Explaining Privilege: It may not be what you think.

[Politesse]

I think positive privilege has to be considered, and seriously. It's not just about what is taken away from minority groups, there are, unquestionably, serious advantages given to people who are born into certain demographic groups. Sometimes, yes, privilege consists of merely not needing a handicap ramp that is inconsistently present and diificult to use when there. But here are other cases in which "special people" straight up have their own entrance to the building that no one else can use. And if you grow up as one of those people, then sure, you likely think of that as a normal state of affairs and may be offended and say "but what I want is for everyone to be able to use the special door not just me". But fundamentally, it may not be possible for everyone to use the special door at once. A deficit-only portrait of how privilege works fundamentally ignores the fact that the disproportionate amount of capital concentrated in the privileged classes may not actually be fairly redistributable without reduction. If that is the case, nominatively equal rights under the law are great, but cannot, on their own, actually create social equity where there is none.

I feel like you're arguing at me, as if you somehow think you and I are in disagreement? Am I inferring wrongly, or are you approaching me as an opponent in this discussion, Poli?

In regard to the rest... if you're talking about wealth, sure, maybe reduction is necessary if redistribution is your aim. But aside from an extremely few set of cases of "special doors", the vast majority of social privileges are NOT zero-sum. Most of the privileges are based on social biases and stereotypes, the expectation of behaviors and tendencies, lots of subconscious things. There's no reason that white people have to be treated worse by the cops in order for black people to be treated fairly. There's no reason that white people should face more suspicion while shopping in order for black people to face less. It's not like there's a fixed suspicion quota that has to be met .

I genuinely don't know why you're lecturing at me.

An argument is not the only way to have a conversation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

An argument is not the only way to have a conversation.

The fuck?!?!

 

[Politesse]

An argument is not the only way to have a conversation.

The fuck?!?!

Emily has accused me of defining her as an "opponent" and "lecturing at her" because we have differing opinions. I do not agree that every conversation has to be some sort of battlefield with a winner and a loser, even if two people do not share the exact same perspective on something.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think positive privilege has to be considered, and seriously. It's not just about what is taken away from minority groups, there are, unquestionably, serious advantages given to people who are born into certain demographic groups. Sometimes, yes, privilege consists of merely not needing a handicap ramp that is inconsistently present and diificult to use when there. But here are other cases in which "special people" straight up have their own entrance to the building that no one else can use. And if you grow up as one of those people, then sure, you likely think of that as a normal state of affairs and may be offended and say "but what I want is for everyone to be able to use the special door not just me". But fundamentally, it may not be possible for everyone to use the special door at once. A deficit-only portrait of how privilege works fundamentally ignores the fact that the disproportionate amount of capital concentrated in the privileged classes may not actually be fairly redistributable without reduction. If that is the case, nominatively equal rights under the law are great, but cannot, on their own, actually create social equity where there is none.

I feel like you're arguing at me, as if you somehow think you and I are in disagreement? Am I inferring wrongly, or are you approaching me as an opponent in this discussion, Poli?

In regard to the rest... if you're talking about wealth, sure, maybe reduction is necessary if redistribution is your aim. But aside from an extremely few set of cases of "special doors", the vast majority of social privileges are NOT zero-sum. Most of the privileges are based on social biases and stereotypes, the expectation of behaviors and tendencies, lots of subconscious things. There's no reason that white people have to be treated worse by the cops in order for black people to be treated fairly. There's no reason that white people should face more suspicion while shopping in order for black people to face less. It's not like there's a fixed suspicion quota that has to be met .

I genuinely don't know why you're lecturing at me.

An argument is not the only way to have a conversation.

I get that, and I enjoy not-arguing. Something in the tone of that string of questions seemed... leading?

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily has accused me of defining her as an "opponent" and "lecturing at her" because we have differing opinions. I do not agree that every conversation has to be some sort of battlefield with a winner and a loser, even if two people do not share the exact same perspective on something.

Nobody ever actually wins internet arguments

Honestly, it was the particular path of this interaction that made it seem adversarial. Which I also found confusing, given that you and I probably share most of the same views on this topic. I'm not even sure what our differing opinions really are on the topic of privilege.

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

I really hate it when social issues that are complex get turned into partisan mudflinging.

I'm a moderate. Liberal on some topics, conservative on others, never particularly extreme about any of them. I get tired of being lambasted as if I'm some sort of pariah with oozing sores simply because I don't conform to every fucking progressive talking point. It's stupid to just lump people together and to decide that all of your opponents are the same in every way, and then proceed to denigrate and demonize them.

So you disagree?

Who, specifically, do you think doesn't have equal rights under the law?

Women don't have fully equal rights. Gay and Lesbian people don't have fully equal rights. Transgender people don't have fully equal rights, although that is a much more complicated topic. And while racial minorities, particularly black people, have equal rights on paper, they don't have effective equality in practice.

Ah, in practice. That'd be the important point. So why might one group have different rights in practice than what the law prescribes?

Lots of reasons, ranging from institutionalized practices to subconscious bias resulting from stereotypes.

What's the point of your questions here? What are you fishing for?

I objected to the shallow and thoughtless claim that moderates don't acknowledge that privilege exists. I get really tired of the constant need of everyone (not here specifically, but in general across all forms of social media and internet interactions) to cast every single topic as a partisan platform, and to take every opportunity to tell everyone what "those people" think. It's tiresome, and it's almost always wrong.

That comment - that it's stupid, shortsighted, and poor thinking to just inanely castigate entire groups of people and ascribe malice or ignorance to them - led to a strange set of leading questions. It really came across as if you were trying to angle for some kind of "gotcha" moment.

If that wasn't your intent, then no big deal. Perhaps just be aware that your style of questioning here was odd.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nobody ever actually wins internet arguments

Bilby does.

All the goddamned time.

 

[Toni]

I suspect, though, that it's highly dependent on the local CC and universities than anything else. In AZ, we have a fantastic, well funded CC system (in the three biggest counties, at least that I am familiar with). In general, students at the traditional age of who went the CC --> Uni route had better foundations and were better prepared for later courses (I put myself in this category as well, so there may be a bit of bias).

I have no basis for comparison, but I did the CC -> Uni route in AZ and didn't have any problem with being behind.

Would think that if you paid attention and studied CC should be fine.

REALLY depends on the CC program. As I mentioned, locally, the CC may use the same texts and call the course by the same name but in the disciplines I am familiar with, the CC program covers less than half of what the 4 year college covers in a semester. That leaves the transfer students at a disadvantage if they think they got the same class or are well prepared for upper division courses.

Absolutely: mileage will vary by community college and by student.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea what you think I think it says. But since it does not mention SAT scores, it certainly does not address what anything I wrote.

Since you failed to note the problem I highlighted it for you.

I originally pointed out recent research indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT. Which is why many institutions are moving away from requiring either the SAT or the ACT. it has nothing to do with covering up anything (as you alleged).

I made no comments about anything else. The highlighted portion has jack shit to do with my comment.

The point is that your pro-GPA data is adjusted for the school.

High GPA from a good school likely means more than a high SAT. High GPA from a poor school doesn't mean nearly as much, though. Going just on GPA requires the universities to have information on the quality of every high school and that's going to be very controversial data.

 

[laughing dog]

I originally pointed out recent research indicates that HS GPA is a better predictor than the SAT. Which is why many institutions are moving away from requiring either the SAT or the ACT. it has nothing to do with covering up anything (as you alleged).

I made no comments about anything else. The highlighted portion has jack shit to do with my comment.

The point is that your pro-GPA data is adjusted for the school.

High GPA from a good school likely means more than a high SAT. High GPA from a poor school doesn't mean nearly as much, though. Going just on GPA requires the universities to have information on the quality of every high school and that's going to be very controversial data.

From the abstract you clearly did not read -

We found students with the same HSGPA or the same ACT score graduate at very different rates based on which high school they attended. Yet, the relationship of HSGPAs with college graduation is strong and consistent and larger than school effects. In contrast, the relationship of ACT scores with college graduation is weak and smaller than high school effects, and the slope of the relationship varies by high school.[

That means the GPA is a better predictor than the ACT even after adjusting for the school effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From the abstract you clearly did not read -

We found students with the same HSGPA or the same ACT score graduate at very different rates based on which high school they attended. Yet, the relationship of HSGPAs with college graduation is strong and consistent and larger than school effects. In contrast, the relationship of ACT scores with college graduation is weak and smaller than high school effects, and the slope of the relationship varies by high school.[

That means the GPA is a better predictor than the ACT even after adjusting for the school effect.

"Even after"??? My point was that it was adjusted!

The question is which is greater, the unadjusted GPA or the ACT--and you're not presenting a comparison of the two.

 

[laughing dog]

From the abstract you clearly did not read -

We found students with the same HSGPA or the same ACT score graduate at very different rates based on which high school they attended. Yet, the relationship of HSGPAs with college graduation is strong and consistent and larger than school effects. In contrast, the relationship of ACT scores with college graduation is weak and smaller than high school effects, and the slope of the relationship varies by high school.[

That means the GPA is a better predictor than the ACT even after adjusting for the school effect.

"Even after"??? My point was that it was adjusted!

The question is which is greater, the unadjusted GPA or the ACT--and you're not presenting a comparison of the two.

What are you talking about? There is nothing about adjusting GPAs in the abstract because the GPA was not adjusted. The investigators controlled for the school effect both with GPA and with the ACT.

LP read the article because your responses indicate you have no clue what you are talking about. None whatsoever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Even after"??? My point was that it was adjusted!

The question is which is greater, the unadjusted GPA or the ACT--and you're not presenting a comparison of the two.

What are you talking about? There is nothing about adjusting GPAs in the abstract because the GPA was not adjusted. The investigators controlled for the school effect both with GPA and with the ACT.

LP read the article because your responses indicate you have no clue what you are talking about. None whatsoever.

This subthread started with me quoting the article saying they were comparing adjusted GPA and you dismissed that part of my post. It's pretty hard to quote something you didn't read.

 

[laughing dog]

"Even after"??? My point was that it was adjusted!

The question is which is greater, the unadjusted GPA or the ACT--and you're not presenting a comparison of the two.

What are you talking about? There is nothing about adjusting GPAs in the abstract because the GPA was not adjusted. The investigators controlled for the school effect both with GPA and with the ACT.

LP read the article because your responses indicate you have no clue what you are talking about. None whatsoever.

This subthread started with me quoting the article saying they were comparing adjusted GPA and you dismissed that part of my post. It's pretty hard to quote something you didn't read.

Not if one is a bullshitter. Apparently it is easy to not read what you quote.
Here is what you quoted (in post 145)
‘Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.’

There is no mention of adjusting anything.

 

[steve_bank]

To me privilege's infers something like the British royals in the news. Social deference.

A better word may be advantage. That cuts across all demographics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This subthread started with me quoting the article saying they were comparing adjusted GPA and you dismissed that part of my post. It's pretty hard to quote something you didn't read.

Not if one is a bullshitter. Apparently it is easy to not read what you quote.
Here is what you quoted (in post 145)
‘Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.’

There is no mention of adjusting anything.

Note: "taken into account". In other words, it's only predictive once you consider what school that GPA came from.

 

[steve_bank]

Explaining priviledge oradvanage.

Tiger Wood's father mentored Tiger from childhood in golf leading to success and welth. Having a father like that is an advantage over a kid who wants to play golf with parents who do not care.

Archie Manning the father of Peyton and Eli Mann8ng was an NFL quarterback. Was it an accident his kids became successful in the NFL? They had an advantage.

While blacks were held back under Jim Crow there was no special advantage to being white. Kids like me from the projects took a bus to the Catholic high school I went to, a few kids were chauffeured to school. They had a family advantage I did not have. I grew up single parent with my father absent a lot. The term was 'latch key kids'. My sisters and I were on our own days at a time.

If you want to minimize social advantage it starts in primary education which nationally we are not doing a good job. Given my family situation I came to believe that what success I had was rooted in the discipline and quality of education in the Catholic schools I went to. I graduated with strong math, reading comprehension, and writing skills.

In the 90s I watched a report on a black charter school in NYC. Uniforms and parental involvement were required. Disciple and respect for teachers was maintained. There was an environment of expectation. Black kids who were written off in other schools began achieving. It sounded like the Catholic school I went to.

Education at the bottom is the antidote. It is not a profound revalation, we all know that. It is matter of commitment and funding. New sports staiums are on the order of $1 billion, yet we have truble funding schools as if it does not matter.

Traditionally the privilege's of money was access to education nd healthcare. Around the time of JFK the Moynihan(sp?) report was controversial. One of the conclusions was that kids performing in school was not related to race, it was related o family stability and money. It seems obvious but it was controversial probably based in racism. Another conclusion was that welfare while with good intentions was destroying the black family.

 

[laughing dog]

This subthread started with me quoting the article saying they were comparing adjusted GPA and you dismissed that part of my post. It's pretty hard to quote something you didn't read.

Not if one is a bullshitter. Apparently it is easy to not read what you quote.
Here is what you quoted (in post 145)
‘Student with a GPA under 1.5 had a 20% chance of graduating college, up to 80% for those with a GPA of 3.75 or higher, once student background and college characteristics were taken into account.’

There is no mention of adjusting anything.

Note: "taken into account". In other words, it's only predictive once you consider what school that GPA came from.

No, it means there are 3 factors - GPA, school and college characteristics. The results indicate the effect of GPA alone.

But your incorrect response evades the issue of your misunderstanding about adjusting GPAs. Do you understand now that GPAs were not adjusted?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note: "taken into account". In other words, it's only predictive once you consider what school that GPA came from.

No, it means there are 3 factors - GPA, school and college characteristics. The results indicate the effect of GPA alone.

But your incorrect response evades the issue of your misunderstanding about adjusting GPAs. Do you understand now that GPAs were not adjusted?

The exact method is irrelevant--the point is it needs both the GPA and the school it came from to be useful information. Any honest list of the value of GPA from different schools would be extremely controversial and isn't going to happen.

 

[laughing dog]

Note: "taken into account". In other words, it's only predictive once you consider what school that GPA came from.

No, it means there are 3 factors - GPA, school and college characteristics. The results indicate the effect of GPA alone.

But your incorrect response evades the issue of your misunderstanding about adjusting GPAs. Do you understand now that GPAs were not adjusted?

The exact method is irrelevant--the point is it needs both the GPA and the school it came from to be useful information.

Which is what they did. It is pretty clear that you have
1) not read the article,
2) been pulling objections out of thin air,
3) no clue what you are talking about,

This entire subdiscussion arose because you made the claim that schools are dropping the use of the SAT or ACT because the use shows discrimination on their part. It is now clear you had (and still have ) no clue whatsoever.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The problem isn't the word privilege. The problem is people feeling hurt because they think they are being accused of practicing or benefitting from unfairness. No matter what word is used, that feeling won't go away.