Race politics scenario: which option would you pick?

[Axulus]

You have a high school that is made up of 10% black students and 90% white students. 1,000 students attend the school in total.

20% of the black students (20) and 10% (90) of the white students drop out before graduating.

The school has received a $1,000,000 grant whose stated purpose is to use the funds to increase the number of students who graduate.

Option 1: If you spend the funds without targeting by race in the most efficient manner available, you'll reduce the dropout rate by 30%. However, the white and black students benefit equally in proportion to their populations, so you'll still have twice as many black students, proportionally, who drop out. In other words, you'll reduce the dropout population from 110 to about 75, but you'll still have twice the percentage of black students dropping out as white students. 35 (6 of them black and 29 of them white) additional students will now graduate, but the white/black graduation gap still remains double, percentage wise. We now see about 7% of whites and about 14% of blacks drop out.

Option 2: If you use the funds to focus more heavily on the black students, you can have a more dramatic impact on the white/black graduation gap. However, due to diminishing returns (the most difficult/hardest cases become more costly to help and the help is less likely to succeed), you only reduce the overall dropout rate by 25% instead of 30%. Whereas the previous scenario you see 35 additional students graduate, in this scenario you see about 27 additional students graduate. Due to the focus of the funds, 8 of them are black and 19 of them are white. 8 fewer students than the previous option, but two additional black students. The white dropout rate is now about 8% and the black dropout rate is now about 12%. The white/black graduation gap is 3% narrower with this option compared to the previous option, but fewer students overall graduate.

Which option would you pick and why?

For me, option 1 is the way to go. The focus should be on helping the greatest number of individuals and not targeting by race. Race is not a characteristic that should be utilized when determining who to help. Who to help and how much to help should be chosen based on the likelihood of any given help making a difference, regardless of what race they happen to be.

 

[cycomiko]

can money be spent on finding out WHY the graduation gap is so high to begin with?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow! I had no idea everything just came down to race.

I like how people who think things shouldn't come down to race, talk about race a lot! They'll go as far to posit one dimensional hypotheticals that don't represent the real world in order to show they have some sort of point.

 

[Derec]

Wow! I had no idea everything just came down to race.

To so-called "liberals" it always does.

I like how people who think things shouldn't come down to race, talk about race a lot! They'll go as far to posit one dimensional hypotheticals that don't represent the real world in order to show they have some sort of point.

That's because it seems to be the default position these days, and thus has to be specifically argued against. See for example Milwaukee schools spending half a million dollars on a "Black Lives Matter" program. That is no hypothetical.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would pick the 25% improvement over the 30% improvement.

Not all results are purely felt in the metric of graduates. The graduates among the African American students will give them the means to find employment in the community. Humans have a very hard time distinguishing correlation from causation. The fact that only 80% of the black community compared to 90% of the white community have a proper high school education is the first step to hiring managers seeing black candidates as inferior.

As graduation rates stabilize across racial perceptions over the years, the economic situations that contribute to African Americans not graduating will lessen and the problem will start to correct itself.

BUT, and this is the real big thing, I would do it by targeting economic distinguishers rather than specifically focusing on race. Study WHY black students are not graduating. Interview each student before they drop out and find out why, and then target the things which lead disproportionately to the African Americans dropping out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To so-called "liberals" it always does.

When they aren't accusing men of rape that is!

I like how people who think things shouldn't come down to race, talk about race a lot! They'll go as far to posit one dimensional hypotheticals that don't represent the real world in order to show they have some sort of point.

That's because it seems to be the default position these days, and thus has to be specifically argued against. See for example Milwaukee schools spending half a million dollars on a "Black Lives Matter" program. That is no hypothetical.

0.06% of their budget. That means for every $100 of their budget, they are spending 6 whopping cents on that program, of which you don't know much about in the first place. Also, how is that even on topic? My response was regarding a one-dimensional thought experiment that had no reflection on reality.

 

[laughing dog]

To so-called "liberals" it always does.

Since when did you self-identify as a so-called "liberal"?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The first thing that I would do is spend $500,000 on an executive retreat in the Caribbean for the teachers and staff in order to brainstorm about the best way to spend that money. $300,000 would then go to my wife's "consulting firm" in order to take the ideas from that retreat and turn them into "actionable plans". $100,000 would then be spent in bribes to the various officials in charge of monitoring the program in order to get them to report that the money is being well spent and the results are favourable (not too favourable, though, because we don't want other districts looking closely at what we're doing so that they can replicate our successes). Then with the last $100,000, we'll hire some tutors or something so that we can put some nice photo ops together about how we're using the grant to invest in our kids and shit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow! I had no idea everything just came down to race.

I like how people who think things shouldn't come down to race, talk about race a lot! They'll go as far to posit one dimensional hypotheticals that don't represent the real world in order to show they have some sort of point.

A few messages below yours we see the point in his question:

I would pick the 25% improvement over the 30% improvement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A few messages below yours we see the point in his question:

I would pick the 25% improvement over the 30% improvement.

What point? The hypothetical is a 1 dimensional thought experiment guised to reflect a 10 dimensional real world problem. There is no point.

 

[Jarhyn]

A few messages below yours we see the point in his question:

What point? The hypothetical is a 1 dimensional thought experiment guised to reflect a 10 dimensional real world problem. There is no point.

Which is my point. It isn't just about this year. It's about preventing societal decay because people have too hard of a time separating a purely coincidental relationship from a causal one. As long as there is a coincidental relationship between being black and dropping out, people will continue to mistake it as causal. They don't drop out because they are black, they drop out because they are POOR and have BAD HOME LIVES DUE TO POVERTY. They get discouraged by teachers who only see flagging numbers and mistakenly associate it with race rather than stressful, shitty, hungry, and oft abuseful lives, and who have mistakenly started to discount someone not based on the poverty but based on race.

If we expand this to the real example, that of whole schools, the problem becomes much more clear, because funding is pulled from whole schools that are seen as 'not putting out'. I choose to spend money to break the stereotype that black kids from the inner city can't succeed.

Black kids don't drop out because they are dumb, they drop out because they are barely even given a chance.

 

[Derec]

What point? The hypothetical is a 1 dimensional thought experiment guised to reflect a 10 dimensional real world problem. There is no point.

On the contrary, isolating variables (or dimensions) is exactly what you want in a thought experiment like this.

 

[Derec]

They don't drop out because they are black, they drop out because they are POOR and have BAD HOME LIVES DUE TO POVERTY.

It may be hard for you to believe, but there are also poor white people. There are also kids, of all races, who drop out or struggle for reasons other than poverty. And there are kids who succeed despite poverty.
Don't these kids all deserve help? Don't they deserve to be treated as individuals, and not mere ciphers for one race or another?

They get discouraged by teachers who only see flagging numbers and mistakenly associate it with race rather than stressful, shitty, hungry, and oft abuseful lives, and who have mistakenly started to discount someone not based on the poverty but based on race.

Do you have any evidence that kids are being discouraged by teachers because they are black?

If we expand this to the real example, that of whole schools, the problem becomes much more clear, because funding is pulled from whole schools that are seen as 'not putting out'. I choose to spend money to break the stereotype that black kids from the inner city can't succeed.

You have failed to demonstrate why race-based policies are desirable.

'

Black kids don't drop out because they are dumb, they drop out because they are barely even given a chance.

Some of them surely are dumb, and/or lazy and having a bad attitude.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You have a high school that is made up of 10% black students and 90% white students. 1,000 students attend the school in total.

20% of the black students (20) and 10% (90) of the white students drop out before graduating.

The school has received a $1,000,000 grant whose stated purpose is to use the funds to increase the number of students who graduate.

Option 1: If you spend the funds without targeting by race in the most efficient manner available, you'll reduce the dropout rate by 30%. However, the white and black students benefit equally in proportion to their populations, so you'll still have twice as many black students, proportionally, who drop out. In other words, you'll reduce the dropout population from 110 to about 75, but you'll still have twice the percentage of black students dropping out as white students. 35 (6 of them black and 29 of them white) additional students will now graduate, but the white/black graduation gap still remains double, percentage wise. We now see about 7% of whites and about 14% of blacks drop out.

Option 2: If you use the funds to focus more heavily on the black students, you can have a more dramatic impact on the white/black graduation gap. However, due to diminishing returns (the most difficult/hardest cases become more costly to help and the help is less likely to succeed), you only reduce the overall dropout rate by 25% instead of 30%. Whereas the previous scenario you see 35 additional students graduate, in this scenario you see about 27 additional students graduate. Due to the focus of the funds, 8 of them are black and 19 of them are white. 8 fewer students than the previous option, but two additional black students. The white dropout rate is now about 8% and the black dropout rate is now about 12%. The white/black graduation gap is 3% narrower with this option compared to the previous option, but fewer students overall graduate.

Which option would you pick and why?

For me, option 1 is the way to go. The focus should be on helping the greatest number of individuals and not targeting by race. Race is not a characteristic that should be utilized when determining who to help. Who to help and how much to help should be chosen based on the likelihood of any given help making a difference, regardless of what race they happen to be.

Hold on a second...

If blacks are dropping out at 20% while whites are dropping out at 10%, then that means that the conditions and complications for black students are likely worse than those for white students on average. Why would we assume that for the 20% black dropouts and 10% white dropouts that their conditions for dropping out are the same such that they have equal rates of diminishing returns? It seems you would actually hit the "diminishing returns" for blacks first as a percent before hitting it for whites. So, for example, if $N is just enough to help the next white dropout after 40% of the white dropouts are no longer dropping out, then $N may also be just enough to help the next black dropout after only 20% of the black dropouts are no longer dropping out.

So you've left out Option3 where you would devote money unequally per person such that white population per person are receiving more of the financial resources to not drop out than are blacks per person. That would seem to maximize your stated one-dimensional goal of "helping the greatest number of individuals." You also did have a stipulation of "and not targeting by race," but it's not intentional, only coincidental to maximize the greatest benefit to the most people using the one-dimensional metric of graduating high school. So, it's not really relevant. You should therefore be able to get the number from 30% to something like 36% for example.

So let's just conclude or hypothesize that this is true. And now it's time for my thought experiment:
Are you willing to do that, to give more money per person to the white population? If you don't want to or are afraid emotionally or morally, then what is your objection? Is your stated goal not the moral outcome you desire of maximizing benefit to the most people? Why or why not? Explain objectively and rationally.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...and now the maths...

Option1. You reduce the dropout rate by 30%. "20% of the black students (20) and 10% (90) of the white students drop out before graduating." So a total of 110 drop out. But now we can drop 30% of the 110 from dropping out = 33 people, not 35. 6 of the non-dropouts are black and 27 would be white, not 29.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Final thought here:

Option 2: If you use the funds to focus more heavily on the black students, you can have a more dramatic impact on the white/black graduation gap. However, due to diminishing returns (the most difficult/hardest cases become more costly to help and the help is less likely to succeed), you only reduce the overall dropout rate by 25% instead of 30%. Whereas the previous scenario you see 35 additional students graduate, in this scenario you see about 27 additional students graduate. Due to the focus of the funds, 8 of them are black and 19 of them are white. 8 fewer students than the previous option, but two additional black students. The white dropout rate is now about 8% and the black dropout rate is now about 12%. The white/black graduation gap is 3% narrower with this option compared to the previous option, but fewer students overall graduate.

A person can set out to be race-blind and not uni-dimensional so that they first find the root causes of the drop out rate and then try to address those financially and with other resources. If it is true that the conditions of the blacks who have dropped out are worse than those of the whites, then there may [unintentionally] be overall more financial input per black who has dropped out. There might also be less graduates per the black group as a percent than per the white group, while other metrics as determined from the measuring the effects of the root causes might actually show improvement as compared to option 1. So it might actually be better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What point? The hypothetical is a 1 dimensional thought experiment guised to reflect a 10 dimensional real world problem. There is no point.

Which is my point. It isn't just about this year. It's about preventing societal decay because people have too hard of a time separating a purely coincidental relationship from a causal one. As long as there is a coincidental relationship between being black and dropping out, people will continue to mistake it as causal. They don't drop out because they are black, they drop out because they are POOR and have BAD HOME LIVES DUE TO POVERTY. They get discouraged by teachers who only see flagging numbers and mistakenly associate it with race rather than stressful, shitty, hungry, and oft abuseful lives, and who have mistakenly started to discount someone not based on the poverty but based on race.

And we should help poor black people but not poor white people??

Sorry, but that's a very racist position.

The reality is people are people. What group they belong to has nothing to do with it, look at the individual cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Final thought here:

Option 2: If you use the funds to focus more heavily on the black students, you can have a more dramatic impact on the white/black graduation gap. However, due to diminishing returns (the most difficult/hardest cases become more costly to help and the help is less likely to succeed), you only reduce the overall dropout rate by 25% instead of 30%. Whereas the previous scenario you see 35 additional students graduate, in this scenario you see about 27 additional students graduate. Due to the focus of the funds, 8 of them are black and 19 of them are white. 8 fewer students than the previous option, but two additional black students. The white dropout rate is now about 8% and the black dropout rate is now about 12%. The white/black graduation gap is 3% narrower with this option compared to the previous option, but fewer students overall graduate.

A person can set out to be race-blind and not uni-dimensional so that they first find the root causes of the drop out rate and then try to address those financially and with other resources. If it is true that the conditions of the blacks who have dropped out are worse than those of the whites, then there may [unintentionally] be overall more financial input per black who has dropped out. There might also be less graduates per the black group as a percent than per the white group, while other metrics as determined from the measuring the effects of the root causes might actually show improvement as compared to option 1. So it might actually be better.

There is no need to look at race to find the actual cause unless the cause is racism--and again and again we see that when you look carefully at the data the supposed racism is really economic status. (Albeit sometimes indirectly. Take, for example, the fact that blacks get on average inferior care in the ER. Reality: it has nothing to do with race, but rather with the ER they go to. ERs in areas were many patients don't pay are overworked and on average you don't get as good care there.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Final thought here:


A person can set out to be race-blind and not uni-dimensional so that they first find the root causes of the drop out rate and then try to address those financially and with other resources. If it is true that the conditions of the blacks who have dropped out are worse than those of the whites, then there may [unintentionally] be overall more financial input per black who has dropped out. There might also be less graduates per the black group as a percent than per the white group, while other metrics as determined from the measuring the effects of the root causes might actually show improvement as compared to option 1. So it might actually be better.

There is no need to look at race to find the actual cause unless the cause is racism--and again and again we see that when you look carefully at the data the supposed racism is really economic status. (Albeit sometimes indirectly. Take, for example, the fact that blacks get on average inferior care in the ER. Reality: it has nothing to do with race, but rather with the ER they go to. ERs in areas were many patients don't pay are overworked and on average you don't get as good care there.)

And if we look at the Venn Diagram, we can't help but notice economic status and race seem to overlap quite a bit. Which goes back to the issue of the whole hypothetical which really seems to represent a middle to upper class area, with a 90 to 10 split, however, presumes the blacks still be dumbing it up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

but Loren, neither race nor poverty are root causes of dropping out of school. So why replace one with the other?

Some causes of dropping out of school:

• need to enter the workforce
• prefer to enter the workforce for sake of the family or self
• pregnancy
• academic struggles
• lack of family structure and oversight of the child
• no role models who have completed school
• little safety at the school, bullying

My point was that if the hypothetical were true so that blacks had a higher drop out rate than whites, then you'd expect more of these types of problems among the black drop out subpopulation on average. (Their circumstances would be more severe). Example: the average black student dropping out may have 3.7 of these factors but the average white student may have 2.9. You could spend a third of the money on tutoring people, a third on improving safety at the school and on the grounds, and a third on allowing part-time work to be used as credit for a workforce class replacing some requirement for electives. But because there are more such issues among the black population, indirectly, you'd be spending more money on blacks per person. [If you chose to distribute the money evenly to reduce all the factors listed above, then you'd be on average giving blacks 3.7/2.9 times as much money indirectly. ]

So indirectly you'd meet the description of Option2 by using this strategy since black students may receive more money per person. However, the impact of going after these root causes might be better for society/the drop outs than merely trying to go after a symptom more distantly related to the causes. Example: even if a student drops out, if they have entered the workforce with connections, some training, and transportation provided by the school and observed positive role models, that end point is better than if Option1 was used merely to try to get them to not drop out but they did drop out.