face.

The people responsible for the unfair treatment should make restitution. That seems fair.

There's this other idea that if institutions provided new billets

So you're suggesting that it's fine for institutions to provide extra slots for Blacks only? Of course, there are no extra slots, it's simply a de facto quota system.

for these people by adding to the number of billets already available at a particular institution of learning, say Michigan, that there should be no problem for those others who will have exactly the same constraints to admission. But no. The others now want to claim some right to these new billets because they either see it as unfair or a weakening of standards.

They see it that way because it's both. That it's a weakening of standards is incontrovertible.

Since it is true that being black also makes it likely one is also going to be a member of the poor that its OK to provide for the poor,but, it's not OK to provide for the black since some of them can get in under the existing standards.

Whether you weaken the standards to admit the poor is a separate argument. But it's certainly the case that if the main mechanism that Blacks underachieve compared to other races is because of access to economic and other resources (that is, because they're poorer than average) then helping the poor will help everyone who needs it and no one who does not.

 

[Metaphor]

Sasha and Malia won't have to worry about affirmative action being banned by the time they go to University, I suppose. They'll have an edge the good old-fashioned way -- as legacy admissions at Princeton.

 

[Toni]

How extraordinarily long-lived Blacks are.

How extraordinarily long lived is racism in the U.S. A hundred years after slavery officially ended, blacks in my country were beaten, intimidated, set upon by dogs and murdered for having the audacity to register to vote. In my lifetime. While I am probably old enough to be your mother, I am not actually that old.

Unfortunately, that level of hatred, of insistence that some group of people must be treated as less than human because why? I don't actually think it was because of the color of their skin. But because if they were equally human, then that would tremendously increase the horror of slavery.

and then declared free, but, are never accorded the presumption of being born equal, that there may be some necessity to provide a hand up to make up for all the prejudiced obstacles they still face.

The people responsible for the unfair treatment should make restitution. That seems fair.

Unfair treatment is still going on. Some benefit and have benefited for generations from the treatment heaped upon certain groups.

Whether you weaken the standards to admit the poor is a separate argument. But it's certainly the case that if the main mechanism that Blacks underachieve compared to other races is because of access to economic and other resources (that is, because they're poorer than average) then helping the poor will help everyone who needs it and no one who does not.

Plus: they are black. Look, I realize you have never been to the U.S. so you cannot have any idea of the many ways, small and enormous, which blacks are treated as less than in the U.S. My state is considered to be fairly progressive, yet there is a tremendous gap in achievement between black students, Native American students, Hispanic students and students who are white or belong to (most) Asian groups. Why? Because many, many, many people make assumptions that blacks are: (insert negative stereotype here). Of course they are not racist. Donald Sterling insists he is not racist. No one is racist, in their own eyes. The message that certain kids cannot be expected to learn as well as certain others permeates the school system. It also extends to poor kids of any color but kids who are black, no matter what the achievements of their parents are assumed to be troubled, trouble causing, and not quite as smart. They get nice pats on the head but are always treated as a little bit behind.

After a while, it works on most.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You see people being singled out and treated different because of their race. You want people to stop doing that. That's racism. That's unfair. And you intend to fix it... by singling people out and treating them different because of their race.

If you want to end racism, and that is a noble goal, why not actually work to end racism? Address tribalism. Address the culture. Identify and expose racist actions. Ridicule and shame racist attitudes. Have public schools teach that race doesn't matter. And don't make race matter by having separate criteria for students once they apply to later education.

It also extends to poor kids of any color but kids who are black, no matter what the achievements of their parents are assumed to be troubled, trouble causing, and not quite as smart. They get nice pats on the head but are always treated as a little bit behind.

So we better catch them up by lowering the bar a little for them? Is that the idea?

Presumptions that blacks admitted to programs are somehow less competent are racist and completely unfounded... until you actually start letting blacks in with lower standards of admission.

 

[Toni]

You see people being singled out and treated different because of their race. You want people to stop doing that. That's racism. That's unfair. And you intend to fix it... by singling people out and treating them different because of their race.

Uh, no. I've never said any such thing. I think you would do better to state what you think and believe.

If you want to end racism, and that is a noble goal, why not actually work to end racism? Address tribalism. Address the culture. Identify and expose racist actions. Ridicule and shame racist attitudes. Have public schools teach that race doesn't matter. And don't make race matter by having separate criteria for students once they apply to later education.

Supposedly, that is what is happening: but it isn't. Please see any of the numerous skits on SNL and other such entertainment media for examples of how badly it is done.

It also extends to poor kids of any color but kids who are black, no matter what the achievements of their parents are assumed to be troubled, trouble causing, and not quite as smart. They get nice pats on the head but are always treated as a little bit behind.

So we better catch them up by lowering the bar a little for them? Is that the idea?

No. I am not sure where you get the idea that I think that any bar should be lowered for any person but that is your misperception, not a reflection of my position. My position is that racism still exists and still causes great harm.

Presumptions that blacks admitted to programs are somehow less competent are racist and completely unfounded... until you actually start letting blacks in with lower standards of admission.

Actually, your assumption that blacks are admitted to programs with lower standards is racist.

 

[Arctish]

How extraordinarily long lived is racism in the U.S. A hundred years after slavery officially ended, blacks in my country were beaten, intimidated, set upon by dogs and murdered for having the audacity to register to vote. In my lifetime. While I am probably old enough to be your mother, I am not actually that old.

Unfortunately, that level of hatred, of insistence that some group of people must be treated as less than human because why? I don't actually think it was because of the color of their skin. But because if they were equally human, then that would tremendously increase the horror of slavery.

and then declared free, but, are never accorded the presumption of being born equal, that there may be some necessity to provide a hand up to make up for all the prejudiced obstacles they still face.

The people responsible for the unfair treatment should make restitution. That seems fair.

Unfair treatment is still going on. Some benefit and have benefited for generations from the treatment heaped upon certain groups.

Whether you weaken the standards to admit the poor is a separate argument. But it's certainly the case that if the main mechanism that Blacks underachieve compared to other races is because of access to economic and other resources (that is, because they're poorer than average) then helping the poor will help everyone who needs it and no one who does not.

Plus: they are black. Look, I realize you have never been to the U.S. so you cannot have any idea of the many ways, small and enormous, which blacks are treated as less than in the U.S. My state is considered to be fairly progressive, yet there is a tremendous gap in achievement between black students, Native American students, Hispanic students and students who are white or belong to (most) Asian groups. Why? Because many, many, many people make assumptions that blacks are: (insert negative stereotype here). Of course they are not racist. Donald Sterling insists he is not racist. No one is racist, in their own eyes. The message that certain kids cannot be expected to learn as well as certain others permeates the school system. It also extends to poor kids of any color but kids who are black, no matter what the achievements of their parents are assumed to be troubled, trouble causing, and not quite as smart. They get nice pats on the head but are always treated as a little bit behind.

After a while, it works on most.

Back in the oh-so-liberal early 1970s my parents were looking to buy a house in oh-so-liberal Connecticut. The real estate agents in Darien and New Canaan assured them the local schools were of the highest caliber, and that a very high percentage of their high school graduates went on to Ivy League colleges. They also assured my parents that they wouldn't dream of showing houses to the "wrong kind of people" (read: blacks); my parents could rest assured if they bought a house in Darien or New Canaan their neighborhood would remain white, white, white!

In 1980 I moved to Houston, Texas where I watched the city expand like an amoeba to annex affluent white neighborhoods and bypass black and Hispanic neighborhoods. I watched the city council scream bloody murder when they were forced to provide city services to a poor neighborhood full of minority folks just because Houston had it completely surrounded. Apparently, being too small to have your own school, and being surrounded by people who get city services, doesn't mean your kids get to ride city buses to city schools. Not if you're black, anyway.

My experiences are boringly commonplace. It happened all over the country, and it happened for generations. My father was the son of immigrants, but he was white, so he went to the good school with the new books and the well educated teachers. Kids he knew from a few blocks over were black, so they went to a crappy run-down shack of a schoolhouse and learned whatever they could using whatever second hand stuff was available. I find blindness to this pervasive racism baffling. How can anyone doubt that the white kids in this country have advantages the black and Hispanic kids don't? The white kids won't always succeed, of course. And some of them will have tremendous obstacles to their success. But overall, the chances of a white kid being in the best school merely because they are white is higher than those of a black kid being there despite the fact he's black.

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

Unfair treatment is still going on. Some benefit and have benefited for generations from the treatment heaped upon certain groups.

The people responsible for the unfair treatment should make restitution. That seems fair. I don't know how many times I need to say that.

As fair the people who have 'benefitted': first, everyone is the poorer because of arbitrary discrimination. The U.S. is a poorer nation because of discrimination.

How do you go from some people having benefitted from discrimination to: Asians and Whites ought to be discriminated against in medical school admissions?

Plus: they are black. Look, I realize you have never been to the U.S. so you cannot have any idea of the many ways, small and enormous, which blacks are treated as less than in the U.S. My state is considered to be fairly progressive, yet there is a tremendous gap in achievement between black students, Native American students, Hispanic students and students who are white or belong to (most) Asian groups. Why?

You don't think it's going to be any one reason, do you?

Because many, many, many people make assumptions that blacks are: (insert negative stereotype here). Of course they are not racist. Donald Sterling insists he is not racist. No one is racist, in their own eyes. The message that certain kids cannot be expected to learn as well as certain others permeates the school system. It also extends to poor kids of any color but kids who are black, no matter what the achievements of their parents are assumed to be troubled, trouble causing, and not quite as smart. They get nice pats on the head but are always treated as a little bit behind.

After a while, it works on most.

Individual students wanting to get into medical school are not responsible for the tone of society. Indeed, if society is at fault then Blacks are equally at fault, since they are part of society.

No problem is ever solved by more of the same.

 

[Metaphor]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

So, do you actually have evidence that individuals --or groups--who fail their course work through the twelfth grade are actually being admitted to college and/or medical school? In absence of an athletic scholarship, I mean and those don't get you into med school.

 

[Metaphor]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

So, do you actually have evidence that individuals --or groups--who fail their course work through the twelfth grade are actually being admitted to college and/or medical school? In absence of an athletic scholarship, I mean and those don't get you into med school.

Where have I made that claim?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You see people being singled out and treated different because of their race. You want people to stop doing that. That's racism. That's unfair. And you intend to fix it... by singling people out and treating them different because of their race.

Uh, no. I've never said any such thing. I think you would do better to state what you think and believe.

Have we been misreading you? Your earlier posts read as if you support AA? Are you now saying that you don't? Are you merely saying racism still exists today? Yes, it does, and AA is a form of it.

If you want to end racism, and that is a noble goal, why not actually work to end racism? Address tribalism. Address the culture. Identify and expose racist actions. Ridicule and shame racist attitudes. Have public schools teach that race doesn't matter. And don't make race matter by having separate criteria for students once they apply to later education.

Supposedly, that is what is happening: but it isn't. Please see any of the numerous skits on SNL and other such entertainment media for examples of how badly it is done.

So do it better. Is your failing at correcting racist discrimination a justification for more racist discrimination? Because that is what AA is.

No. I am not sure where you get the idea that I think that any bar should be lowered for any person but that is your misperception, not a reflection of my position. My position is that racism still exists and still causes great harm.

I got the idea that you think the bar should by lowered by your apparent advocacy of AA. Perhaps I misread you and you do not support AA? If so, then I don't think we disagree on much.

Presumptions that blacks admitted to programs are somehow less competent are racist and completely unfounded... until you actually start letting blacks in with lower standards of admission.

Actually, your assumption that blacks are admitted to programs with lower standards is racist.

I made no assumption. I was speaking to the logic. If people with trait X are discriminated against, and trait X has nothing to do with how competent they are, then that discrimination is unfounded and unjust.... until you actually start lowering the bar for people with trait X. That goes for racist AA, children's bosses, athletic scholarships, etc.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

So, do you actually have evidence that individuals --or groups--who fail their course work through the twelfth grade are actually being admitted to college and/or medical school? In absence of an athletic scholarship, I mean and those don't get you into med school.

Where have I made that claim?

The above sounded a little bit like that was what you were claiming. So the above was just for effect?

 

[Metaphor]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

So, do you actually have evidence that individuals --or groups--who fail their course work through the twelfth grade are actually being admitted to college and/or medical school? In absence of an athletic scholarship, I mean and those don't get you into med school.

Where have I made that claim?

The above sounded a little bit like that was what you were claiming. So the above was just for effect?

No, the above was not just 'for effect', since I have never claimed the 'blatantly unqualified' or incompetent were given slots solely due to AA.

The repeated claim is made that but for societal discrimination against them, Blacks would do as well as any other group in educational achievement. You are claiming that every Black person has suffered from this disadvantage. By the end of Year 12, however, the damage has been done, and nothing can turn back the hands of time. Let's say a Black student gets an MCAT score of 30. If she would have gotten an MCAT score of 32 if she'd had a 'White' childhood, that does not mean we can treat her score like it's a 32 -- because it's not a 32. Aptitude tests correlate with success for all groups, not just Whites.

Advocates of AA also do not seem to want to discuss the treatment of other sources of advantage or disadvantage. What if someone got an MCAT score of 30, but if they had not nearly drowned once as a child and suffered some brain damage, they would have had a 32? Life circumstances have been unfair to that child, have they not?

What if someone got an MCAT score of 30, but they're actually quite privileged and indulged and didn't study, but if they'd prepared more they'd have gotten a 32?

What should we do with Sasha's and Malia's scores? They're the President's daughters, but I guess if they were not they'd merely be the daughters of millionaires. Do you think the privilege they'll be getting from being the President's daughters will not compensate, just compensate, or more than compensate for the 'Black' disadvantage? How are you going to quantify this?

 

[Arctish]

Affirmative Action is a pretty crude tool. There's little room for nuance, or considering individual circumstances. But using it as a means to provide educational opportunities to the disadvantaged is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

It's worse than doing nothing: it is positively toxic. You can shut the barn door but it's useless if the horse has bolted. If someone has been failed by year 12, no amount of affirmative action can turn back the hands of time. But even if it could, even if affirmative action can effectively compensate, someone else is paying the price: smart kids of the unfavoured races (White and Asian).

It's like someone being hit by a car, and when the driver cannot be produced, a random person is selected to pay the compensation.

So, do you actually have evidence that individuals --or groups--who fail their course work through the twelfth grade are actually being admitted to college and/or medical school? In absence of an athletic scholarship, I mean and those don't get you into med school.

Where have I made that claim?

The above sounded a little bit like that was what you were claiming. So the above was just for effect?

No, the above was not just 'for effect', since I have never claimed the 'blatantly unqualified' or incompetent were given slots solely due to AA.

The repeated claim is made that but for societal discrimination against them, Blacks would do as well as any other group in educational achievement. You are claiming that every Black person has suffered from this disadvantage. By the end of Year 12, however, the damage has been done, and nothing can turn back the hands of time.

By the end of Year 12 the effects of discrimination may have limited the academic opportunities for a student but that's no excuse for continuing to impose that limit. If a student attains the required score, he or she is qualified for admission. If he or she attained that score despite being academically disadvantaged, he or she has demonstrated aptitude in a way a more privileged student with a higher score might not have.

I did pretty well on my SAT exams. But that doesn't mean I was a better student than kids who scored lower. I had the benefit of good schools and good teachers. If I'd had to go to a crappy, underfunded school like a lot of minority kids do, my score would probably have been lower.

Let's say a Black student gets an MCAT score of 30. If she would have gotten an MCAT score of 32 if she'd had a 'White' childhood, that does not mean we can treat her score like it's a 32 -- because it's not a 32. Aptitude tests correlate with success for all groups, not just Whites.

It could very well be that a white kid's 32 indicates less academic achievement than a black kid's 30, or a Hispanic kid's 29. How good were the schools those students attended? The best students don't always have the best scores among all students everywhere, they have the best scores in their school environment. Why shouldn't a college admissions department consider that when sorting through applications?

Advocates of AA also do not seem to want to discuss the treatment of other sources of advantage or disadvantage. What if someone got an MCAT score of 30, but if they had not nearly drowned once as a child and suffered some brain damage, they would have had a 32? Life circumstances have been unfair to that child, have they not?

What if someone got an MCAT score of 30, but they're actually quite privileged and indulged and didn't study, but if they'd prepared more they'd have gotten a 32?

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors (Electrician's Mate). When he went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time. By the time I came along my family lived in nice neighborhoods with nice schools, due in part to the opportunities my father had that others did not.

I'm not saying my Dad didn't have to work for what he got. He did. He worked very hard. But I am saying the reason I got to go to a high school with excellent teachers, modern facilities, a tennis team, and senior year electives like Private Pilot Ground School, was due in large part to the opportunities offered him that were explicitly denied others. So it's not really a surprise that my class's test scores were higher than the scores of the kids from a predominantly black school 2 towns over. It was to be expected. But that doesn't mean my fellow students and I deserved to go to college more than those other kids did. We had the advantage, but what we deserved had nothing to do with it.

What should we do with Sasha's and Malia's scores? They're the President's daughters, but I guess if they were not they'd merely be the daughters of millionaires. Do you think the privilege they'll be getting from being the President's daughters will not compensate, just compensate, or more than compensate for the 'Black' disadvantage? How are you going to quantify this?

Sasha and Malia are exceptions for the same reason George W. Bush was. Ivy League colleges line up to admit the children of the rich and powerful, even if they're not very bright. Does anyone here believe W. got into Yale on academic merit? He was a legacy student from a wealthy family, the son of a Congressman, and grandson of a Senator. He was a shoo-in, just like Sasha and Malia.

 

[Metaphor]

By the end of Year 12 the effects of discrimination may have limited the academic opportunities

No: it would have done more than that. It would have permanently limited their aptitude. Brain damage permanently limits aptitude. Deprivation at critical developmental stages permanently limits aptitude. Lead poisoning permanently limits aptitude. Chronic undernutrition permanently limits aptitude.

for a student but that's no excuse for continuing to impose that limit. If a student attains the required score, he or she is qualified for admission.

No-one ever claimed that people unqualified for admission are being let in. 'Admission' is a binary category (either you were let in or you were not) but 'qualifying' is not, otherwise you might as well put all qualifying applicants in a lottery to select them. Of course, they don't put qualifying applicants in a lottery, they rank order them. Some people are more qualified than others (as evidenced by the use of achievement, aptitude, and other scores.)

So with affirmative action, of course some people are being let in that are less qualified than others.

If he or she attained that score despite being academically disadvantaged, he or she has demonstrated aptitude in a way a more privileged student with a higher score might not have.

Aptitude and achievement are different, but nevertheless, whilst there are practice effects on aptitude tests, that does not mean aptitude tests are worthless. Not perfect does not mean worthless, it means a less strong correlation between achievement scores and subsequent achievement, not that we can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I did pretty well on my SAT exams. But that doesn't mean I was a better student than kids who scored lower. I had the benefit of good schools and good teachers. If I'd had to go to a crappy, underfunded school like a lot of minority kids do, my score would probably have been lower.

But it does mean you were a better student. You demonstrated more academic aptitude and aptitude is correlated with academic success (so is academic achievement). If you went to a crappy school it's entirely probably your score would have been lower because your aptitude would have been permanently impaired.

It could very well be that a white kid's 32 indicates less academic achievement than a black kid's 30, or a Hispanic kid's 29.

MCAT is about aptitude, not achievement.

However, we don't give Olympic sprinters with short legs a head start, or place those with longer legs ten metres behind.

How good were the schools those students attended? The best students don't always have the best scores among all students everywhere, they have the best scores in their school environment. Why shouldn't a college admissions department consider that when sorting through applications?

This is an assumption without a basis. The best students are the best students, not just the best ones in their school.

I might be the best runner in my school, but does that mean I'm the best in Australia or the world? Of course it doesn't. It doesn't mean anything like that.

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors (Electrician's Mate). When he went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time. By the time I came along my family lived in nice neighborhoods with nice schools, due in part to the opportunities my father had that others did not.

And what if your father had been lazy and didn't want to work and you had no nice neighbourhood or nice school? Shouldn't you also be treated the same as other Black children, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the same life circumstances as you?

I'm not saying my Dad didn't have to work for what he got. He did. He worked very hard. But I am saying the reason I got to go to a high school with excellent teachers, modern facilities, a tennis team, and senior year electives like Private Pilot Ground School, was due in large part to the opportunities offered him that were explicitly denied others. So it's not really a surprise that my class's test scores were higher than the scores of the kids from a predominantly black school 2 towns over. It was to be expected. But that doesn't mean my fellow students and I deserved to go to college more than those other kids did. We had the advantage, but what we deserved had nothing to do with it.

And people who are genetically gifted don't 'deserve' to go to college more either; no one decided to be born smart.

Sasha and Malia are exceptions for the same reason George W. Bush was. Ivy League colleges line up to admit the children of the rich and powerful, even if they're not very bright. Does anyone here believe W. got into Yale on academic merit? He was a legacy student from a wealthy family, the son of a Congressman, and grandson of a Senator. He was a shoo-in, just like Sasha and Malia.

You're dodging. Of course nobody believes that a C-student 'earned' his way into Yale. I'm as against legacy admissions and athletic admissions as I am against AA admissions.

 

[Arctish]

No: it would have done more than that. It would have permanently limited their aptitude. Brain damage permanently limits aptitude. Deprivation at critical developmental stages permanently limits aptitude. Lead poisoning permanently limits aptitude. Chronic undernutrition permanently limits aptitude.

What definition of aptitude are you using? As I understand the word, it mean the ability to acquire knowledge or perform a task. Having mediocre teachers doesn't mean you are less able to learn than people who had good ones, although it would probably mean you learned less.

for a student but that's no excuse for continuing to impose that limit. If a student attains the required score, he or she is qualified for admission.

No-one ever claimed that people unqualified for admission are being let in. 'Admission' is a binary category (either you were let in or you were not) but 'qualifying' is not, otherwise you might as well put all qualifying applicants in a lottery to select them. Of course, they don't put qualifying applicants in a lottery, they rank order them. Some people are more qualified than others (as evidenced by the use of achievement, aptitude, and other scores.)

So with affirmative action, of course some people are being let in that are less qualified than others.

No, being qualified is binary. Colleges have admissions requirements, and either you meet those requirements or you don't. You might exceed the requirements, and therefore be higher ranked on the admissions list than someone who merely met them, but both you and that other student are qualified to attend that college.

If he or she attained that score despite being academically disadvantaged, he or she has demonstrated aptitude in a way a more privileged student with a higher score might not have.

Aptitude and achievement are different, but nevertheless, whilst there are practice effects on aptitude tests, that does not mean aptitude tests are worthless. Not perfect does not mean worthless, it means a less strong correlation between achievement scores and subsequent achievement, not that we can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I did pretty well on my SAT exams. But that doesn't mean I was a better student than kids who scored lower. I had the benefit of good schools and good teachers. If I'd had to go to a crappy, underfunded school like a lot of minority kids do, my score would probably have been lower.

But it does mean you were a better student. You demonstrated more academic aptitude and aptitude is correlated with academic success (so is academic achievement). If you went to a crappy school it's entirely probably your score would have been lower because your aptitude would have been permanently impaired.

I don't see how my aptitude would have been affected, much less permanently impaired.

If my Algebra teacher is really good at his job I will probably learn a lot about Algebra just by paying attention in class. If he is really bad at his job, I won't learn as much by paying attention. But my aptitude for Algebra doesn't depend on my teacher's skills. If I have a high aptitude for Algebra I could probably learn it just by reading the book. If I have little aptitude for Algebra I will struggle with it either way.

It could very well be that a white kid's 32 indicates less academic achievement than a black kid's 30, or a Hispanic kid's 29.

MCAT is about aptitude, not achievement.

However, we don't give Olympic sprinters with short legs a head start, or place those with longer legs ten metres behind.

How good were the schools those students attended? The best students don't always have the best scores among all students everywhere, they have the best scores in their school environment. Why shouldn't a college admissions department consider that when sorting through applications?

This is an assumption without a basis. The best students are the best students, not just the best ones in their school.

If all schools were pretty much the same, you could compare students like that. But here in the US, the schools vary considerably from district to district, and from state to state. It's crazy-stupid, but that's how we roll. Comparing students from Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Minnesota is like comparing apples, oranges, and grapes. Add in tiny schools with a dozen students like on Alaska's Arctic coast, homeschoolers, Reservation schools, and the private schools of the very wealthy, and you get a variance in curriculum and quality so big you can't just look at a test to evaluate a student's aptitude. You have to consider the context in which a student achieved a score, not just the score itself.

I might be the best runner in my school, but does that mean I'm the best in Australia or the world? Of course it doesn't. It doesn't mean anything like that.

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors (Electrician's Mate). When he went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time. By the time I came along my family lived in nice neighborhoods with nice schools, due in part to the opportunities my father had that others did not.

And what if your father had been lazy and didn't want to work and you had no nice neighbourhood or nice school? Shouldn't you also be treated the same as other Black children, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the same life circumstances as you?

If we all went to the same schools, our academic performance should be judged by the same standards. But we don't all go to the same schools, or live in the same neighborhoods, or get the same access to educational resources, and there's no good reason to pretend otherwise.

I'm not saying my Dad didn't have to work for what he got. He did. He worked very hard. But I am saying the reason I got to go to a high school with excellent teachers, modern facilities, a tennis team, and senior year electives like Private Pilot Ground School, was due in large part to the opportunities offered him that were explicitly denied others. So it's not really a surprise that my class's test scores were higher than the scores of the kids from a predominantly black school 2 towns over. It was to be expected. But that doesn't mean my fellow students and I deserved to go to college more than those other kids did. We had the advantage, but what we deserved had nothing to do with it.

And people who are genetically gifted don't 'deserve' to go to college more either; no one decided to be born smart.

Sasha and Malia are exceptions for the same reason George W. Bush was. Ivy League colleges line up to admit the children of the rich and powerful, even if they're not very bright. Does anyone here believe W. got into Yale on academic merit? He was a legacy student from a wealthy family, the son of a Congressman, and grandson of a Senator. He was a shoo-in, just like Sasha and Malia.

You're dodging. Of course nobody believes that a C-student 'earned' his way into Yale. I'm as against legacy admissions and athletic admissions as I am against AA admissions.

I'm not dodging. Sasha and Malia are the children of the President of the United States. They are also the subject of asshole comments from the same bigots who call their mother a fat-ass and compare her to a gorilla. So even though they will no doubt be admitted to prestigious universities, they will still have to deal with racists and racism in a way that other President's children didn't. It probably won't be enough to stop them but it's a burden they shouldn't have to bear.

 

[Metaphor]

What definition of aptitude are you using? As I understand the word, it mean the ability to acquire knowledge or perform a task. Having mediocre teachers doesn't mean you are less able to learn than people who had good ones, although it would probably mean you learned less.

Black students applying to medical school have a lower mean aptitude for medicine, as demonstrated by the MCAT. Aptitude is not the ability to perform a specific task; that is achievement. All kinds of factors influence aptitude. Take lead poisoning. It will lower aptitude. Note, it won't just lower your aptitude score: it will lower you aptitude, which is the reason you get a lower score.

No, being qualified is binary. Colleges have admissions requirements, and either you meet those requirements or you don't. You might exceed the requirements, and therefore be higher ranked on the admissions list than someone who merely met them, but both you and that other student are qualified to attend that college.

This is a game with words. Either those that are more qualified deserve slots more than the less qualified, or they don't. Evidently, all universities and graduate schools disagree with you that people who meet some floor are equally qualified, otherwise there would not be differential admission rates by aptitude and achievement scores above the floor.

I don't see how my aptitude would have been affected, much less permanently impaired.

Then you are simply ignorant about human development.

If my Algebra teacher is really good at his job I will probably learn a lot about Algebra just by paying attention in class. If he is really bad at his job, I won't learn as much by paying attention. But my aptitude for Algebra doesn't depend on my teacher's skills. If I have a high aptitude for Algebra I could probably learn it just by reading the book. If I have little aptitude for Algebra I will struggle with it either way.

If you think aptitude is not affected by schooling (especially early schooling) or environment, then why is there a huge gap in aptitude scores between Whites and Blacks? Are you proposing that Blacks are genetically inferior?

If all schools were pretty much the same, you could compare students like that.

Huh? I don't think you can simply compare schools like that. Coming first in English at Podunk U, Alabama is not the same accomplishment as coming first in English at Oxford.

But here in the US, the schools vary considerably from district to district, and from state to state. It's crazy-stupid, but that's how we roll. Comparing students from Mississippi, Massachusetts, and Minnesota is like comparing apples, oranges, and grapes. Add in tiny schools with a dozen students like on Alaska's Arctic coast, homeschoolers, Reservation schools, and the private schools of the very wealthy, and you get a variance in curriculum and quality so big you can't just look at a test to evaluate a student's aptitude. You have to consider the context in which a student achieved a score, not just the score itself.

Which is it? Does schooling affect your aptitude or not?

If we all went to the same schools, our academic performance should be judged by the same standards. But we don't all go to the same schools, or live in the same neighborhoods, or get the same access to educational resources, and there's no good reason to pretend otherwise.

Who is pretending? In any case, are you saying that if White Dee got an SAT of 1400 and Black Dee got an SAT of 1400 and they went to the same school, and live next to each other in the same street, then we can compare them?
it.

I'm not dodging. Sasha and Malia are the children of the President of the United States. They are also the subject of asshole comments from the same bigots who call their mother a fat-ass and compare her to a gorilla. So even though they will no doubt be admitted to prestigious universities, they will still have to deal with racists and racism in a way that other President's children didn't. It probably won't be enough to stop them but it's a burden they shouldn't have to bear.

So by exactly how much should they get a boost, compared to White children? I'm interested to know how you quantify it.