New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[RavenSky]

"little punk"? WTF

 

[Derec]

I saw an upset young black woman who was not inciting violence nor acting inappropriately.

I think making a spectacle of herself when she has only herself to blame is very much "inappropriate" behavior. As far as violence, "I am coming for you" sounds vaguely threatening.

Was her gender or race that makes you think she is a "punk"?

Nothing in that word indicates a "black woman".

Your response indicates a lack of knowledge about statistics. Averages without standard deviations are relatively pointless.

My response gave information that was available to me. I would have gladly included more information such as st.div. or the lowest quintile ACT and GPA. Hell, we can't even be sure if they mean "mean" or "median" for that matter. We have what we have, and what we have indicates she had relatively low scores and grades (which would explain her not getting admitted) and nothing whatsoever to indicate that she was discriminated against. Note that even if there were some people admitted with scores/grades similar to hers (which I doubt very much; especially that ACT score is rather low) that still would not prove discrimination because obviously toward the tail end of their GPA/ACT range admittance rate decreases. I.e. they admit almost all applicants that have 4.0+ (GPAs above 4.0 are possible) and 36 and decreasing percentage as numbers go down. Again, admittance percentages at different quintiles would be useful but not necessary to come to a conclusion.

You seem to want to assume "discrimination" as long as it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't discriminated against.
In fact, it seems to me that to her lack of discrimination in her favor (as was UM policy years ago) is being redefined (in true Newspeak manner) as "discrimination".

Without more information about the school's entrance standards, etc...., her overall record does not appear automatically inadequate as your OP implied.

It certainly appears that way. Is it absolutely certain? No, but fairly so.

Or perhaps your alma mater.

Wouldn't work. Georgia has no affirmative action neither and GT is about as selective as UM. Btw, what was the point of that ad hominem?

- - - Updated - - -

"little punk"? WTF

In deference to you I refrained from using stronger language.

 

[RavenSky]

According to the Detroit News
(source: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140415/SCHOOLS/304150030). That appears inconsistent with the OP characterization of her as a "punk".

While I don't know about the U. of Mi. entrance standards (and I expect neither does the OP), Ms. Kimbrough does not appear to me to automatically disqualify her based on the totality of the available record.

Yep.

Regardless one's position on Affirmative Action or this student in particular, I strongly object (to put it mildly) the OP's characterization of her as a "little punk", and I am thankful I am not the only one who called him on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Her behavior at that pro-racial discrimination rally does. Did you watch the video at the My Fox Detroit link?


According to the first link I posted, she has 3.5 GPA where 3.82 is the average GPA for UM freshmen. She also scored quit subpar on her ACTs. UM is a very selective school and only admits 37% of their applicants. Kimbaugh should have applied to a less selective school - Spartans maybe?

Doesn't excuse you calling her a "little punk"

Of course, we all know why you did, and it had nothing to do with her grades or her interview.

 

[laughing dog]

I think making a spectacle of herself when she has only herself to blame is very much "inappropriate" behavior.

I don't think many people would consider that a "spectacle".

As far as violence, "I am coming for you" sounds vaguely threatening.

Are you afraid of the monsters under your bed as well?
"

Nothing in that word indicates a "black woman".

Obtuseness does not suit you. Was it her race or gender that induced you to insult her with the characterization of "punk"?

My response gave information that was available to me. I would have gladly included more information such as st.div. or the lowest quintile ACT and GPA. Hell, we can't even be sure if they mean "mean" or "median" for that matter. We have what we have, and what we have indicates she had relatively low scores and grades (which would explain her not getting admitted) and nothing whatsoever to indicate that she was discriminated against. Note that even if there were some people admitted with scores/grades similar to hers (which I doubt very much; especially that ACT score is rather low) that still would not prove discrimination because obviously toward the tail end of their GPA/ACT range admittance rate decreases. I.e. they admit almost all applicants that have 4.0+ (GPAs above 4.0 are possible) and 36 and decreasing percentage as numbers go down. Again, admittance percentages at different quintiles would be useful but not necessary to come to a conclusion.

Her GPA is not low. Her extra curricular activities are not "low". Without knowing the entrance standards or deviations associated with the data, there is simply no way to determine whether or not her claim is reasonable or not. My point is that dispute your biased conclusions to the contrary, there evidence that she is clearly undeserving of admission is not clearcut - as your response tacitly admits.

You seem to want to assume "discrimination" as long as it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't discriminated against.

Unlike you, I assume nothing. Which is why I keep repeating the need for more relevant information.

In fact, it seems to me that to her lack of discrimination in her favor (as was UM policy years ago) is being redefined (in true Newspeak manner) as "discrimination".

Your conclusion is based on the unsubstantiated premise of "her lack of discrimination in her favor ".

Wouldn't work. Georgia has no affirmative action neither and GT is about as selective as UM.

Now, why would one assume she would require discrimination to be admitted? Hmmmm.

Btw, what was the point of that ad hominem?

One would think the graduate of a selective institution would be able to figure that out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How can anyone legitimately claim that there was some sort of discrimination on the part of the university here? Her academic achievements were below the standards of admission there, so she didn't get in just like the majority of other applicants didn't get in.

Her turning this into a racial issue warrants negative judgements against her. Why shouldn't someone make slurs against a person like this?

 

[laughing dog]

How can anyone legitimately claim that there was some sort of discrimination on the part of the university here? Her academic achievements were below the standards of admission there, so she didn't get in just like the majority of other applicants didn't get in.

I didn't realize that members of UM admissions worked at home in Canada. In what quintile of applicants would her GDP place her in?

H
Her turning this into a racial issue warrants negative judgements against her. Why shouldn't someone make slurs against a person like this?

Now that is truly ironic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I didn't realize that members of UM admissions worked at home in Canada. In what quintile of applicants would her GDP place her in?

Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that. Her GPA was below the average that got admitted and her ACT score was below the average that was admitted. That means that people with her level of academic achievement would, more often than not, fail to be admitted. She was less qualified than most of the other applicants to a school which only accepts a minority of the applicants to it.

When people like that apply anyways, they should expect to get rejected and there's no call to assume some kind of secondary racist agenda on the part of the school.

Now that is truly ironic.

I don't think so. She seems to be an annoying person who's unnecessarily making derogatory comments towards people who don't appear to deserve them. I have no problem making derogatory comments towards people like her in turn.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously? I don't even know how to respond to that.

As your response proves.

Her GPA was below the average that got admitted and her ACT score was below the average that was admitted. That means that people with her level of academic achievement would, more often than not, fail to be admitted. She was less qualified than most of the other applicants to a school which only accepts a minority of the applicants to it.

You do realize that averages imply that there are people below those averages who are admitted. It would be helpful to see the statistics of those successful applicants at the lower ends of GPAs and ACT scores before one jumped to conclusions.

I don't think so. She seems to be an annoying person who's unnecessarily making derogatory comments towards people who don't appear to deserve them. I have no problem making derogatory comments towards people like her in turn.

Is that going to be insult policy here?

 

[Toni]

A good university does not seek to be an echo chamber peopled by students who enter with the exact same preparation, background, socioeconomic indicators, interests, extracurricular activities, years in cram classes and same one of three prospective majors and the exact same stick up their asses.

The purpose of an education is to educate. An essential part of education is being exposed to new ideas, new experiences and new people, hopefully from different backgrounds than those in your home town or prep school.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You do realize that averages imply that there are people below those averages who are admitted. It would be helpful to see the statistics of those successful applicants at the lower ends of GPAs and ACT scores before one jumped to conclusions.

Of course some applicants with subpar academic scores are accepted for various reasons. The vast majority of them, however, don't get in. If a full quarter of the students admitted have a 4.0 GPA, then a B+ student can't be expected to be part of the legitimate pool of applicants who get considered without extraordinary factors in their favour, like acing other tests like the ACT instead only scoring slightly above the mean. U of M is the 20th ranked university in the entire world, so second tier candidates tend not to go there because their spots were taken by those who are more qualified.

I see nothing to indicate that this woman is anything other than a second tier candidate.

Is that going to be insult policy here?

There's no policy at all covering random people from news articles. She's calling a bunch of people racists without providing any support for her slurs and people like her deserve to be referred to negatively.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A good university does not seek to be an echo chamber peopled by students who enter with the exact same preparation, background, socioeconomic indicators, interests, extracurricular activities, years in cram classes and same one of three prospective majors and the exact same stick up their asses.

The purpose of an education is to educate. An essential part of education is being exposed to new ideas, new experiences and new people, hopefully from different backgrounds than those in your home town or prep school.

Ya, there's nobody arguing against anything like that. New experiences and new people from different backgrounds can, however, be selected from the pool of candidates who meet the standards of admission. I see nothing to indicate that this specific person meets those standards. She shouldn't qualify as a U of M student and she didn't.

 

[Toni]

Ya, there's nobody arguing against anything like that. New experiences and new people from different backgrounds can, however, be selected from the pool of candidates who meet the standards of admission. I see nothing to indicate that this specific person meets those standards. She shouldn't qualify as a U of M student and she didn't.

Really? How do you know? Do you know what the University of Michigan's admissions requirements are? I looked at their site to find their admissions requirements. You can look here:

http://www.admissions.umich.edu/drupal/requirements-first-year-students

Can you show me where she failed to meet the stated requirements?

Can you show me why she shouldn't? Can you tell me why you are qualified to determine who should or should not qualify?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course some applicants with subpar academic scores are accepted for various reasons. The vast majority of them, however, don't get in. If a full quarter of the students admitted have a 4.0 GPA, then a B+ student can't be expected to be part of the legitimate pool of applicants who get considered without extraordinary factors in their favour, like acing other tests like the ACT instead only scoring slightly above the mean. U of M is the 20th ranked university in the entire world, so second tier candidates tend not to go there because their spots were taken by those who are more qualified.

I see nothing to indicate that this woman is anything other than a second tier candidate.

Are you sure you are not part of the admissions department at the U of M?

There's no policy at all covering random people from news articles. She's calling a bunch of people racists without providing any support for her slurs and people like her deserve to be referred to negatively.

Are you practicing for a course in obtuseness?

 

[Minimalist]

Chris has a point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Really? How do you know? Do you know what the University of Michigan's admissions requirements are? I looked at their site to find their admissions requirements. You can look here:

http://www.admissions.umich.edu/drupal/requirements-first-year-students

Can you show me where she failed to meet the stated requirements?

Can you show me why she shouldn't? Can you tell me why you are qualified to determine who should or should not qualify?

Why is the onus on Tom? She claimed discrimination. She provides not a shred of evidence. What are we to do? Take her at her word, as she slanders people with nothing to back it up?

 

[SimpleDon]

SimpleDon, you're giving too much credit to supporters of AA. The threads don't get anywhere useful because supporters won't even get out of the starting gate and admit AA is discrimination.

Of course, Affirmative Action is racial discrimination. Opponents of Affirmative Action are stuck on stating the obvious.

Affirmative Action was designed to be discrimination. It is not a valid point to oppose Affirmative action because it is racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled that racial discrimination in Affirmative Action is allowed for the purpose of redressing the past wrongs of the legal system, allowing people to own other people for example, or the crime of separate but equal. It is racial discrimination to redress the effects of 400 years of legally sanctioned racial discrimination.

Once again, I listed the valid arguments that opponents can make. They are very week ones.

If I was asked I would advise the supporters of Affirmative Action to give it up. It is not very effective. And it is used as a rallying point for the opposition. I would simply insist on reparations. They were used for the Japanese interred during World War II. They are used for people who are wrongly convicted of a crime. What is the present day value of 40 acres and a mule?

But it is not up to me to decide. If they want to continue Affirmative Action I can't disagree. It is not my place to take away the only compensation that has been offered for the terrible wrongs that were done, wrongs that still resonate in society today in the reduced wealth and opportunities of the decedents of the people who were wronged.

 

[Toni]

Why is the onus on Tom? She claimed discrimination. She provides not a shred of evidence. What are we to do? Take her at her word, as she slanders people with nothing to back it up?

It's only slander if it is untrue and she knows it to be untrue.

Again, who is Tom or any of us to say that she SHOULD NOT? On what basis does he make that assertion? He doesn't care for her politics? She's not quiet enough?

Others in this thread have given her purported GPA and her purported test scores. Taking those reports as absolute truth, no one has offered any evidence that others with similar or lower numbers has not been admitted to U of M. Are they below average for U of Michigan? So what if they are? We're not talking Lake Wobegon. Some U Michigan students have below average for U of MI scores.

 

[RavenSky]

She seems to be an annoying person who's unnecessarily making derogatory comments towards people who don't appear to deserve them. I have no problem making derogatory comments towards people like her in turn.

I have no problem with you calling her "an annoying person who's unnecessarily making derogatory comments towards people who don't appear to deserve them.". I have a big problem with someone unnecessarily using the word "punk" towards a person who doesn't appear to deserve it (beyond the color of her skin). There has been quite a bit of discussion in this country about the very selective use of the word "punk" to describe black people. I am of the opinion that the OP is yet another example of using the word "punk" in place of a racial slur.

As to the issue itself, for her claim to be true, it would have to be shown that the university has any sort of pattern of admitting white students with GPA's and test score similar to her's while not admitting her and other minorities. I do not think it is possible for her or anyone else to make that sort of claim on the basis of only her being denied entrance.

Many years ago, we owned a factory in Hialeah. The vast majority of the employees in the factory were minorities, including my husband. WASP men included only a couple of the sales guys, one or two floor workers and one executive. Everyone else was a minority. Despite this, upon firing a black woman for cause, she promptly filed a discrimination lawsuit. She lost, but it cost us time and money to fight. I don't like the type of person who will scream "discrimination" every time something doesn't go his/her way. I would even go so far as to call that type of person "annoying" or even guilty of having a very twisted world-view, an agenda, etc.

I would not call her a "punk" as a substitute for a racial slur.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's only slander if it is untrue and she knows it to be untrue.

Again, who is Tom or any of us to say that she SHOULD NOT? On what basis does he make that assertion? He doesn't care for her politics? She's not quiet enough?

Others in this thread have given her purported GPA and her purported test scores. Taking those reports as absolute truth, no one has offered any evidence that others with similar or lower numbers has not been admitted to U of M. Are they below average for U of Michigan? So what if they are? We're not talking Lake Wobegon. Some U Michigan students have below average for U of MI scores.

What do you mean we should not? She's making a completely unsubstantiated claim that the university officials are racists and backing it up by nothing other than the fact that she didn't get in. Given that the vast majority of applicants with the same or better qualifications than her also didn't get in and that she's talking about a place which needed to be legally blocked from giving precedence to minority students, the onus is entirely on her to provide a basis for her accusations.

Why should we give any claim the benefit of the doubt if nothing is provided to support it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I have no problem with you calling her "an annoying person who's unnecessarily making derogatory comments towards people who don't appear to deserve them.". I have a big problem with someone unnecessarily using the word "punk" towards a person who doesn't appear to deserve it (beyond the color of her skin). There has been quite a bit of discussion in this country about the very selective use of the word "punk" to describe black people. I am of the opinion that the OP is yet another example of using the word "punk" in place of a racial slur.

Derogatory "Punk" in my lexicon and circles refers to young adults/teens regardless of race. Especially ones that are up to no good on my lawn!