Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Either you can substantiate YOUR CLAIM or you can't. The one link you've provided so far says that data is limited and doesn't support your claim. Put up or shut up. |
Anonymous
PP here who was the teacher. 1. I said it was anecdotal. I did not say it was a substitute. 2. There is almost no "actual data" comparing race gaps except by the general population. These studies do not compare kids coming from families with a similar background. and experiences. They don't allow for other variables than race. There may be a few out there, but they are inconclusive. Sorry if my experience doesn't support your theory. |
Anonymous
You’re a bit of a bore but fine..... https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/27/scores-new-sat-show-large-gaps-race-and-ethnicity |
Anonymous
Yes, and this ^^^ is why race-based AA was started. Use your noggins, people! Blacks and Latinos score significantly worse than whites and Asians, and thus AA was introduced to offset what would naturally occur if across-the-board admissions standards were applied equally using traditional metrics: Significantly fewer blacks and Latinos would get accepted to college (and grad school), relative to whites and Asians. Isn't that why you all are clamoring for race-based AA? Because you know without it, blacks and Latinos would have a much harder time getting into college. Why does anyone doubt this? There have been several data posted - including how much worse black students accepted to med school score relative to whites - and liberals still refuse to admit that that "under-represented minorities" have been under-represented because their grades and scores fall below those of whites and Asians. (And Jews.) The only arguments revolve around: - WHY these groups continue to score so much worse. I recall one chart that showed that white students from a families earning less than $50k had higher SAT scores than lack kids from $200k families, so money alone can't explain it. - How many generations should we continue to give preferential treatment to lower-scoring kids based on skin color. Perhaps we could give advantage to kids from poor zip codes - both inner-city black and rural white - to make up for their poor educational environment. That would seem fair. |
Anonymous
Or we could focus on improving the educational resources of low income students regardless of race. But that won’t do anything to address the underlying discrepancy in test scores as they are a proxy for IQ. |
Anonymous
|
I am impressed by the number of die hards still hanging on, trying to talk sense into the smug rich folk, who suddenly have a science based formula for their superiority
|
Anonymous
That still doesn’t back up your claim: “The performance gap between white and black students on standardized tests exists whether low income or high income...” It doesn’t break data down by income at all. Did you even read it? Just admit that pulled this claim out of your asshole. |
Anonymous
Good lord you’re an imbecile. https://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html |
Anonymous
|
I mean really, try and educate yourself.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html |
Anonymous
Name calling, huh? Not my fault you don’t read your own links before posting them. Is the 17 points between low income whites and low income black statistically significant? Where is the data, sample size, method, etc? |
Anonymous
|
Oh, please. The facts are so obvious: blacks and Latinos score significantly lower than whites and Asians, and if schools were to apply "equal standards" across the board, relatively few blacks and Latinos would make the cut. That is in opposition to liberal schools' objectives: to get a diverse student body, even though you have to "dip down" fairly low in order to capture the minority groups who score so much lower than the average white acceptee.
Take Harvard, for example, that shining bastion of liberalism and discrimination. The cut-off for consideration for blacks is an 1100 SAT score, but Asians need to score around 1350 - 1380 if you're an Asian male. Now, 1100 is decent, but it really isn't exceptional. Certainly not Ivy-League material (if you are white, Jewish, or Asian). But prestigious institutions do have a challenge with this: if they have to lower the cut-off TOO low in order to capture the desired percentage of black students, they run the risk of tainting the academic reputation of their university. (In simpler terms, they're "dumbing down" the place, and word gets around. It also hurts the relatively few blacks who WOULD have been admitted under white or Asian standards.) So schools perform a calculation: how far down do they have to "dip" in order to get the desired percentage of blacks in under the wire? (Usually, the goal is around 12 - 14%.) The problem is that they might have to drop down even further, from the 1100 (for blacks) to, say, 1000 - and then while they are able to get the 13% they're gunning for, the idea that students with 1000 SAT scores are walking the famed halls of Harvard, well.....that might be TOO low. So they'll up the cut-off for blacks to 1100, even though that gets them only to 10%. But they figure that's a good balance: ALMOST a percentage that is equal to that in the general population, with an 1100 SAT score that is, if not exactly typical Ivy League numbers, it's still pretty good. But what makes it even nastier is when schools like Harvard have to come up with ridiculous justification to reject Asians in favor of lower-scoring (SIGNIFICANTLY lower-scoring) blacks, and hit them with discriminatory calls such as "not a good fit" or "they don't smile or talk enough" or whatever excuse they come up with. https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/ |
Anonymous
Rando book from 20 years ago? Nothing more recent? Great quote in the review though: “Of all the facts presented in these two sobering books, the most important is this: When we debate using racial preferences to admit more black and Hispanic students to the nation's best colleges, we are considering the fate of a shockingly small number of people. ” |
Anonymous
|
About 30 years ago, Howard was so eager to create more black lawyers that they shaved off the requirements for law school graduation - eliminating five courses that were standard at law schools throughout the country. They figured just get them a J.D. behind their name, even if their educational preparation was lacking.
It quickly backfired. Wiser minds realized that by doing this, they were making a Howard J.D. a "second-class" degree, and the institution would suffer a significant hit to their reputation. They quickly reversed course, and the remaining five courses were put back in as a requirement for graduation. I bring up this story because, similarly, that is what happens when you have "second-class" admissions standards for blacks. It causes a hit to the reputation of blacks who would have been admitted without the benefit of racial preferences. So in the Harvard example in the post above, a black student who scored a 1400 on his SAT and would have gotten in anyway is likely to have a cloud follow him: Did he get into Harvard by his own merit, or was he one of the blacks for whom an 1100 SAT was deemed enough (given his skin color). |
Anonymous
Test scores are not the only criteria used. An applicant with 1100 SAT may have other skills/intelligences that are desirable within a college cohort. Test scores become meaningless when you take into consideration the biases that feed into the whole testing/educational system. In fact, many schools are making SAT/ACT scores optional. |
Anonymous
But the problem is that it's 1100 for blacks, and almost 1400 for Asian males. I'm sure the Asian males have other skills/intelligence as well, but they need to start from a much higher jumping-off point. And the math test is biased? English comprehension is biased? The reason many schools are making SAT/ACT scores optional is that it will be easier to defend admitting black students with test scores so much lower than white students IF THEY OMIT THE TEST ENTIRELY. It's meant to hide the discrepancy between lower- and higher-achieving groups. (I remember during the Obama administration, there was a push to eliminate standardized testing at the pre-college level, too, and for the same reason. Blacks and Latinos were scoring lower, and that doesn't "look good." So.....abolish the test, and voila, problem solved!) |