New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[J842P]

Rhea, I'm going to ask you a direct question. Should Asians be racially discriminated against, even poor ones, to the advantage of Hispanics. If so, why? Keep in mind when you frame your responses that saying "you don't understand the plight of Hispanics" doesn't really apply in my case.

This is a meaty question, a good one. My answer will be full of nuance and shades and subtlety. Can you handle that? Some folks here can't, which is why people may not be answering this question. There are several levels of discourse going on here, and some of the levels damage other levels beyond comprehension. So a question that addresses the nuances may be regrettably passed up because of the expected sledge-hammer reaction that it is sure to elicit from some of the commenters here.

But I'll step in with some of my thoughts. Never perfect, of course, just an opinion. Always open to new information and different angles if they make sense.

One question is whether the university has anything to gain in "creating a diverse atmosphere." Whether something is at play that they are trying to create that goes beyond a collection of the most likely to score high. If the university can foster a better academic atmosphere (in their opinion) by having a wide variety of approaches, of personalities, of ideas all present on campus; if that academic atmosphere becomes more rich and hence makes a bigger mark on the world through its graduates; if that academic atmosphere binds the students together in a way that is unusual or special or, well, again, marketable.

If the university feels this is better for fostering their product, they will feel that discriminating against high-scoring but perhaps monochromatic populations will be a "should do".

Do _I_ think that? Yeah, I think I do. I have spent meetings in rooms full of high white foreheads and it is _weird_ and creepy. Plus they all think alike. I _love_ working with diverse populations, they have different ways of looking at things, they have a fun and colorful (not to them because it's normal to them, to me it's colorful) effect on a team. I would love to see more hispanic people in my workplace, just as I would like to see a few more southerners and Scandinavians and natives. It makes the whole team more vibrant - and more productive and inventive, IMHO.

So do I think some cultures should have to answer for more than their test scores to get on my team? I think it would make my team better, yes.

I'm sorry Rhea. I'm not trying to be confrontational with you. Honestly. But this isn't a nuanced response. This is a dodge. You didn't answer my question.

OK. To be fair, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't answer it with "it's OK to discriminate against Asians because they are monochromatic," as your post could reasonably be interpreted as saying.

It's amazing to me that the answer isn't a resounding "No." That is the only morally acceptable answer, in my opinion. Seriously, take a step back and look at what you are arguing!

 

[angelo]

It's not okay to discriminate on grounds of colour or race. We are much more sophisticated for that nonsense.

 

[Jokodo]

Correlated or a perfect match? Because if it isn't a perfect match, then you are being at least somewhat racist in equating it. And is "more difficult time accessing things" something that will show up on test scores? If so, how so? If not, then why lower test score requirements?

If you have two people, one of whom with a privileged background that allowed him or her to get a GPA of 3.8 while only investing 80 units of effort, while the other had to invest 100 units of effort to get a 3.7, it is reasonable to expect the latter to overtake the former by the end of their university careers, is it not?

What does this all have to do with deducting (metaphorical) points from people with slanted eyes and giving extra points to people with brown skin? Do people really believe that the most important determinant of one's "privilege" is race? You think it is fair to consider a poor white kid or a poor Asian kid as having a significant advantage over ALL Hispanics, enough so that even those Hispanics or blacks that actually come from a privileged background (i.e. money) will be given lower entrance standards than the poor Asians?

You're mixing up two independent questions.

One is whether giving preference to people who've had it harder even if that may sometimes mean lowering scores makes sense in principle. The other is whether race is a useful proxy for having it had hard.

The post you're replying to talks exclusively about the first.

 

[Jokodo]

Rhea, I'm going to ask you a direct question. Should Asians be racially discriminated against, even poor ones, to the advantage of Hispanics. If so, why? Keep in mind when you frame your responses that saying "you don't understand the plight of Hispanics" doesn't really apply in my case.

This is a meaty question, a good one. My answer will be full of nuance and shades and subtlety. Can you handle that? Some folks here can't, which is why people may not be answering this question. There are several levels of discourse going on here, and some of the levels damage other levels beyond comprehension. So a question that addresses the nuances may be regrettably passed up because of the expected sledge-hammer reaction that it is sure to elicit from some of the commenters here.

But I'll step in with some of my thoughts. Never perfect, of course, just an opinion. Always open to new information and different angles if they make sense.

One question is whether the university has anything to gain in "creating a diverse atmosphere." Whether something is at play that they are trying to create that goes beyond a collection of the most likely to score high. If the university can foster a better academic atmosphere (in their opinion) by having a wide variety of approaches, of personalities, of ideas all present on campus; if that academic atmosphere becomes more rich and hence makes a bigger mark on the world through its graduates; if that academic atmosphere binds the students together in a way that is unusual or special or, well, again, marketable.

If the university feels this is better for fostering their product, they will feel that discriminating against high-scoring but perhaps monochromatic populations will be a "should do".

Do _I_ think that? Yeah, I think I do. I have spent meetings in rooms full of high white foreheads and it is _weird_ and creepy. Plus they all think alike. I _love_ working with diverse populations, they have different ways of looking at things, they have a fun and colorful (not to them because it's normal to them, to me it's colorful) effect on a team. I would love to see more hispanic people in my workplace, just as I would like to see a few more southerners and Scandinavians and natives. It makes the whole team more vibrant - and more productive and inventive, IMHO.

So do I think some cultures should have to answer for more than their test scores to get on my team? I think it would make my team better, yes.

I don't quite see how this argument applies to discrimation agains Asians, though. If your school or workplace has 5% Asians and 5% African Americans, reducing the number of Asians will reduce diversity even if they're already overrepresented relative to the general population.

 

[Metaphor]

Two people who have the same GPA and the same MCAT scores may or may not have the same aptitude

They have the same measured aptitude score. A large number of people on the same aptitude score will differ in other traits, of that there is no doubt. But I do not believe that those other traits differ so dramatically by race that they justify the differential admission rates.

and may or may not have achieved the same, except having received the same score. Those metrics say nothing at all about whether or not a candidate would make a good doctor,

That is, of course, patently absurd. It is eye-bleedingly absurd to imagine that medical aptitude is not positively correlated with medical performance. Luckily, you do not run medical school admissions.

aside from the ability to score well on tests.

One absurdity doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow. As a psychologist, I'm insulted that you think that the entire field of psychometrics is nothing other than 'doing well on tests', and as a statistician, I find your faux naivete grating.

After you pass the boards, nobody gives a fuck how good you are at passing tests or getting high scores. They care about how well you are able to relate to patients, deal with frustration, solve real life problems, work as part of a team, for starters.

And were off, once again, on the idea that you think I think the only thing that matters is someone's MCAT score. Saint's preserve us, you really don't read anything I write, do you?

Two people with the same HIGH ENOUGH GPA and MCAT scores are about as likely to be admitted to medical school. Although not all of those with high scores are admitted to medical school because not all people who can get good grades and good test scores would actually be good doctors.

Scoring highly on the MCAT is not merely 'getting good test scores.' Your ignorance of psychometric evaluation is deeply frustrating.

Of course, you are now saying that, because there does not appear to be discrimination amongst the exceptional students (the highest GPA and MCAT groupings), then there's no discrimination. So, at least you've acknowledged that, at lower levels of aptitude and achievement, there is a huge gap in admittance chances by race.

GPA and MCAT are not the only criteria for acceptance into medical school. If you read the link I posted a while back, there was a very nice, detailed discussion of the rationale of criteria other than GPA and MCAT scores.

Please demonstrate to me, via quotes, anywhere where I said that GPA and MCAT are, or should be, the only criteria for entry into medical school.

 

[Metaphor]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

Actually, the U.S. does have Olympic development programs which scout and support prospective athletes for some sports, at least. Generally speaking, there is a lot of scholarship money involved. That elite training is very expensive.

You use the word 'actually' as if it was somehow in contradiction to something I wrote.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.

Why is it so hard for anyone here to give the true answer -- "no"

?

 

[Rhea]

So, if there's an Asian kid with a 3.8 GPA and a 680 SAT and a Hispanic kid with a 3.3 GPA and a 590 SAT who are neighbors in the same suburb, go to the same school, have parents that have about the same income, etc you let the Hispanic kid in because you presume he "had to work harder to get access to things"?

What does that even mean?

Isn't it a bit insulting to Hispanics?

I'll note that dismal has asked a version of my question, and furthermore, I will note that it has been ignored. Why is this question so difficult to address directly?

I'll note that when you're done just being insulting you can look back and see that not only did I answer it, but dismal replied to my answer and I replied to that.

Someone else, (Jolly?) made the same easy-to-refute claim earlier also, "why won't you answer this" except that I did. It is unproductive to sling snide insults that are easily shown false. Go look. I'm in a discussion giving my thoughts on an idea and you're not even reading my reply and then sneering that I don't reply? Really? Do you want to hear other people's thoughts and have a discussion about different ideas, or do you want to just sling poop? I like discussions, I'm not terribly entertained by poop-slinging.

 

[angelo]

No. And if they do it's wrong. Again I harp on. Athletes, astronauts or whatever should be chosen on merit, nothing else is a good enough excuse.

 

[Rhea]

I don't quite see how this argument applies to discrimation agains Asians, though. If your school or workplace has 5% Asians and 5% African Americans, reducing the number of Asians will reduce diversity even if they're already overrepresented relative to the general population.

In science and engineering, (I'm an engineer) Asians are not the same percent as those who are black or latino. In the area where I work, where the companies actively recruit and work to retain minority professionals (in part so that the workforce is not so freakishly monochromatic as the local population can support, which turns out to be a huge turn-off for out of town recruits) the effort requires seeing balance of employees, not just the first non-white you can find and let them all be asians. That would not accomplish the purpose of a diverse and welcoming community.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/scientists-engineers.aspx

Women have gradually made up a growing share of the S&E labor force, but their gains have stalled in recent years.9 Women made up 26 percent of the S&E labor force in 2010, the same proportion as in 2007. This decline may reflect the increase in computer-related occupations (with high concentrations of men), and the decline in social sciences, which tend to have more women. In 2010, women made up 59 percent of social scientists, 45 percent of mathematicians, and 44 percent of life scientists. Women were underrepresented in architecture (24 percent), computer-related occupations (26 percent), engineering (14 percent), and physical sciences (36 percent).

Racial/ethnic minorities, especially Latinos, make up a growing share of the U.S. population and labor force. In 2010, the U.S. labor force was 12 percent African American and 14 percent Hispanic/Latino. But S&E participation rates for under-represented racial/ethnic minorities have leveled off in recent years. Between 2007 and 2010, the share of African Americans in the S&E labor force held steady at 6 percent, while the share of Latinos increased 1 percentage point, from 6 percent to 7 percent. Asian Americans are the only minority group with above-average representation in S&E occupations (14 percent), and their numbers are increasing. Many Asians migrate to the United States in order to pursue degrees and careers in scientific fields. In 2011, Asian countries accounted for four of the top-five sending countries for international students studying in the United States.10

Immigration from Asia has also contributed to a rapid increase in foreign-born workers, especially in S&E occupations. More than 60 percent of foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States in 2009 were from Asia, mostly from China, India, the Philippines, and Taiwan.11 The foreign-born made up 11 percent of the U.S. science and engineering labor force in 1990. By 2000, this share had increased to 17 percent, and by 2010, it had reached 21 percent (see Figure 2). Policymakers hope to reverse this trend by encouraging more U.S.-born students to work in science and engineering fields. But they face challenges, including the difficulty in recruiting high-achieving students into S&E fields when other high-paying jobs—sometimes requiring less education—may be available.12

 

[Jokodo]

In science and engineering, (I'm an engineer) Asians are not the same percent as those who are black or latino. In the area where I work, where the companies actively recruit and work to retain minority professionals (in part so that the workforce is not so freakishly monochromatic as the local population can support, which turns out to be a huge turn-off for out of town recruits) the effort requires seeing balance of employees, not just the first non-white you can find and let them all be asians. That would not accomplish the purpose of a diverse and welcoming community.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/scientists-engineers.aspx

Women have gradually made up a growing share of the S&E labor force, but their gains have stalled in recent years.9 Women made up 26 percent of the S&E labor force in 2010, the same proportion as in 2007. This decline may reflect the increase in computer-related occupations (with high concentrations of men), and the decline in social sciences, which tend to have more women. In 2010, women made up 59 percent of social scientists, 45 percent of mathematicians, and 44 percent of life scientists. Women were underrepresented in architecture (24 percent), computer-related occupations (26 percent), engineering (14 percent), and physical sciences (36 percent).

Racial/ethnic minorities, especially Latinos, make up a growing share of the U.S. population and labor force. In 2010, the U.S. labor force was 12 percent African American and 14 percent Hispanic/Latino. But S&E participation rates for under-represented racial/ethnic minorities have leveled off in recent years. Between 2007 and 2010, the share of African Americans in the S&E labor force held steady at 6 percent, while the share of Latinos increased 1 percentage point, from 6 percent to 7 percent. Asian Americans are the only minority group with above-average representation in S&E occupations (14 percent), and their numbers are increasing. Many Asians migrate to the United States in order to pursue degrees and careers in scientific fields. In 2011, Asian countries accounted for four of the top-five sending countries for international students studying in the United States.10

Immigration from Asia has also contributed to a rapid increase in foreign-born workers, especially in S&E occupations. More than 60 percent of foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States in 2009 were from Asia, mostly from China, India, the Philippines, and Taiwan.11 The foreign-born made up 11 percent of the U.S. science and engineering labor force in 1990. By 2000, this share had increased to 17 percent, and by 2010, it had reached 21 percent (see Figure 2). Policymakers hope to reverse this trend by encouraging more U.S.-born students to work in science and engineering fields. But they face challenges, including the difficulty in recruiting high-achieving students into S&E fields when other high-paying jobs—sometimes requiring less education—may be available.12

I don't know how you quantify diversity, but by any formula I can think of and which I would be willing to defend as a useful approximation, a 6/7/14/73 split for Black/Hispanic/Asian/non-Hispanic White is a lower degree of diversity than a 6/7/16/71 split would be.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Someone else, (Jolly?) made the same easy-to-refute claim earlier also, "why won't you answer this" except that I did.

No you didn't. Not really. You objected my use of the term "lower standards". And when I corrected the term to test scores, to clarify my question, you ignored it.

So again I ask; If you allow black people in with lower test scores and lower grades than asian people, will this diminish or amplify that perception of incompetence in regard to the next black person met?

This also addresses Jokodo's point that black people get too often assumed to be less competent, merely by being black, even with the same credentials as others. That's an unfair perception, so long as they do indeed have the same scores and credentials. But once you lower test score and credential requirements for black people as compared to everybody else, is the perception still so unfair? Or have you now justified it?

 

[Toni]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

Actually, the U.S. does have Olympic development programs which scout and support prospective athletes for some sports, at least. Generally speaking, there is a lot of scholarship money involved. That elite training is very expensive.

You use the word 'actually' as if it was somehow in contradiction to something I wrote.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.

Why is it so hard for anyone here to give the true answer -- "no"

?

The scenario you pose is nonsensical. The elite training comes from the Olympic training program. Period. You have just written a scenario that doesn't actually make sense. A response of 5 or roses or maybe next Thursday could as well be given to your question, phrased so as to telegraph the only answer you would consider to be 'right'.

 

[doubtingt]

In science and engineering, (I'm an engineer) Asians are not the same percent as those who are black or latino. In the area where I work, where the companies actively recruit and work to retain minority professionals (in part so that the workforce is not so freakishly monochromatic as the local population can support, which turns out to be a huge turn-off for out of town recruits) the effort requires seeing balance of employees, not just the first non-white you can find and let them all be asians. That would not accomplish the purpose of a diverse and welcoming community.

It is not the role of public universities to make sure that corporations can have a good variety of colored faces to choose from for their marketing campaigns. It is their job to provide an advanced education to the students that want it and are prepared to handle an advanced education that required proper preparation and readiness during prior levels of education.

 

[Metaphor]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

Actually, the U.S. does have Olympic development programs which scout and support prospective athletes for some sports, at least. Generally speaking, there is a lot of scholarship money involved. That elite training is very expensive.

You use the word 'actually' as if it was somehow in contradiction to something I wrote.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.

Why is it so hard for anyone here to give the true answer -- "no"

?

The scenario you pose is nonsensical. The elite training comes from the Olympic training program. Period. You have just written a scenario that doesn't actually make sense. A response of 5 or roses or maybe next Thursday could as well be given to your question, phrased so as to telegraph the only answer you would consider to be 'right'.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.?

 

[Toni]

When the United States selects runners for its Olympic team, do you add and subtract to people's demonstrated run times based on how privileged the runners were, or whether they had poor nutrition as a child?

When the united states picks athletes for their olympic team, they do not go strictly on scores/times. They include a measure of reliability and performance under pressure. They would rather have a gymnast who can get a steady 14 than one who might get 16 or might get 10. There have been many sports talk shows about this.

So, your answer is 'no', the United States does not give leeway to people who had poor nutrition, or penalise those from elite training backgrounds, when selecting its Olympic athletes.

Why was it difficult for you to admit the obvious?

Actually, the U.S. does have Olympic development programs which scout and support prospective athletes for some sports, at least. Generally speaking, there is a lot of scholarship money involved. That elite training is very expensive.

You use the word 'actually' as if it was somehow in contradiction to something I wrote.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.

Why is it so hard for anyone here to give the true answer -- "no"

?

The scenario you pose is nonsensical. The elite training comes from the Olympic training program. Period. You have just written a scenario that doesn't actually make sense. A response of 5 or roses or maybe next Thursday could as well be given to your question, phrased so as to telegraph the only answer you would consider to be 'right'.

Does the U.S. Olympic selection panel penalise those people with elite training backgrounds, and does it provide leeway to the scores of those with less fortunate life circumstances.?

Roses.

 

[Toni]

No you didn't. Not really. You objected my use of the term "lower standards". And when I corrected the term to test scores, to clarify my question, you ignored it.

So again I ask; If you allow black people in with lower test scores and lower grades than asian people, will this diminish or amplify that perception of incompetence in regard to the next black person met?

This also addresses Jokodo's point that black people get too often assumed to be less competent, merely by being black, even with the same credentials as others. That's an unfair perception, so long as they do indeed have the same scores and credentials. But once you lower test score and credential requirements for black people as compared to everybody else, is the perception still so unfair? Or have you now justified it?

It is a fantasy that the reason people with black or brown faces are assumed to be less competent is because of affirmative action. Those assumptions are made because of racism. Period. Affirmative action is a convenient hook upon which to hang biased beliefs but without affirmative action, those beliefs would find other hooks just as convenient. And do, as a matter of fact.