New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[dismal]

Another thing that keeps being assumed is that those lower scores in Highschool are somehow a life-long burden. But many people, when they get to college, when they get out of their poor high school, can start to soar, recovering from the problems that dragged down their high school years.

Some folks may say, nope, if you did poorly in high school (if you had a poor high school (and a poor middle school (and a poor grade school))), you are never going to be a good student. You can't recover, you can't make it up. I don't believe that. It's harder, but it doesn't make sense to shut them out and assume they can't. To me.

It is clearly incorrect to downplay success in high school as a criteria for admission to a top college.

It is outright absurd to do so while arguing that skin pigmentation or the slant of the eyes should be weighed instead.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Another thing that keeps being assumed is that those lower scores in Highschool are somehow a life-long burden. But many people, when they get to college, when they get out of their poor high school, can start to soar, recovering from the problems that dragged down their high school years.

Some folks may say, nope, if you did poorly in high school (if you had a poor high school (and a poor middle school (and a poor grade school))), you are never going to be a good student. You can't recover, you can't make it up. I don't believe that. It's harder, but it doesn't make sense to shut them out and assume they can't. To me.

And that's what lower level community colleges are for. Universities are academically rigourous and they need to select for those who have shown that they can handle the academic rigour. Once they recover from their problems and demonstrate that they can handle the academic workload, they can transfer out to a higher end university at a time when they're prepared for it. You don't toss people who haven't shown they can swim into the deep end on the off chance that they'll figure out how not to drown, though.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no problem with additional languages being of value. Rural vs suburbs vs city has no value, though.

Really? Are you unaware that rural areas as well as inner cities face a shortage of doctors?

Yeah, I'm aware of it.

What you apparently aren't aware of is a doctor usually doesn't end up practicing where he grew up.

You rebut yourself withing the same post. Rural vs. suburbs certainly has value if there are not enough physicians in rural areas.

And if you need more physicians in rural areas, you offer them rural-bonded scholarships. You don't just let rubes into medical school and hope that they'll go where you want them.

"Rubes"?

Okay, 'rubes' was an unneeded dig at people from rural areas. But I stand by the point: there's no reason to give extra slots to students from rural areas, and then blindly hope that they'll go to and stay in the rural areas most in need after they graduate.

What you do is offer medical school slots to the best candidates, and you offer additional rural-bonded scholarships in exchange for the holder of the scholarship agreeing to work in a particular rural area (not of their choice, but where the need is greatest), for a set number of years after graduation.

Except that these schools do not "blindly" come up with such policies. History has shown that people from rural areas are much more likely or open to return to rural areas to practice medicine than people from urban or suburban areas. Giving extra slots to qualified applicants from rural areas in order to help increase the number of rural doctors is a smaller financial burden on medical schools. I do know that there are programs that give forgive tuition if a graduate practices in a rural area for a number of years (I think it is 4 years in some places). I don't have the stats on it, but the majority of participants in this program at one medical university are from rural areas.

 

[Derec]

And that's what lower level community colleges are for. Universities are academically rigourous and they need to select for those who have shown that they can handle the academic rigour. Once they recover from their problems and demonstrate that they can handle the academic workload, they can transfer out to a higher end university at a time when they're prepared for it. You don't toss people who haven't shown they can swim into the deep end on the off chance that they'll figure out how not to drown, though.

Well there is a lot of room between a flagship university (in top 30 universities nationwide and in top 10 public universities nationwide) and community college. For example, Kimraugh was accepted at Michigan State which is not quite as highly ranked or selective as UM but still a very good school.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And that's what lower level community colleges are for. Universities are academically rigourous and they need to select for those who have shown that they can handle the academic rigour. Once they recover from their problems and demonstrate that they can handle the academic workload, they can transfer out to a higher end university at a time when they're prepared for it. You don't toss people who haven't shown they can swim into the deep end on the off chance that they'll figure out how not to drown, though.

Well there is a lot of room between a flagship university (in top 30 universities nationwide and in top 10 public universities nationwide) and community college. For example, Kimraugh was accepted at Michigan State which is not quite as highly ranked or selective as UM but still a very good school.

Well ya, she had good grades in high school and would do well in university. My comment was referencing the claim that those who didn't do well in high school should get a chance to prove themselves at a university.

 

[Rhea]

Well there is a lot of room between a flagship university (in top 30 universities nationwide and in top 10 public universities nationwide) and community college. For example, Kimraugh was accepted at Michigan State which is not quite as highly ranked or selective as UM but still a very good school.

Well ya, she had good grades in high school and would do well in university. My comment was referencing the claim that those who didn't do well in high school should get a chance to prove themselves at a university.

I was also commenting about the middle ground. Those whose grades are not "as good" but are not remedial level. E.g. those in the top 10% (or even 20%) of a low-performing school.

I agree with derec that the case from the op sounds like a good fit at a good-but-not-top-10 school. And I agree with Tom that much lower scorers can make an excellent path via community college comeback.

I don't think affirmative action has ever been about the bottom half, and I personally think it does a good job of identifying the different-yet-equally-valid strengths of the student who has pushed uphill all their lives and reaches not the top 1% but at least the top 10 or even 20 (depending on the college targeted).

And meanwhile, the thing to do about the bottom half, in my personal opinion, is to stop under-funding the schools and provide targeted education with well-paid teachers in small classrooms and small campuses; AND give kick-ass afterschool care at young ages that includes poverty-fighting opportunities in language and enrichment; AND provide nutrition so that the kids never have to worry about that; AND to foster trade schools and apprenticeships as valid educational paths for those who do not wish to or are not capable of pursuing academic colleges.

We talk a lot about the high end of academic and technical type education, but I feel that society would benefit enormously in a financial sense from raising technician and trade type people to their full potential _also_. When a caring, alert, committed and personable young man or woman gets access and training to be a phlebotomist or a dental hygienist or an auto mechanic or a carpenter or a bank teller then society will benefit from their stability and happiness.

There are many levels of intellectual capability. Not everyone is able to be an economist or a doctor or a chemist. There is nothing wrong with that; nothing lacking, nothing shameful. To fail to nurture everyone's potential leaves us all footing the bill. Even what many consider lowly jobs, if we instead nurture preparation for any job, we make the whole community better able to both achieve and provide stability to the community.

 

[Derec]

Well ya, she had good grades in high school and would do well in university. My comment was referencing the claim that those who didn't do well in high school should get a chance to prove themselves at a university.

That is true. If you get good grades you can always transfer out of CC into a proper 4 year university. Unlikely it will be UM or even Mich. State if you have to take remedial classes, unless they are English remedial classes and you are a recent immigrant, but again there are many 4 year universities in every state with differing selectiveness and difficulty. And students should attend a university that is best suited for them, including the level of academic rigor. Admitting students that are not well suited for the academic program benefits neither the student in question (higher chance of failure) nor the university and other students (pressure to dumb down curriculum to increase graduation rate).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think affirmative action has ever been about the bottom half, and I personally think it does a good job of identifying the different-yet-equally-valid strengths of the student who has pushed uphill all their lives and reaches not the top 1% but at least the top 10 or even 20 (depending on the college targeted).

But the problem is the tying this to race as opposed to just socioeconomic status. If a Korean comes over on a boat and he and his children work in sweatshops for several generations until his great-grandkid overcomes the odds against him due to his family's crushing poverty and makes it into that top percentile, why should he then have additional barriers thrown up infront of him as compared to a black kid who's family has been relegated to crushing poverty due to active discrimination against them for several generations and gets into that top percentile and then also gets a leg up? Why should the hispanic son of a suburban accountant get a boost over the white kid who's family has been living on welfare in the same trailer park since the Depression?

It's fine to give an additional boost to those who need it since they are trying to compete from the losing end of an uneven playing field and just declaring that everyone will be judged equally does nothing except help perpetuate pre-existing inequalities. Someone overcoming the poor black experience, however, isn't more worthy of assistance than someone overcoming the poor white or the poor asian experience.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes. And if more black people than white people are in lower socioeconomic levels, then basing help on socioeconomic level will help more black people than white people. That directly addresses the disparity between the groups, but does so without being blatantly racist and unjust to individuals.

Still waiting for an argument against this and haven't seen one yet, this far into the thread.

 

[Trausti]

Yes. And if more black people than white people are in lower socioeconomic levels, then basing help on socioeconomic level will help more black people than white people. That directly addresses the disparity between the groups, but does so without being blatantly racist and unjust to individuals.

Still waiting for an argument against this and haven't seen one yet, this far into the thread.

You won't get one.

MR. GARRE: If you look at the admissions data that we cite on page 34 of our brief, it shows the breakdown of applicants under the holistic plan and the percentage plan. And I don’t think it’s been seriously disputed in this case to this point that, although the percentage plan certainly helps with minority admissions, by and large, the — the minorities who are admitted tend to come from segregated, racially-identifiable schools.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, but you make a very different argument that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. The top 10 percent plan admits lots of African Americans — lots of Hispanics and a fair number of African Americans. But you say, well, it’s — it’s faulty, because it doesn’t admit enough African Americans and Hispanics who come from privileged backgrounds. And you specifically have the example of the child of successful professionals in Dallas.
Now, that’s your argument? If you have -you have an applicant whose parents are — let’s say they’re — one of them is a partner in your law firm in Texas, another one is a part — is another corporate lawyer. They have income that puts them in the top 1 percent of earners in the country, and they have -parents both have graduate degrees. They deserve a leg-up against, let’s say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?

MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor. And let me -let me answer the question.First of all, the example comes almost word for word from the Harvard plan that this Court approved in Grutter and that Justice Powell held out in Bakke.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how can the answer to that question be no, because being an African American or being a Hispanic is a plus factor.

MR. GARRE: Because, Your Honor, our point is, is that we want minorities from different backgrounds. We go out of our way to recruit minorities from disadvantaged backgrounds.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So what you’re saying is that what counts is race above all.

MR. GARRE: No, Your Honor, what counts is different experiences

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, that’s the necessary — that’s the necessary response to Justice Alito’s question.

MR. GARRE: Well, Your Honor, what we want is different experiences that are going to — that are going to come on campus -

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You want underprivileged of a certain race and privileged of a certain race. So that’s race.

 

[Toni]

Most important question to me: Why don't you believe that, in the absence of discrimination, over time, differences in test scores (all) of different races, ethnic groups, minorities would disappear or flatten out? Why don't you believe that in the absence of discrimination, the proportion of students from various ethnic groups/minorities/races/whatever admitted to universities and professional schools would more closely reflect the actual portion of the population?

Why do you believe it would? Asians tend to score significantly higher than whites in most standardized tests. Do you suppose that is because Whites are discriminated against compared to Asians? Or could it be that levels of discrimination in a society are only a component of the overall picture with regards to educational outcomes?

I believe that intelligence and academic ability are not more heavily distributed among some ethnic and racial groups more than other groups.

What do you believe?

Out of interest, what kind of evidence would you require to make you doubt your current belief?

Après vous Monsieur.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It is certainly the case that there is a large divide between Whites and Blacks in educational attainment by the end of Year 12, and in aptitude (as demonstrated by SAT scores, where the Black student mean is between 0.8 to more than one standard deviation below the White mean score).

So, here's a question for you, Toni. Since you believe that all ethnic groups are equal on academic ability (which is a belief wholly and consummately contradicted by the evidence, at least by Year 12), do you also believe all ethnic groups to be equal on every other measure, like extra-curriculars, leadership potential, etc?

Can you remind me how the evidence supports the idea that you're measuring not just attainment, but aptitude and potential?

The reason I ask is that the evidence you cite is around attainment of various scores, but your conclusion relies on the idea that you're measuring aptitude and potential. Unless you can link the two, you've not cited any evidence to support your position.

GPA measures attainment. SAT and other aptitude tests like the MCAT measure aptitude. This is what they were designed to do, and they predict academic success, so their criterion-related validity is high.

Aptitude tests have been used for over a hundred years.

Interesting. The SAT itself does not claim to be an aptitude test.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/what.html

According to the College Board, the SAT now does not measure any innate ability. Wayne Camara, Director of the Office of research at the College Board told FRONTLINE that the SAT measures "developed reasoning," which he described as the skills that students develop not only in school but also outside of school. He pointed out, for example, that students who read a lot, both in and out of school, are more likely to do well on the SAT and in college. The College Board says that the best way to prepare for the SAT is to read a lot and to take rigorous academic courses.

When it was originally developed, yes, the intent and desire was to develop a test which would identify individuals who came from less privileged background who had innate ability for academic achievement. However, it has been a long time since the SAT claimed it measured aptitude.

It does serve very well as a proxy for privilege: access to rigorous academic courses being one hallmark. What is also of note is that while most college bound students take the PSAT sometime during their sophomore or junior year and the SAT in the spring of their junior year, some schools, almost always private and elite, start to administer the SAT to students as early as 8th grade, so by the time they take it 'for real,' they've had lots of practice. Not to mention lots of coaching as to how to ace the test.

 

[dismal]

Interesting. The SAT itself does not claim to be an aptitude test.

Ok, so let's pretend we can't look at grades or SAT scores to gauge aptitude and achievement.

Why would we then look at the color of the skin or the slant of the eye?

 

[Rhea]

Interesting. The SAT itself does not claim to be an aptitude test.

Ok, so let's pretend we can't look at grades or SAT scores to gauge aptitude and achievement.

Why would we then look at the color of the skin or the slant of the eye?

So this is kind of a disingenuous quip.

Race or eye shape was _NEVER_ the sole criteria. In the places it was used it was "extra points" or something, right? So haven't you just tilted at a straw windmill?

 

[Metaphor]

According to the College Board, the SAT now does not measure any innate ability. Wayne Camara, Director of the Office of research at the College Board told FRONTLINE that the SAT measures "developed reasoning," which he described as the skills that students develop not only in school but also outside of school. He pointed out, for example, that students who read a lot, both in and out of school, are more likely to do well on the SAT and in college. The College Board says that the best way to prepare for the SAT is to read a lot and to take rigorous academic courses.

"Developed reasoning" sure sounds like aptitude to me. How it was developed is irrelevant; reasoning skills are vital to success in (most) University courses.

It does serve very well as a proxy for privilege: access to rigorous academic courses being one hallmark. What is also of note is that while most college bound students take the PSAT sometime during their sophomore or junior year and the SAT in the spring of their junior year, some schools, almost always private and elite, start to administer the SAT to students as early as 8th grade, so by the time they take it 'for real,' they've had lots of practice. Not to mention lots of coaching as to how to ace the test.

So what? We've been through this a million times already. Practice effects that add noise to the general factor being measured does not suddenly turn the SAT into a 'proxy for privilege'. It merely reduces, but does not eliminate, its correlation with academic success. You're also, quite perversely, adding 'working hard' to the mix of 'privilege'. People who study their asses off are not 'privileged', they're working hard. If athletes can run faster because they train more, then they can run faster. That's the entire purpose of training.

But you know what -- even though you're desperate to discredit the SAT as not a measure of aptitude, it would still serve as a predictor for academic success. The best predictor of future success is past success, and that's why Universities use the SAT and GPA.

You're obsessed with 'privilege', as if all Blacks were not privileged and every White (and Asian) were.

If you think there is a better predictor of academic success than grades and aptitude, you're welcome to show the evidence that they add additional predictive value over those two measures. Of course, you'd never replace grades and aptitude: they still predict academic success and any additional measures can't change that.

 

[dismal]

Interesting. The SAT itself does not claim to be an aptitude test.

Ok, so let's pretend we can't look at grades or SAT scores to gauge aptitude and achievement.

Why would we then look at the color of the skin or the slant of the eye?

So this is kind of a disingenuous quip.

Race or eye shape was _NEVER_ the sole criteria. In the places it was used it was "extra points" or something, right? So haven't you just tilted at a straw windmill?

Yeah, but the other things like tests scores and grades that are generally used as criteria you have discarded as meaningless with respect to aptitude and achievement.

And yet you haven't managed to discard race, the one thing that seems the most meaningless of all.

Assuming you aren't acting on some deep belief that Hispanics are inherently more qualified students than Asians, why would you give Hispanics plus points over Asians?

 

[Rhea]

Race or eye shape was _NEVER_ the sole criteria. In the places it was used it was "extra points" or something, right? So haven't you just tilted at a straw windmill?

Yeah, but the other things like tests scores and grades that are generally used as criteria you have discarded as meaningless with respect to aptitude and achievement.

Wait, what? I haven't discarded anything as "meaningless," what makes you say that? Building a strawman?

And yet you haven't managed to discard race, the one thing that seems the most meaningless of all.

I don't think it's meaningless, and I think the data agrees with me. I think race is a proxy for how hard a person has to work to get access to things in America. It's not a perfect proxy, but I find the data convincing that it's a useful one in addition to other factors that can be collected.

Assuming you aren't acting on some deep belief that Hispanics are inherently more qualified students than Asians, why would you give Hispanics plus points over Asians?

I'd be looking at a whole package so race is never going to be 50% of the grade in my way of looking. But it'll be there, showing how hard a sustained effort a person is practiced at making. It will be no more perfect than an SAT test that some people can ace effortlessly while still not knowing enough coursework to actually contribute in a workplace, nor more perfect than a GPA that can be influenced by hovering parents or absent parents, and then not avail;able when the umbilical is cut. I find the data convincing that when one looks at many factors - many - that race will be useful among them to some degree. Knowing that no single one of those factors will be necessary and sufficient, no unequivocal. All are needed to form a more reliable picture.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Assuming you aren't acting on some deep belief that Hispanics are inherently more qualified students than Asians, why would you give Hispanics plus points over Asians?

I'm betting that the only answer you will get is that "asians don't need the help" and hispanics do. Which of course is looking at people as groups and being completely racist, but that's the only answer we've seen so far..

 

[dismal]

I think race is a proxy for how hard a person has to work to get access to things in America. It's not a perfect proxy, but I find the data convincing that it's a useful one in addition to other factors that can be collected.

So the reason we ding high achieving Asians is because we're pretty sure they don't work hard?

Are you sure about that one?

 

[Rhea]

Assuming you aren't acting on some deep belief that Hispanics are inherently more qualified students than Asians, why would you give Hispanics plus points over Asians?

I'm betting that the only answer you will get is that "asians don't need the help" and hispanics do. Which of course is looking at people as groups and being completely racist, but that's the only answer we've seen so far..

Onbviously not all hispanics nor no asians "need help". But "help" isn't what I'm after giving. It's acknowlegment of an additional factor. Perseverance, for one thing. And while race is not perfect, it is revealing. Used with many other factors.

- - - Updated - - -

I think race is a proxy for how hard a person has to work to get access to things in America. It's not a perfect proxy, but I find the data convincing that it's a useful one in addition to other factors that can be collected.

So the reason we ding high achieving Asians is because we're pretty sure they don't work hard?

Are you sure about that one?

Since that's not what I said, then obviously no.

edited to add: I realize this is subtle and perhaps you will never be able to understand what thing I'm thinking and feeling when I consider it, but here goes. I said "how hard they have to work to get access to things. If you get something easy or you get something hard, you have a different view of the thing and a different process that you have practiced. If you see something that others are achieving easily and you keep getting detours, you will, in order to get that same thing that they got, have a different experience.

 

[Rhea]

Maybe an analogy is a marathon. If you have a typical amateur runner and you have another runner but she's got asthma, you're going to have two people who both work HARD to finish that marathon, but for one of them the access to finishing was filled with more obstacles; couldn't train on cold days, had to stop when needing an inhaler, incredibly labored breathing going past the flowering cherry trees. This is not to say that the healthy-lunged runner didn't work hard, she certainly did. Nor is it to put her down in any way. But it does say that the asthmatic runner has a different experience, one that involves constant extra effort to dodge. The college or employer is basically saying, "holy shit, you did that with asthma!?" and they are rightly expecting this is a person who has shown that she can push through tough stuff. The other runner may be able to, or may not, but one can't tell that it has already likely happened as one can with the asthmatic.