Eliminating academic standards would still mean few blacks in "elite" schools

[untermensche]

I'm talking about programs of minor inclusion.

If there is a problem it may be that the inclusion is too small.

But in none of this do I support absolute or massive exclusion of any group.

This leaves many avenues open for people in all groups.

I cannot nor can anyone else create perfection, but limiting inclusion is moving in the opposite direction.

Blacks and women are already included. It isn't minor, either; they're over-represented compared to their academic credentials.

Compared to centuries of forced complete exclusion there is nothing to cry about.

And because of that history, the inclusion should be greater.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm talking about programs of minor inclusion.

If there is a problem it may be that the inclusion is too small.

But in none of this do I support absolute or massive exclusion of any group.

This leaves many avenues open for people in all groups.

I cannot nor can anyone else create perfection, but limiting inclusion is moving in the opposite direction.

Blacks and women are already included. It isn't minor, either; they're over-represented compared to their academic credentials.

But you're a true believer. You don't care if people discriminate by race or sex, as long as it's discrimination against the groups you don't care for.

So be it. I know better than to argue against true believers. Nothing shakes their faith; certainly not appeal to reason or evidence.

You wouldn't happen to know how many white students, on average, at these universities are admitted with fewer creditentials that the black students at these same universities?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Inclusion" is a doublespeak word for discrimination now? I learn something new every day. Inclusion would ACTUALLY mean not discriminating against people and including them on equal footing with everybody else, basing admission on academic criteria and not race.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quick question

Since AA policies have actually benefited white women more than any other group, why are all the threads around here about black people? Aren't these white women keeping white men out?

Because we don't see nearly the problem with unqualified white women admissions.

So where are the data tables showing the info for all the "unqualified" black admissions?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Quick question

Since AA policies have actually benefited white women more than any other group, why are all the threads around here about black people? Aren't these white women keeping white men out?

Because we don't see nearly the problem with unqualified white women admissions. The AA problem with women is more in Title IX and gripes about the supposed pay gap.

Again, you have not answered the question. Are not white women under AA keeping white men out?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are not white women under AA keeping white men out?

If gender is one of the factors which moves people higher up the list of applicants for a limited number of spots, then yes, that is what it would do.

 

[dismal]

Because we don't see nearly the problem with unqualified white women admissions.

So where are the data tables showing the info for all the "unqualified" black admissions?

The problem with this line of argument is it can't be denied that schools are fighting for the the right to actively make admissions decisions based on race, and you are here to defend them doing just that.

It seems a bit silly of you to defend actively discriminating based on race in admissions and also attempt to argue it has no effect on who is admitted versus race blind standards of admission.

If considering race has no effect then we should all be happy to just use the race blind standards.

 

[Trausti]

"Inclusion" is a doublespeak word for discrimination now? I learn something new every day. Inclusion would ACTUALLY mean not discriminating against people and including them on equal footing with everybody else, basing admission on academic criteria and not race.

It's perfectly Orwellian, isn't it? All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Inclusion" is a doublespeak word for discrimination now? I learn something new every day. Inclusion would ACTUALLY mean not discriminating against people and including them on equal footing with everybody else, basing admission on academic criteria and not race.

It's perfectly Orwellian, isn't it? All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Can someone explain to me why records set in Sprint Track events like the 100 meters don't count if the wind is above a certain threshold?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's perfectly Orwellian, isn't it? All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Can someone explain to me why records set in Sprint Track events like the 100 meters don't count if the wind is above a certain threshold?

Because everyone's running with the same wind and wind doesn't push the human body enough to factor into the scores. If the track was on a hill and some ran uphill and some ran downhill, then that would make a difference.

 

[SimpleDon]

Ronburgundy Eliminating academic standards would still mean few blacks in "elite" schools

Rather than derail the other related threads, I'm starting a new one focused specifically on the implications for AA policies of the fact that blacks, regardless of objective qualifications, tend to apply to fewer colleges and are especially less likely to apply to more competitive colleges (even when qualified and would get accepted).
Blacks often do not consider schools that are not near home, or that do not have large minority populations, and often choose black-only colleges.

To understand the implications of this (or of just AA policies in general), it is critical to keep in mind that 15% of enrolled college students are black, despite blacks only being 13% of the population and 10% of those who graduate high school. IOW, blacks are over-represented among college students.

They are under-represented at the more competitive (i.e., "elite) Universities. However, even there they are usually over-represented relative to their % of the actual applicant pool. IOW, they are more likely to be admitted if they do apply.

So, the fact that they apply fewer places and choose not to apply to more competitive schools, is a major reason for their population-relative under-representation at top schools. They cannot be accepted, if they don't apply. This effect is independent of any lower qualifications.
The thread title refers to the fact, that this means that elimination of admission standards would still mean that under-representation of blacks would still exist at most schools were it currently does, because blacks are choosing not to go there for other reasons.

Thus, when AA policies are being used at these more competitive schools, one reason they need to use race to lower the academic standards (which is objectively what such policies entail) is that many of the more qualified black applicants choose not to apply. This results in AA policies amounting to picking less qualified applicants that are far more likely to fail and would have gotten into other schools, just because other students of their race who were more qualified didn't bother applying. This makes sense only if our sole concern is being able to report that the % of blacks at every school is representative, rather than caring about whether blacks are going to college in general, going where they choose to go, or going where they are most likely to succeed.

Let's put aside the issue of racist immorality and undermining of any principle of fairness that such policies reflect. It is a policy that shows little sincere regard for either what is most beneficial for these black students, or what the want in their college education.

If there is an argument that they are making bad long-term choices in where they apply, then the solution is outreach to high school students to encourage them to apply more broadly, more ambitiously, less based on race of other students, and to choose more ambitiously among their acceptance options.

You are right, blacks like whites tend to apply to schools where there are a lot of people of the same race. This is easy for whites, harder for blacks.

I don't know how fine of a definition you want to put on elite schools. If you mean the Havards, Yales, Stanfords, etc. they are very expensive private schools. Blacks are twice as likely to be economically disadvantaged. This is the main reason for affirmative action, to try to address this disparity. But I imagine that this is one of the major reasons why fewer blacks apply to these expensive schools. Blacks make up about 6% of the student population of these schools.

To their credit these private universities are trying to increase their minority admissions. My son went to both a public university for his undergraduate studies and an elite private school, Emory, for graduate and post graduate work (MD&PhD). The parents of Emory's undergraduate admissions have a lower average annual income than the parents of the University of Georgia's freshmen. But still with fewer blacks than UGA.

This desire of the elite private universities to encourage blacks and the poor to enter their schools doesn't come from a begrudging attempt to follow the affirmative action law, they don't really have to, they are private universities after all. The tentative attempt to hold private schools to affirmative action laws have never been enforced since there is little chance that they can be held constitutional. They can't discriminate but they aren't forced to favor minorities or the poor.

They try to increase the diversity of their student bodies. If they relied strictly on test scores and academic achievement in high school would be filled with Jews, socially stunted Asian girls, Asians in general and fewer whites, especially males, the legacy rich, blacks, Hispanics, native Americans, etc.

You only have to look at the University of California at Berkeley, Los Angles and San Diego after proposition 209 was adopted forbidding the use of race as a determining factor in, among other things, university admissions. If SCOTUS simply rules that the affirmative action laws are unconstitutional I predict that very little will change. The elite private universities will continue to use race as one of the many factors they take into account. If however, SCOTUS goes full conservative talking points like Proposition 209 finding the use of race unconstitutional, then those groups I mentioned will be underrepresented in those universities.

Show

Except for the under achieving, academically less accomplished legacy rich. This group, while much larger a group than the majority students admitted, are never mentioned as degrading the school's academic standards. Can someone please explain this? Or must I start a new thread to find out?

The reason that the elite schools try to increase their diversity is simple. We live in a very diverse country. Graduates of more diverse schools make better employees and managers, better doctors, lawyers and teachers, for our country.

Yes, we self-segregate. But rather than being a signal that integration and tolerance for diversity are hopeless, it is the reason that they are needed.

But if instead of the elite private schools you look at the first tier of the more affordable public supported universities, the so-called research universities, our picture changes, especially if we consider historically black universities. In Georgia there are three large research universities, Georgia Tech, University of Georgia and Georgia State. Using your standard of 13% of the population, blacks are under represented at Georgia Tech (however, almost one half of their total student body is foreign born), about on par at UGA and much over represented in Georgia State, at about 40% of the student population.

My traditional derail below.

Show

I don't support Affirmative Action because it is very effective, it isn't. It is a half baked attempt at a solution to a very real problem. Affirmative Action was the best that could be passed in the face of implacable opposition, largely from white conservatives who shifted seemingly overnight from being racial bigots and segregationists supporting any laws along racial lines that advantaged them to being racial bigots and absolutists against any laws written along racial lines which they felt disadvantaged them.

Racism will not disappear until the rather questionable concept of race itself disappears. We are obsessed to this day with race. Even while no one can define what is race, everyone seems to know what it means. Affirmative action doesn't help because it relies on race to try to correct one of the worse problems created by this centuries long obsession.

It would be much more straightforward to eliminate poverty rather than to try to balance the numbers of whites and blacks who are poor in portion to their over all numbers in the total population. Especially doing it as we seem to be doing it now under our supply side economic policies, by increasing the number of the poor by cutting down the middle class and increasing the number of whites who are poor. To this day white conservatives overwhelmingly support this cockeyed solution to the racial make up of the poor. Even when they are the ones forced out of the middle class.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can someone explain to me why records set in Sprint Track events like the 100 meters don't count if the wind is above a certain threshold?

Because everyone's running with the same wind and wind doesn't push the human body enough to factor into the scores. If the track was on a hill and some ran uphill and some ran downhill, then that would make a difference.

Another answer please?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because everyone's running with the same wind and wind doesn't push the human body enough to factor into the scores. If the track was on a hill and some ran uphill and some ran downhill, then that would make a difference.

Another answer please?

My apologies. I had assumed that your post was related to the topic of the thread and read it that way. That was my mistake.

To answer your question about records in context of the topic, if someone is the top applicant out of everyone applying, they will get an offer of admission whether they're 3% better than the next best or 4% better than the next best and their race and gender won't need to factor into the decision. That's different than a discussion about when there are 100 spots available, what are relevant factors to determine who's ranked #100 and who's ranked #101.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another answer please?

My apologies. I had assumed that your post was related to the topic of the thread and read it that way. That was my mistake.

I suppose you could say that if you didn't get the point. Because there isn't 1 master race (event, not group of people) where 25,000 sprinters all get in a line and run 100 meters. There are a boatload of 100 meter races every year. But if the wind gets too high, if a record or year best is broken, it doesn't count. Isn't this discrimination against the racer that day? They achieved the highest mark, yet it doesn't count? Some other person who was slower still counts as the best? But did they have a wind, but it was a little less than allowed, so it wasn't fair to the guy with a head wind, who nearly as fast? Who was actually the best ever? (granted, Usain Bolt has helped greatly is removing doubt)

Much like with schools. Every applicant didn't attend the same school, have the same teachers, the same opportunities or obstructions.

 

[SimpleDon]

Although it's probably the case that not a single true believer can find fault with your arguments, not a single true believer will be convinced by them, either.

I can't find fault with his arguments. And yet I am not convinced that he has argued against affirmative action successfully and I still support affirmative action as lukewarmly as ever. See my post to the OP.

I don't see why his hypothetical argues against affirmative action. It seems to hinge on the idea that minority admissions lower the academic standards of the elite universities. And that a candidate who scores ten points higher on the SAT will raise the academic standards of the school more than the ten point lower scoring candidate. I don't see it.

But race is just one of the factors that are taken into account for admissions. Most elite universities take the area that the candidate is applying from into account, with some probably small extra preference going to people from rural and urban areas. Do you believe this preference lowers the schools' academic standards?

Probably the largest group that gets preferential treatment are legacies. The children, grandchildren or siblings of graduates of the school. By Ron's thinking this would have to be the largest group of academic standards killers. Since this is a much larger group than the minorities who get admitted this is an even better example for this argument and therefore an even better subject for a thread. Isn't it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My apologies. I had assumed that your post was related to the topic of the thread and read it that way. That was my mistake.

I suppose you could say that if you didn't get the point. Because there isn't 1 master race (event, not group of people) where 25,000 sprinters all get in a line and run 100 meters. There are a boatload of 100 meter races every year. But if the wind gets too high, if a record or year best is broken, it doesn't count. Isn't this discrimination against the racer that day? They achieved the highest mark, yet it doesn't count? Some other person who was slower still counts as the best?

Much like with schools. Every applicant didn't attend the same school, have the same teachers, the same opportunities or obstructions.

Fair enough - now I understand what you're saying. My response to that would be that race isn't a decent thing to count as a headwind in those cases. If somebody went to one of the the most elite and expensive private schools in the country, her being black or white shouldn't factor into the advantages which she takes with her into university applications. If somebody went to a crappy, underfunded school with teachers who don't care, his being asian instead of hispanic doesn't mean that he had to overcome less disadvantages to get to an academic level where universities would consider him.

You can compensate for the actual headwinds and tailwinds which people have without using illegitimate criteria like their race to filter them in or out of a program.

 

[Rhea]

Except for the under achieving, academically less accomplished legacy rich. This group, while much larger a group than the majority students admitted, are never mentioned as degrading the school's academic standards. Can someone please explain this? Or must I start a new thread to find out?

Wiki collects teh following quotes:

The Ivy League institutions are estimated to admit 10% to 30% of each entering class using this factor.[3][4] Legacy preference is not strictly limited to college admissions, however; it may also come about with regard to admission into collegiate fraternities and sororities and other fraternal organizations such as Freemasonry. Legacy preferences are generally not allowed in Europe.

Former Harvard University president Lawrence Summers has stated, "Legacy admissions are integral to the kind of community that any private educational institution is." In the 1998 book The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, authors William G. Bowen, former Princeton University president, and Derek Bok, former Harvard University president, found "the overall admission rate for legacies was almost twice that for all other candidates." While the preference is quite common in elite universities and liberal arts colleges, it is quite controversial, with 75% of Americans opposing the preference.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

So admitting people who have lower academic standards is good, indeed integral to the community, as long as they are the same color as the previous generation's students.

Look at all the hardworking white boys who are kept out of elite colleges because of these affirmative legacy action policies.
But please bear in mind that while these numbers are large, it is important to complain about the smaller number of black recruits who are NOT, it is clear, integral to the community.

That's what I'm getting from all this?

Plus, bear in mind that "elite" does not mean better educated, it means educated in more influential company, generally speaking. So admitting the lower performing students does give them a product in the end, just not the one that the elite schools claim. Out loud.

 

[SimpleDon]

Quick question

Since AA policies have actually benefited white women more than any other group, why are all the threads around here about black people? Aren't these white women keeping white men out?

The threads are not about black people. They're about affirmative action.

But let's say we accept your statement at face value: affirmative action benefits white women more than any other group. Why on earth would you think that fact would make affirmative action seem more desirable to us? It seems to me that statement strengthens our objections to affirmative action: the groups and individuals that least need the help benefit the most.

It is my understanding that in general women are no longer given preferential treatment in college admissions. That in fact, the opposite is true.

Ron's OP is about the racial preference given to blacks and not about the preferences given to males, for example. Please reread it and I am sure that you will agree.

 

[ronburgundy]

I realize that the trope of "but white women"

It is not a trope. It is a fact.

FYI. Trope is not equivalent to "false". In the context I used it, trope refers to a commonly employed rhetorical tactic, which in this case means a claim is tossed out in discussions where it has no relevance in order insinuate that the other party is being racist rather than address any of their arguments (usually due to an incapacity to defends one's ideological position). The claim itself may or may not actually be true, but it is irrelevant regardless.

And by dismissing a fact in your first sentence,

I did not dismiss your claim, I asked you to provide evidence for it. I realize you accept most things on emotion and evidence is a foreign concept, but asking for evidence is not dismissing a claim. However, I do doubt whether you could provide valid evidence for that claim, regardless of whether is is actually true.

I am left with no other option than to say to the rest of your diatribe, tl;dr.

You have an option, you just lack the motive to consider a rational argument, because it could only plausibly serve to undermine your faith.
As is common with the use of tl;dr, your use of it is just a cover for tr;pf (too rational; prefer faith)

BTW, I knew you would do exactly what you did do.

Of course you knew what I would do. You knew I would point out the objective irrelevance to anything in the OP, because you knew that what you wrote was a fallacious re-herring, and you knew that I see through your tactics. You also knew I would ask you to provide evidence for your claim, because you knew that you had (as always) provided none and that unlike you, I care about evidence.

That is exactly what makes your claim a trope. You knowingly said something with of no logical relevance that insinuated racial bias in anyone even discussing the topic, as tactic to derail the thread away from something you cannot provide a rational argument for, and to be able to pretend that I am merely dismissing you by pointing out the logical irrelevance and need for evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

You wouldn't happen to know how many white students, on average, at these universities are admitted with fewer creditentials that the black students at these same universities?

I assume you are talking about legacy admissions, from which white students are more likely to benefit. No, I don't know how many 'legacy assists' there are, but that would be a separate problem that would also need addressing.

On the other hand, you might be talking about pure academic credentials e.g. how many white students are admitted that have lower grades and SAT scores than the black students who are also admitted. I don't know -- it would depend on the placement and the centre of each of the population curves.