Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

[Anonymous]

Whites should abandon affirmative-action schools and set up new schools based on merit only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

Thems alotta words but no data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

Thems alotta words but no data.

Schools USED to report the data, showing the average GPA and test scores of different ethnic groups, but there was such an uproar when whites saw the extent to which blacks were being favored that the schools stopped doing it.

And why did they do it in the first place, you ask? Because they wanted to encourage blacks with so-so grades/scores to apply, showing them how much easier it would be for them to get in with their 3.3 than a white guy (who would be laughed out). But as I said, it backfired when whites saw the discrepancy between black and white acceptance data.

Again, amazing how blacks and bleeding-heart whites keep insisting that we leave racial preferences in place when deciding whom to admit, but then deny that applicants with the preferred skin color are being advantaged. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

Liar.

Whenever a liberal is faced with the unpleasant truth, they resort to name-calling. Liar, or slut, or whatever.

You liberals are completely illogical. If, as you claim, AA racial preferences do not lead blacks with lower scores to being admitted when they would not be if they were white, then why the desperation to keep race-based AA? According to you, blacks are not getting jumped ahead of better-scoring whites. So, what's AA doing?

The fact of the matter is that a marginally above-average black kid has a good crack at getting ino medical school, whereas a white kid needs close to a 3.8 or 3.9. THe AAMC used to report this data, but what it revealed created such an uproar that I believe they stopped reporting it.

Again, amazing how libs and black parents are desperate to maintain racist AA policies to give a big advantage to blacks, and then deny that blacks are getting advantages by it. Boggles the mind.

I'd like to see an experiment: ONE YEAR, all racist AA policies are suspended. Students are admitted on the basis of test scores and grades, with their SES factored in, and see what happens. If blacks are from lower SES backgrounds, on average, they will still benefit. The woest that will happen is that the 3.2 and 3.3 black kids, who would have been admitted under AA but aren't under the suspension, will simo,y have to postpone their plans a year - and then apply under the lower "black" standards.

[Anonymous]

I’m not necessarily against AA but I can’t abide the dishonesty of those claiming that black admits don’t have substantially lower quantitative metrics than other races. Granting black admits handicaps is at the very heart of AA.

Here are 18 years of Harvard data tracking test scores of admits by race. Blacks scored the lowest of the five racial groups.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not necessarily against AA but I can’t abide the dishonesty of those claiming that black admits don’t have substantially lower quantitative metrics than other races. Granting black admits handicaps is at the very heart of AA.

Here are 18 years of Harvard data tracking test scores of admits by race. Blacks scored the lowest of the five racial groups.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/

+1

And, if anything, higher learning starts with intellectual honesty.

This poisons that from the very start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For the point of this discussion, any racism against black people would only enter into it if Admissions Committees were looking at a black kid with a 3.8 and a white kid with a 3.3, and because of racism, they give the nod to the so-so white kid and show the high-achieving black kid the door. But as it stands now, Admissions Committees are doing the opposite: favoring "so-so" black kids over high-achieving whites.

Let's just take race out of it. Kids with higher scores and grades, complemented by impressive extracurricular activities such as Student Body President or editor of the high school newspaper, get in over less-qualified kids. Race should not be a factor.

No college is taking a kid that would struggle academically unless that kid has the money to pay out of pocket.

Race only becomes a factor when you have 5000 applicants who are approximately equal in terms of motivation and academic ability and someone says, "Well we can't just pick the white ones." It is really absurd to insist that academically superior white students are being forced to go to community college because sub-par black students are taking their spots at university. Anyone saying that this is the outcome of Affirmative Action is lying.

Nice straw man.

You asserted that parents insist that kids are being “forced” to go to community colleges. Where’s the evidence for this bizarre claim? Seems like a straw man argument, dunce.

Way to refute it with evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not necessarily against AA but I can’t abide the dishonesty of those claiming that black admits don’t have substantially lower quantitative metrics than other races. Granting black admits handicaps is at the very heart of AA.

Here are 18 years of Harvard data tracking test scores of admits by race. Blacks scored the lowest of the five racial groups.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/

This is a good link. Thanks for posting.

But it proves the point that I was personally making. Black students had average SAT section score of 704. Average white student had score of 745. These correspond to percentiles 92-96% and 95-99%, respectively. Yes, the black students were lower. But these scores are all exceptional. This is not a so-so black kid with a 3.3 GPA and a white kid with a 3.8 GPA that other posters keep using as a made up example. This is a black kid and a white kid, both with 4.0 GPAs in AP classes and both with really strong SAT scores, with the white person being slightly higher. This is exactly the point I have been making all along (but I can't speak for other posters).

https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-percentiles-and-score-rankings

There is definitely room to debate if 2-3% percentile points are significant. But consider the full implications of asking for a race-blind admissions.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Harvard had 43,330 applicants this year and admitted 2000. Harvard, if it so chose, could entirely populate its freshman class with wildly "superior" Asian students. I'm guessing you wouldn't like that. But on what grounds? FYI, huge percentage of white acceptances are due to social reasons, not merit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not necessarily against AA but I can’t abide the dishonesty of those claiming that black admits don’t have substantially lower quantitative metrics than other races. Granting black admits handicaps is at the very heart of AA.

Here are 18 years of Harvard data tracking test scores of admits by race. Blacks scored the lowest of the five racial groups.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/

This is a good link. Thanks for posting.

But it proves the point that I was personally making. Black students had average SAT section score of 704. Average white student had score of 745. These correspond to percentiles 92-96% and 95-99%, respectively. Yes, the black students were lower. But these scores are all exceptional. This is not a so-so black kid with a 3.3 GPA and a white kid with a 3.8 GPA that other posters keep using as a made up example. This is a black kid and a white kid, both with 4.0 GPAs in AP classes and both with really strong SAT scores, with the white person being slightly higher. This is exactly the point I have been making all along (but I can't speak for other posters).

https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-percentiles-and-score-rankings

There is definitely room to debate if 2-3% percentile points are significant. But consider the full implications of asking for a race-blind admissions.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Harvard had 43,330 applicants this year and admitted 2000. Harvard, if it so chose, could entirely populate its freshman class with wildly "superior" Asian students. I'm guessing you wouldn't like that. But on what grounds? FYI, huge percentage of white acceptances are due to social reasons, not merit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

'I'm the poster talking about the HUGE discrepancy between blacks and whites when it comes to med school acceptance. I gave the example of how relatively easy it is for a black kid to get into med school with a 3.3 whereas a white kid needs a 3.8 or 3.9 to have a decent chance. We are not talking about a 2-3% percentile difference.....we are talking about how the metrics for accepted black students is SIGNIFICANTLY lower.

As i was saying .(and I found the AAMC data to back it up), you can look at any score/grade combination, and for that specific metric, blacks can be as much as NINE (9!) times as likely to get accepted as whites.Also, as I mentioned, the AAMC stopped reporting the data, and I suspect the reason they did is that they didn't want whites to know just how far backward med schools were bending over to get their desired percentage of black kids into their programs - and rejecting whites who are significantly better students.

Finally, we have people on this thread arguing FOR race-based admissions preferences (with the preference going to blacks) and then simultaneously arguing that there is barely a difference in the metrics of accepted black studenrs vs white students - and name-calling anyone who points out the truth. (I think someone actually called a poster a slut!)

You can't find the data in the AAMC website any longer - the backlash must have been fierce - but this article has the data from a few years ago, as published by the AAMC. For those of you who are willing to take off the blinders and explore to what degree "slightly-above average" black students usurp exceptional white students as a result of lower "black standards," the attached article will be of interest. (Also, it's not just blacks that get the big advantage; Hispanics do as well.)

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The federal district judge seemingly faithfully applied extant S.Ct. law. Ultimately, the S.Ct. May have to weigh in on whether “strict scrutiny” has, in effect, been treated like “rational basis” review in this context. But opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that by the time a case gets to the Court there will be a 5-4 Dem majority.

Why do you assume a liberal majority? RBG will not last another five years, sorry - and Trump will be appointing another conservative.

(If you assume he'll lose, I can assume he'll win.)

Very few Republican politicians care about this issue anymore. In fact, very few white people care about it. The only ones who do are those whose ox was, in effect, gored. And by that I mean the parents of the marginal kid who was rejected by, say, UVA, and lash out in embarrassment and anger.

Except it's not necessarily the marginal kid, but you'll keep telling yourself that. It's the kid with the 3.6 who didn't get in, whereas black kids are getting in with a 3.2.

It's happening, but the only way the posters defending the racist AA policies is to convince themselves it's only impacting the marginal kids. Very good white students are being rejected because these schools are allocating space for more black kids, and that means lowering the standards for them. The white kid with excellent grades is SOL.

Liar.

Whenever a liberal is faced with the unpleasant truth, they resort to name-calling. Liar, or slut, or whatever.

You liberals are completely illogical. If, as you claim, AA racial preferences do not lead blacks with lower scores to being admitted when they would not be if they were white, then why the desperation to keep race-based AA? According to you, blacks are not getting jumped ahead of better-scoring whites. So, what's AA doing?

The fact of the matter is that a marginally above-average black kid has a good crack at getting ino medical school, whereas a white kid needs close to a 3.8 or 3.9. THe AAMC used to report this data, but what it revealed created such an uproar that I believe they stopped reporting it.

Again, amazing how libs and black parents are desperate to maintain racist AA policies to give a big advantage to blacks, and then deny that blacks are getting advantages by it. Boggles the mind.

I'd like to see an experiment: ONE YEAR, all racist AA policies are suspended. Students are admitted on the basis of test scores and grades, with their SES factored in, and see what happens. If blacks are from lower SES backgrounds, on average, they will still benefit. The woest that will happen is that the 3.2 and 3.3 black kids, who would have been admitted under AA but aren't under the suspension, will simo,y have to postpone their plans a year - and then apply under the lower "black" standards.

I called you a liar because you pulled those numbers out of your asshole. Feel free to provide data to back up that specific claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not necessarily against AA but I can’t abide the dishonesty of those claiming that black admits don’t have substantially lower quantitative metrics than other races. Granting black admits handicaps is at the very heart of AA.

Here are 18 years of Harvard data tracking test scores of admits by race. Blacks scored the lowest of the five racial groups.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american-admit-sat-scores/

This is a good link. Thanks for posting.

But it proves the point that I was personally making. Black students had average SAT section score of 704. Average white student had score of 745. These correspond to percentiles 92-96% and 95-99%, respectively. Yes, the black students were lower. But these scores are all exceptional. This is not a so-so black kid with a 3.3 GPA and a white kid with a 3.8 GPA that other posters keep using as a made up example. This is a black kid and a white kid, both with 4.0 GPAs in AP classes and both with really strong SAT scores, with the white person being slightly higher. This is exactly the point I have been making all along (but I can't speak for other posters).

https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-percentiles-and-score-rankings

There is definitely room to debate if 2-3% percentile points are significant. But consider the full implications of asking for a race-blind admissions.

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

Harvard had 43,330 applicants this year and admitted 2000. Harvard, if it so chose, could entirely populate its freshman class with wildly "superior" Asian students. I'm guessing you wouldn't like that. But on what grounds? FYI, huge percentage of white acceptances are due to social reasons, not merit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361

'I'm the poster talking about the HUGE discrepancy between blacks and whites when it comes to med school acceptance. I gave the example of how relatively easy it is for a black kid to get into med school with a 3.3 whereas a white kid needs a 3.8 or 3.9 to have a decent chance. We are not talking about a 2-3% percentile difference.....we are talking about how the metrics for accepted black students is SIGNIFICANTLY lower.

As i was saying .(and I found the AAMC data to back it up), you can look at any score/grade combination, and for that specific metric, blacks can be as much as NINE (9!) times as likely to get accepted as whites.Also, as I mentioned, the AAMC stopped reporting the data, and I suspect the reason they did is that they didn't want whites to know just how far backward med schools were bending over to get their desired percentage of black kids into their programs - and rejecting whites who are significantly better students.

Finally, we have people on this thread arguing FOR race-based admissions preferences (with the preference going to blacks) and then simultaneously arguing that there is barely a difference in the metrics of accepted black studenrs vs white students - and name-calling anyone who points out the truth. (I think someone actually called a poster a slut!)

You can't find the data in the AAMC website any longer - the backlash must have been fierce - but this article has the data from a few years ago, as published by the AAMC. For those of you who are willing to take off the blinders and explore to what degree "slightly-above average" black students usurp exceptional white students as a result of lower "black standards," the attached article will be of interest. (Also, it's not just blacks that get the big advantage; Hispanics do as well.)

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/

I'm not signing up for that website.

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/01/15/analysis-challenges-idea-black-medical-school-applicants-are-stealing

From the article:

The number of black students earning admission is so small, the analysis says, that eliminating affirmative action would have only the most marginal impact on the odds of white applicants getting in. Based on their qualifications during the years studied, if medical schools stopped considering race in admissions, and every slot lost by a black student went to a white student (which is unlikely), the acceptance rate of white applicants would go up from 45.15 percent to 47.97 percent.

Maybe medical schools feel a public health responsibility to teach more black doctors since the outcomes for black patients are an order of magnitude worse than white patients? Creating more black doctors who might be more sensitive to these concerns might help ameliorate that problem.

[Anonymous]

If URM status wasn’t perceived as providing significant edge in admissions then we wouldn’t see threads with excited parents asking whether their kids could claim it, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If URM status wasn’t perceived as providing significant edge in admissions then we wouldn’t see threads with excited parents asking whether their kids could claim it, right?

Maybe they were misinformed about the potential benefits by all of the white people on this site complaining about it?