New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[dismal]

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.

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?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

And if the asthma is a metaphor for poverty instead of race, doesn't it then become a better metaphor? Is the effort to get out of a trailer park in Alabama through education somehow less than the effort to get out of a ghetto in Detroit the same way? The middle class black kid from the suburbs doesn't have asthma and the Asian guy living with twelve people in an apartment above the Laundromat does and pretending that it's the other way around doesn't help those who do have asthma.

 

[Rhea]

What does that even mean?

Isn't it a bit insulting to Hispanics?

I'm fairly certain I am not capable of conveying to you what this means to me. We've had discussions about this before and you have claimed that no inherent difficulty exists in America for not being white male. Given that experiential barrier, I am expecting that you will still not feel any understanding or embrace of the concept.

I think it is real, you think it is not. In addition to not thinking it is real, you think no one else can think it is real, either. I can't help you put yourself in someone else's frame of reference and make you see things as they do. I have only ever observed you seeing things from a single perspective. I am not qualified to help with that.

 

[Rhea]

And if the asthma is a metaphor for poverty instead of race, doesn't it then become a better metaphor?

Only if you want to measure only poverty and ignore any effect a better off black person gets from being black. It seems to me that one can measure poverty AND race and make a judgment on their effects. None perfect, of course, as I've already said. Yet it is my experience in life that people around me who are black get treated differently from people who are white no matter what socioeconomic strata we are occupying at the time. Your mileage obviously varies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is it also your experience that people who are asian get treated better than people who are black?

If, so, why do you think that is? And do you think giving lower entrance standards to black people will reduce or amplify the difference for other black people?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

If you want to measure psychological resilience, then measure it. But don't use race and pretend it's the same thing.

Let's say Sasha and Malia have asthma. But let's also acknowledge they've got biomechanical, surgical implants that will make them run faster than almost everyone on the field, as well as starting several kilometres ahead.

You want to give them credit for overcoming asthma but you won't acknowledge the several kilometre headstart and ongoing privilege they'll have during the race.

 

[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?

 

[angelo]

The best performed is picked regardless!

 

[Rhea]

Is it also your experience that people who are asian get treated better than people who are black?

If, so, why do you think that is?

I am in science and technology. It is my experience that people who look asian are treated better than people who look black; are given more opportunities and more inclusion and more mentoring. More is _offered_ to them that they don't have to ask for. I'm not sure what goes on inside the heads of the hiring people and our peers, but what they _say_ is that they trust asians more and respect them more and that when they see black skin they assume someone incapable and incompetent.

Certainly not every white person does this, but that's not what it takes to be pervasive. What it takes is that, from what I can observe, every black person encounters it. Maybe that's only 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 of the white people doing it, but it is 100% of the black people experiencing it.

And certainly some asian people (or of asian ancestry) will face some of this. None of what I have seen is binary or absolute. But my experience or observation the pervasiveness is not equivalent in America.

Standing there in a lab and watching a black engineer get told by a white person, "with more of you people moving here, we're going to need more jails." Are you fucking KIDDING me!? Hearing a white hiring manager say, "you don't need to interview the blacks, none of them a worth a damn, you just have to hire one to meet the quota. Don't waste my time with an interview." Or watching a black man in a business suit get overlooked service in favor of the white person standing behind him in line in a hotel.

These are just a few examples. I see it a lot. It's kind of astounding when you start noticing it. Especially when you start realizing that these are people who are educated, professional, productive and valuable and they still have to take five steps to an opportunity door for every one the white guy takes. Why do we think _that_ is?

And do you think giving lower entrance standards to black people will reduce or amplify the difference for other black people?

The way you ask that, "giving lower entrance standards" seems to indicate that you have missed my entire point. And I get that. I realize that if one gives zero credit for grit, then when one sees it being valued it appears as a meaningless giveaway. So you can ask that question of yourself, but it means nothing to me. Because everything I have been saying indicates that I do not believe in lower entrance standards. I believe in entrance standards that measure other things in addition to grades.

If you think there is no effect on opportunity in America from being black then you will always be mystified by my position. You will be unable to understand the measures, the strategies or the resolutions. None of it will make sense. It is not, as we know, necessary to agree with me in order to understand this. One can say, "I don't agree that black people show perseverance when they get GPAs as good as white people, in general; and can be demonstrating equal work ethic from a lower grade. But I can see that she does and that is why she believes this measure shows something marketable in that student."

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.


I get that you don't see this. I'm not on a crusade to convince you. I am conveying my view of the matter.

 

[Rhea]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Metaphor]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not sure what goes on inside the heads of the hiring people and our peers, but what they _say_ is that they trust asians more and respect them more and that when they see black skin they assume someone incapable and incompetent.

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?

Also, the perception you speak of should not be a factor if test scores and grades are being used to make the decision. You may argue that for some reason all black people will not know the material as well or that the tests are culturally biased (which presumes that black people all have different and less suitable-for-the-test culture than white and asian people), but the test itself doesn't have a mind to be forming perceptions of incompetence in anyone.

 

[dismal]

What does that even mean?

Isn't it a bit insulting to Hispanics?

I'm fairly certain I am not capable of conveying to you what this means to me. We've had discussions about this before and you have claimed that no inherent difficulty exists in America for not being white male.

This is *another* product of your imagination, I think.

Quite a cop out too, as opposed to presenting an affirmative defense of your position (which is completely independent of any discussions you may have had with me...)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I was just thinking of something else. In terms of black enrollment at universities, wouldn't one need to take into account that the US has a number of historically black colleges that a large number of black students decide to go to and therefore one would expect a smaller number of black students at other universities in relation to their share of the demographics?

According to this site, there are about 7 million people enrolled in public four year universities in the US right now. According to wiki, African Americans are about 12.5% of the US population, so one would expect about 875,000 black students to be in that group.

According to this site, about 200,000 of those students are going to historically black universities, where they make up about 85% of the student bodies.

If close to a quarter of the potential applicants form this group choose to go to a historically black college, one would expect the demographics from this group at all other colleges and universities to be lower as a result.

 

[angelo]

One can interpret figures whichever way they lean, left or right.

 

[Rhea]

We saw the study where women's resumes with exactly the same education and work experience get scored lower, showing that women who get the same score had to work harder in the test of scientific academic hires. Some people reading that concluded that women deserved that because... women, and some people saw that this means you get the very same fucking person with two different scores. The women's is lower. The score is lower, and the resume is absolutely no different.

Isn't it interesting, Rhea, that here you appear to be arguing that people with the exact same scores should be treated the same. I couldn't agree more, Rhea.

So that means people who have the same GPA and MCAT score should have the same chances of gaining admission as each other, right? And race should play no part, right?

No that is not what I was saying. I was saying that two people who performed the same level of work got two different scores, and that this is real.

 

[Rhea]

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?

I did not say that. I described how indeed something like an extremely difficult youth can indeed get you points on the olympic team.

But you knew that. Look, I'm not trying to convince you. I can't. We see different things. I'm only describing what convinces me. If you never see any of what I'm describing it will never make any sense to you and you'll think this opinion is unfounded, because most of the evidence is not visible to you. Descriptions on my part won't bridge that gulf.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Race or eye shape should never be a criteria, period. No extra points.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except this is assuming that all blacks suffer the same handicaps.

Since the actual problem is parental/cultural and not genetic this isn't the case. "Black" is an imperfect proxy for "troubled upbringing".