• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

I realize that the trope of "but white women" is the fashionable mantra among AA defenders who have no rational argument, but this thread is about issues that are specific to reasons why blacks are under-represented at "elite" schools, namely, because they choose not to apply and often choose to attend schools based on their racial make-up and proximity to home rather than school credentials.

I don't want to derail this thread with something as irrelevant to the OP as different AA policies in different contexts being used in different ways to address under-representation of a different group that exists for different reasons.
However, I would be very interested in you starting a new thread that presents what you assume is the empirical evidence supporting your claim that "AA policies have actually benefited white women more than any other group." To avoid wasting all our time, here are just some things your evidence must do to provide any support for your claim:
1). It must indicate likely causal influence, using empirical methods that rule out the countless confounds to any increase over time to female representation.
2). It must consider possible direct or indirect negative impacts of such policies to any "white women", including those not directly involved in any AA impacted decision.
3). It must show the aggregate benefit of AA policies to white women as a group is greater than the aggregate benefit to any other group. This means dividing any metric of net benefit by the # of people in each group that exist in the population. IOW, the raw # of white women who benefited is irrelevant. For "white women" to have benefited more, the odds of any white women benefiting must be greater. In empirical work claiming to show associations among variables, raw frequency numbers that ignore base rates are always the refuge of ideological scoundrels.

After all that, we can get to whether the claim holds specifically for the impact of AA policies that admit college applicants whose academic credentials fall below those admitted without applying group membership criteria.
 
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?

I realize that the trope of "but white women"
It is not a trope. It is a fact. And by dismissing a fact in your first sentence, I am left with no other option than to say to the rest of your diatribe, tl;dr.

BTW, I knew you would do exactly what you did do.
is the fashionable mantra among AA defenders who have no rational argument, but this thread is about issues that are specific to reasons why blacks are under-represented at "elite" schools, namely, because they choose not to apply and often choose to attend schools based on their racial make-up and proximity to home rather than school credentials.

I don't want to derail this thread with something as irrelevant to the OP as different AA policies in different contexts being used in different ways to address under-representation of a different group that exists for different reasons.
However, I would be very interested in you starting a new thread that presents what you assume is the empirical evidence supporting your claim that "AA policies have actually benefited white women more than any other group." To avoid wasting all our time, here are just some things your evidence must do to provide any support for your claim:
1). It must indicate likely causal influence, using empirical methods that rule out the countless confounds to any increase over time to female representation.
2). It must consider possible direct or indirect negative impacts of such policies to any "white women", including those not directly involved in any AA impacted decision.
3). It must show the aggregate benefit of AA policies to white women as a group is greater than the aggregate benefit to any other group. This means dividing any metric of net benefit by the # of people in each group that exist in the population. IOW, the raw # of white women who benefited is irrelevant. For "white women" to have benefited more, the odds of any white women benefiting must be greater. In empirical work claiming to show associations among variables, raw frequency numbers that ignore base rates are always the refuge of ideological scoundrels.

After all that, we can get to whether the claim holds specifically for the impact of AA policies that admit college applicants whose academic credentials fall below those admitted without applying group membership criteria.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

In years past a typical college kid publicity trick was to pack these college kids into a VW bug.and go for a record. Elite schools are intended for rich kids and cherry picked poor kids on scholarships...kind of like a rich kid VW with just enough room for folks like Dubbiya and those who are recognized by the wealthy as very bright and of potential use to the oligarchs. I think we need to stop thinking this way and promoting the good names of schools that actually are just parasites on the educational process. Those are the elite schools...small and highly selective in regard to who attends them. One of these days we will realize they have nothing uniquely beneficial to offer to society that could not be better attained with wider education in society in general. I think the key to your OP that gives it a special pathos is the notion of elite. When you shrink your institution you also shrink the actual significance of what it does. Elite institutions do offer scholarships to brilliant people. So could non elite institutions with classes for them. Elite institutions are capitalizing on their brand name and coopting other more public options for education. They are expensive and designed to exclude minorities and those who are poor.

Some idea that academic standards should be fooled with is foolhardy also. We should be striving to educate our people and make it important in their minds that they be educated. As it is, there is a kind of cynicism toward higher education that is allowed to pervade lower income people that cuts them off from adequate education.:thinking:
 
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.

Women of all color have needed help to deal with discrimination against them since this nation was conceived.

And to the right, everything is about the individual, there is a blindness to society and the needs of society.

Affirmative Action is something that tries to deal, in the long term, with societal problems, not merely individual problems.
 
In years past a typical college kid publicity trick was to pack these college kids into a VW bug.and go for a record. Elite schools are intended for rich kids and cherry picked poor kids on scholarships...kind of like a rich kid VW with just enough room for folks like Dubbiya and those who are recognized by the wealthy as very bright and of potential use to the oligarchs. I think we need to stop thinking this way and promoting the good names of schools that actually are just parasites on the educational process. Those are the elite schools...small and highly selective in regard to who attends them. One of these days we will realize they have nothing uniquely beneficial to offer to society that could not be better attained with wider education in society in general. I think the key to your OP that gives it a special pathos is the notion of elite. When you shrink your institution you also shrink the actual significance of what it does. Elite institutions do offer scholarships to brilliant people. So could non elite institutions with classes for them. Elite institutions are capitalizing on their brand name and coopting other more public options for education. They are expensive and designed to exclude minorities and those who are poor.

Some idea that academic standards should be fooled with is foolhardy also. We should be striving to educate our people and make it important in their minds that they be educated. As it is, there is a kind of cynicism toward higher education that is allowed to pervade lower income people that cuts them off from adequate education.:thinking:

Curious that you quoted my post, as if this utterance has anything to do with it.
 
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.

Women of all color have needed help to deal with discrimination against them since this nation was conceived.

And to the right, everything is about the individual, there is a blindness to society and the needs of society.

Affirmative Action is something that tries to deal, in the long term, with societal problems, not merely individual problems.

Discriminating against people by race, which affirmative action does, does not help society.

Discriminating against people by race caused the problems in the first place.
 
Women of all color have needed help to deal with discrimination against them since this nation was conceived.

And to the right, everything is about the individual, there is a blindness to society and the needs of society.

Affirmative Action is something that tries to deal, in the long term, with societal problems, not merely individual problems.

Discriminating against people by race, which affirmative action does, does not help society.

Discriminating against people by race caused the problems in the first place.

You use the same word to describe two completely different things.

There were centuries of exclusionary practices. Women and black people were excluded.

You can use the word "discrimination" to describe this practice but ultimately it was a practice of complete exclusion, no matter what you want to call it.

Now today because there are societal problems, which arose because of this complete exclusion for centuries, a practice of minor inclusion is implemented to try to slowly deal with these societal problems.

And again, you can attach the label "discrimination" to this practice of minor inclusion if you want to.

But it won't become a practice of complete exclusion, which is really the "discrimination" that causes societal problems, by attaching ambiguous labels.
 
You use the same word to describe two completely different things.

I use the same words to describe the same actions.

There were centuries of exclusionary practices. Women and black people were excluded.

You can use the word "discrimination" to describe this practice but ultimately it was a practice of complete exclusion, no matter what you want to call it.

Of course it was discrimination. Deciding an entire gender or race won't be admitted is discrimination by gender or race. This oughtn't be a hard concept to grasp.

Now today because there are societal problems, which arose because of this complete exclusion for centuries,

No societal problem has a single cause, and society would still have problems whether there had been discrimination in the past or not. It's just that society's problems are worse because of the discrimination.

a practice of minor inclusion is implemented to try to slowly deal with these societal problems.

It is not a practise of 'minor inclusion' (whatever that means). It's discriminating by race and gender.

And again, you can attach the label "discrimination" to this practice of minor inclusion if you want to.

I like to attach accurate labels, sure.

But it won't become a practice of complete exclusion, which is really the "discrimination" that causes societal problems, by attaching ambiguous labels.

What nonsense. Discrimination hurts people and it hurts society. It doesn't have to be 'complete exclusion' to be discrimination, and complete exclusion is not the only way a practise can be harmful.

By your reckoning, taxing women's earnings at a higher rate than men's isn't discrimination.
 
I use the same words to describe the same actions.

Complete exclusion is not the same thing as minor inclusion. Minor inclusion means you include a few from an historically excluded group and completely exclude no group.

These are two completely different things that people who don't like the idea of minor inclusion try to pass off as the same thing.
 
I use the same words to describe the same actions.

Complete exclusion is not the same thing as minor inclusion. Minor inclusion means you include a few from an historically excluded group and completely exclude no group.

These are two completely different things that people who don't like the idea of minor inclusion try to pass off as the same thing.

Discriminating by race is discriminating by race.

If you're happy with that, if you think that's acceptable, then so be it. But don't pretend it's not what it is.
 
Complete exclusion is not the same thing as minor inclusion. Minor inclusion means you include a few from an historically excluded group and completely exclude no group.

These are two completely different things that people who don't like the idea of minor inclusion try to pass off as the same thing.

Discriminating by race is discriminating by race.

If you're happy with that, if you think that's acceptable, then so be it. But don't pretend it's not what it is.

Minor inclusion of people who have been excluded for centuries is not a societal problem.

There is no complete exclusion going on, which is what leads to societal problems.

With complete exclusion there are no alternative paths.

With minor inclusion there are many.
 
Discriminating by race is discriminating by race.

If you're happy with that, if you think that's acceptable, then so be it. But don't pretend it's not what it is.

Minor inclusion of people who have been excluded for centuries is not a societal problem.

There is no complete exclusion going on, which is what leads to societal problems.

With complete exclusion there are no alternative paths.

With minor inclusion there are many.

So, you're okay with restricting college students to 1% black?

That isn't complete exclusion, so it won't lead to societal problems.

Let's go even further. 1% black and 1% female. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the same 1%.
 
Minor inclusion of people who have been excluded for centuries is not a societal problem.

There is no complete exclusion going on, which is what leads to societal problems.

With complete exclusion there are no alternative paths.

With minor inclusion there are many.

So, you're okay with restricting college students to 1% black?

That isn't complete exclusion, so it won't lead to societal problems.

Let's go even further. 1% black and 1% female. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the same 1%.

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.
 
So, you're okay with restricting college students to 1% black?

That isn't complete exclusion, so it won't lead to societal problems.

Let's go even further. 1% black and 1% female. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the same 1%.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom