Affirmative Action (split from shooting du jour)

[Toni]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

 

[TomC]

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Affirmative Action is when people who's academic credentials are better get passed over in preference for people of a different race.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Nope.

Admissions with lower thresholds broaden access. Only graduation with lower standards actually lowers standards.

I've already pointed out they'll fudge the grading for athletics. Think they won't fudge it because flunking those underprepared admits doesn't look good?

And note that it drives up the dropout rate--that likely means they're saddled with student loans but not the degree to pay for them. When California abolished discriminatory admissions the black graduation rate went up--because students were in schools better matched to their ability. What's better, graduating from a second-rank school or flunking out of a top-rank school?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.

That chart makes it very clear--blacks are readily being admitted with scores that would keep Asians out.

Effectively, they are pretending unqualified people are qualified so they can get the racial mix they want.

 

[laughing dog]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.

True, but then again, when people say

Effectively, they are pretending unqualified people are qualified so they can get the racial mix they want.

, it tends to make it so.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Affirmative Action is when people who's academic credentials are better get passed over in preference for people of a different race.
Tom

You should read some of Loren's posts then. Derec seems to be missing from this discussion but you'd find some evidence that contradicts your first statement if you read either of them or some other posters.

Do you know what having the highest GPA does, in most schools? It makes you the valedictorian. If you have the second highest GPA, you are the salutatorian. (assumes schools use GPA to determine these things.). At least in my experience, the difference between #1 and #2 comes down to a couple hundredths of a point, on a 12 point scale.

You know how much GPA matters the day after you graduate?

Zero. Zippo. Nada. Not one damn thing.

Affirmative action or positive discrimination, refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment. Wikipedia

Affirmative action does NOT lower standards for admission for black (or gay or male or female) students. It sets policies and practices that encourage that students who are underrepresented are considered for admissions so long as they meet the requirements for admissions. In other words, if the composite SAT score threshold is 1400, and students from whatever group is under represented should be considered for admissions, even if there are X applicants with perfect scores who apply.

Harvard typically admits under 5% of applicants in any given year. They do not offer admission based only on GPA or SAT scores or a composite of those two. They never have. It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

At no point in time, ever, has the top number X of scorers who apply been given admittance to any college, law school or medical school, where X = number of openings in the freshman class.

 

[TomC]

It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

I've never suggested that "qualified" and "unqualified" is a binary thing.

I'm pretty sure that assertion was made by someone supporting institutional racism, AKA Affirmative Action.
It wasn't me.
Tom

 

[Toni]

It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

I've never suggested that "qualified" and "unqualified" is a binary thing.

I'm pretty sure that assertion was made by someone supporting institutional racism, AKA Affirmative Action.
It wasn't me.
Tom

Again, not particularly responsive to what I posted but I suppose a dodge is easier.

 

[TomC]

It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

I've never suggested that "qualified" and "unqualified" is a binary thing.

I'm pretty sure that assertion was made by someone supporting institutional racism, AKA Affirmative Action.
It wasn't me.
Tom

Again, not particularly responsive to what I posted but I suppose a dodge is easier.

You used the term "unqualified".
Why did you use it if nobody else did?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You said the black applicant had affirmative action working for them.

Are you saying that AA doesn't?
It's the whole point to AA.
Tom

My understanding is that AA gets opportunities for people who might otherwise not get those opportunities. It doesn't help those so admitted to succeed in realising that opportunity.

Admission to college is a prerequisite to attempt to obtain a degree from that college; But whether an individual graduates once admitted is entirely dependent on their ability as demonstrated when examined at the end of the course.

AA lets them sit the tests. It doesn't make it any easier to pass them than it is for anyone else who's allowed to sit them, so the final qualification is equally informative.

Denigrating that equal qualification on the basis that the applicant was "helped" by AA is both ignorant and racist.

Race-favouring policies don't stop at the entrance to a course.

But even if they did and the final qualification is equally informative, that's only true for people from the same institution. Many of the most elite institutions discriminate against white and Asian applicants, so there are many white and Asian graduates who do not have the esteemed school to put after their credential.

A lot of SCOTUS judges went to Harvard, including the latest appointment. Harvard is know to make race-favouring admissions to black students.

 

[Metaphor]

Your observation about a savvy HR director assumes the only way the black applicant achieved the same credentials is bigoted.

No it doesn't.
But I can understand why you would prefer to assume that.

It's part of the problem I see with Affirmative Action, here in 2022.
No matter how top shelf a black person is, Affirmative Action will always be a drag on their achievements as long as it exists.
Tom

You mean: as long as bigots refuse to acknowledge the achievements of black folk.

PS: laughing dog is correct. Your assumption is bigoted.

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

The asssumption that a black person necessarily benefitted from AA is either downright ignorant or downright bigoted.

LOL.

Thanks for the confirmation.

But assuming a White person benefitted from White Privilege or some other imaginary racial miasma is just fine!

Bringing up this straw man “whatsboutism is mire confirmation of my observation.

It isn't a whataboutism. It's a charge of self-serving hypocrisy.

 

[laughing dog]

It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

I've never suggested that "qualified" and "unqualified" is a binary thing.

I'm pretty sure that assertion was made by someone supporting institutional racism, AKA Affirmative Action.
It wasn't me.
Tom

Again, not particularly responsive to what I posted but I suppose a dodge is easier.

You used the term "unqualified".
Why did you use it if nobody else did?
Tom

First, others have . Second, unless you mistakenly think people are only permitted to use words that were previously used, what is your point?

 

[Metaphor]

Here's a pretty clear example.

Suppose an HR director gets two nearly identical resumes, people applying for a job. One black, the other white.

A reasonably savvy HR director will know that the white applicant got the credentials with Affirmative Action working against them. The black applicant had Affirmative Action working for them. All else equal, the white applicant is probably better.

This is completely the opposite of 50 years ago. But it is the modern reality.
Tom

How did someone get credentials ‘with affirmative action working against them?’

Why do you assume that a black applicant only earned their credentials because of affirmative action?

You don't know it, but you suspect it. There are colleges where basically all black admits are below basically all white admits.

People aren't employing admits, they're employing graduates.

If your contention is that colleges don't teach anything, or even that all students get the exact same gain in ability and knowledge, it's going to be entertaining to watch you try to support it.

If that's not your contention, then you are worrying about something irrelevant. My employer isn't concerned about the ability I had to drive a heavy vehicle on the day I started training, or on the day I left kindergarten; Only about my ability at the end of my driver training, when I took my test.

Nobody cares if a graduate was a total ignoramus when they started college; They care what they knew when they passed their final exams - which is why there are final exams in the first place.

The USMLE Step 1 has been changed to pass/fail from 2022, because white students got higher scores on it. USMLE Step 1 scores were used by residency programs to filter candidates. Because of the change to pass/fail, residency program directors are likely to use other aspects of a student (like the prestige of their medical school) in selecting residents.

And many prestigious medical schools in the US race-favour black students.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.

True, but then again, when people say

Effectively, they are pretending unqualified people are qualified so they can get the racial mix they want.

, it tends to make it so.

You still haven't shown how those scores aren't admitting unqualified people. Just slapping a "qualified" label on them doesn't make it so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Affirmative Action is when people who's academic credentials are better get passed over in preference for people of a different race.
Tom

You should read some of Loren's posts then. Derec seems to be missing from this discussion but you'd find some evidence that contradicts your first statement if you read either of them or some other posters.

Do you know what having the highest GPA does, in most schools? It makes you the valedictorian. If you have the second highest GPA, you are the salutatorian. (assumes schools use GPA to determine these things.). At least in my experience, the difference between #1 and #2 comes down to a couple hundredths of a point, on a 12 point scale.

You know how much GPA matters the day after you graduate?

Zero. Zippo. Nada. Not one damn thing.

But it does matter for college admissions.

Affirmative action or positive discrimination, refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented, such as education and employment. Wikipedia

Affirmative action does NOT lower standards for admission for black (or gay or male or female) students. It sets policies and practices that encourage that students who are underrepresented are considered for admissions so long as they meet the requirements for admissions. In other words, if the composite SAT score threshold is 1400, and students from whatever group is under represented should be considered for admissions, even if there are X applicants with perfect scores who apply.

Then explain that chart that was posted.

Harvard typically admits under 5% of applicants in any given year. They do not offer admission based only on GPA or SAT scores or a composite of those two. They never have. It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

At no point in time, ever, has the top number X of scorers who apply been given admittance to any college, law school or medical school, where X = number of openings in the freshman class.

Because they want to discriminate on various factors.

What should be happening is that they come up with a scoring system, publish it and offer admission to the top X people on that list.

 

[laughing dog]

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.

True, but then again, when people say

Effectively, they are pretending unqualified people are qualified so they can get the racial mix they want.

, it tends to make it so.

You still haven't shown how those scores aren't admitting unqualified people. Just slapping a "qualified" label on them doesn't make it so.

Slapping the label "unqualified" does not make it so. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims about their qualifications, not me.

 

[Toni]

It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action although bigots do like to chirp on about how they let unqualified students in if they are black. This is not true.

I've never suggested that "qualified" and "unqualified" is a binary thing.

I'm pretty sure that assertion was made by someone supporting institutional racism, AKA Affirmative Action.
It wasn't me.
Tom

Again, not particularly responsive to what I posted but I suppose a dodge is easier.

You used the term "unqualified".
Why did you use it if nobody else did?
Tom

Dodge away.

Affirmative action does not say admit students who are unqualified.

Racists think that black students are unqualified, though.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it so.

True, but then again, when people say

Effectively, they are pretending unqualified people are qualified so they can get the racial mix they want.

, it tends to make it so.

You still haven't shown how those scores aren't admitting unqualified people. Just slapping a "qualified" label on them doesn't make it so.

Show me somewhere—anywhere that shows that black students were admitted with scores that were below the cut off point for admissions to Harvard. Show me what the cut off for admissions to Harvard is.

 

[bilby]

If you have to lower standards, then of course that would cast doubt on those who benefit from affirmative action.

Affirmative Action is not lowering standards.

Saying that doesn't make it so. When you admit with lower standards you are lowing standards.

Nope.

Admissions with lower thresholds broaden access. Only graduation with lower standards actually lowers standards.

I've already pointed out they'll fudge the grading for athletics. Think they won't fudge it because flunking those underprepared admits doesn't look good?

You have provided a single anecdote about corrupt practices with regards to athletes (which is hardly surprising given the money involved)

The idea that they will also engage in corruption for other motives is pure conjecture and completely unsupported, other than as a reference to the existence of corruption at large, which is an entirely different question.

Basically, yes, people are corrupt scumbags; No, that's not a reason to allege corruption in the complete absence of evidence.

And note that it drives up the dropout rate--that likely means they're saddled with student loans but not the degree to pay for them.

The insane funding model in your country's education system is a completely independent problem.

Trying to conceal that problem by sticking bandaids on it isn't a pursuit that has such merit as to justify ignoring the racist history of your country that has continuing evil effects today.

When California abolished discriminatory admissions the black graduation rate went up--because students were in schools better matched to their ability. What's better, graduating from a second-rank school or flunking out of a top-rank school?

Apartheid is an excellent system, for its beneficiaries, not all of whom are on one side of the divide.

But it remains a shit and evil system, despite the existence of tiny numbers of beneficiaries in the oppressed class.

Your avuncular parochialism and faint praise of your evident inferiors went out of fashion almost a century ago. Kipling would have thought it just the thing; But he was as incapable of recognising racism as a fish is of recognising water. You don't have that excuse.

 

[TomC]

Apartheid is an excellent system, for its beneficiaries, not all of whom are on one side of the divide.

"When California abolished discriminatory admissions the black graduation rate went up--because students were in schools better matched to their ability. What's better, graduating from a second-rank school or flunking out of a top-rank school?"

You're really comparing race blind policy, which has better results, to apartheid?

What's with that?
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Show me somewhere—anywhere that shows that black students were admitted with scores that were below the cut off point for admissions to Harvard. Show me what the cut off for admissions to Harvard is.

Were White and Asian applicants also admitted at that low threshold, or were they judged at a higher standard?