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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am mixed race with two DC already in college so this issue isn’t all that critical for me but I’ve always been curious about the definition of white students with respect to admissions. The elite colleges are about 50% URM, over-represented minority (Asian American) and international, so that leaves 50% as white. Typically, half of those white identifying students are Jewish so non-jewish whites account for roughly 25% of the student body. Currently about 60% of Americans identify as non-Jewish white.....so isn’t that population actually underrepresented?

Those who like the proportional representation game should be aware: Jewish Americans are < 2% of the population, yet dramatically "over-represented" everywhere -- I'd argue because of cultural values re education, brains, and ambition.

If we need to increase the number's of AA's in elite colleges to match their proportion of the US population, don't we need to DRAMATICALLY reduce the number of Jewish kids as well?

(No, I am NOT recommending this)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. "

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I missed the part about "except for college admissions where the color of your skin matters a lot."

You missed the small print. It's all there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly didn’t read the 1619 Project. Learn some history. Get over yourself. Black people aren’t taking anything away from you.

Huh? BLack kids with mediocre grades who get into college over better-scoring poor whites are indeed taking something away from those poor whotes: a chance to go to college and move out of a lower-class existence doe the rest of his life.

You need to at least admit that when black kids with a C average get into college over a white kid with a B average, they are indeed taking something away. You are not ENTITLED to affirmative action for generating after generation. The least you could do is say "thank you" to the white kids being displaced.

It isn't a zero sum game. Every time a college was forced to stop discriminating against women, blacks, and other minority students, they increased the total enrollment so that they did not have to cut back on white male slots, and especially legacy slots. White kids are getting into the same schools they would have gotten into in the past.

But Asian immigrants are not -- unless they score 300 points higher than comparable blacks on the SAT.

You’re right and the PP is an imbecile if they don’t think it’s a zero sum game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am mixed race with two DC already in college so this issue isn’t all that critical for me but I’ve always been curious about the definition of white students with respect to admissions. The elite colleges are about 50% URM, over-represented minority (Asian American) and international, so that leaves 50% as white. Typically, half of those white identifying students are Jewish so non-jewish whites account for roughly 25% of the student body. Currently about 60% of Americans identify as non-Jewish white.....so isn’t that population actually underrepresented?

Those who like the proportional representation game should be aware: Jewish Americans are < 2% of the population, yet dramatically "over-represented" everywhere -- I'd argue because of cultural values re education, brains, and ambition.

If we need to increase the number's of AA's in elite colleges to match their proportion of the US population, don't we need to DRAMATICALLY reduce the number of Jewish kids as well?

(No, I am NOT recommending this)

That's exactly what universities are doing with Asian Americans.

They can't do it with Jews because they are not a separate Census group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

You are poorly informed and have no compassion. FWIW, your use of the term "poor white trash" is very telling and reflects YOUR background.

+1

Pure trash, regardless of skin color

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's exactly what universities are doing with Asian Americans.

I agree 100%. But also note, when people talk about "whites" at Harvard, folks who assume they are all "privileged WASPs" are very wrong: non-Jewish whites are *under* represented. To which I say, let the GPAs and, more important, standardized test scores, fall where they may.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

You are poorly informed and have no compassion. FWIW, your use of the term "poor white trash" is very telling and reflects YOUR background.

+1

Pure trash, regardless of skin color

+2. Garbage human being and an imbecile to boot.

[Anonymous]

Whites are no longer the majority, are we going to give them an advantage now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

So then you'd be okay with reparations instead? With the "black children in the neighborhood getting a leg-up" because of reparations instead of affirmative action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in an upper-middle class area, and the neighbors were all engineers, Ph.D.'s, accountants, and economists. Why should the black children in the neighborhood get a "leg-up" over high-achieving poor whites in Brooklyn (or wherever) when it comes to getting into a competitive college?

Affirmative action should be based on a combination of better-than-average-grades and family income. This could be accomplished by giving "special chance" points to the top 5% in every school who ALSO has a family income of less than $100,000. In the inner-city and poor rural areas, just about everyone is from a sub-$100,000 family, so the top 5% get the special-chance points. Thus, in a crappy DC public school with 400 graduating seniors, about 20 would get the AA points. In a wealthy Bethesda W school, perhaps only 1 or 2 would (because a high family income would disqualify the others).

In addition, kids qualifying for special-chance points would get the equivalent of tuition of the state's 4-year public university. End result is the exceptional kids from lower-middle-class (or poorer) families get the leg up in admission AND tuition support. Race would not be a factor (although since black families earn less than whites, on average, they would still benefit disproptionately).

So then you'd be okay with reparations instead? With the "black children in the neighborhood getting a leg-up" because of reparations instead of affirmative action?

How about we not focus on handouts but put our efforts into helping our children reach their full potential? Not every kid is destined for Harvard.....let them compete on their own merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you posters who are insisting that minorities admitted to competitive schools with lower grades and scores than white and Asian students do just as well, be realistic. In what universe would you put a crop of B- stidents in with straight A students, and not expect the former group to struggle to keep up with the latter group?

I've worked in the industry. I can tell you that that a high percentage of the minorities admitted under the lesser AA standards require a lot of tutoring to stay in the program. (Competitive universities invest a lot in keeping the AA students in their programs since they want to keep the drop-out rate low.) By comparison, the minorities who would have gained admission under the standard guidelines, which constitute about a third of minorities. do not need extra tutoring to keep from failing. As one would expect. After all, they were "equal" in terms of grades and test scores as the non-minority students.

Stanford had to create a couple of “physics for dummies” type courses to boost retention of URM students. Is that really the way AA is supposed to work? Pretty pathetic.

Or was the class created for the athletes?

DP but I posted in another thread about the lower level physics classes at Stanford. The classes are for the underrepresented who could not do the rigorous work of Stanford classes. It is part of a push by Stanford to be more inclusive.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor.

Maybe there wasn’t easy access to calculus or AP physics in HS for them.

Nope, here's the course info page:

https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&q=PHYSICS41

Prerequisite: High school physics and MATH 20 or MATH 51 or CME 100 or equivalent. Minimum co-requisite: MATH 21 or equivalent.

Just high school physics. From the description for 41E: "Physics 41E ( Physics 41 Extended) is an 5-unit version of Physics 41 (4 units) for students with little or no high school physics or calculus." Why would a demanding school like Stanford accept into the physics major a student who has had little or no high school physics or calculus?

Calculus is a prerequisite.

For many middle-class+ kids, they have had 1-2 years of calculus and 1-2 years of physics (including AP) before they even enter college. Not all high schools offer AP-level courses so this class seems to help bridge the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. "

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I missed the part about "except for college admissions where the color of your skin matters a lot."

Affirmative action is a partial remedy for outrageous racial discrimination, which still exists in housing, education, and employment.

FFS how many handicaps do you want and for how long?

Until the cycle of poverty has been broken for all descendants of slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you posters who are insisting that minorities admitted to competitive schools with lower grades and scores than white and Asian students do just as well, be realistic. In what universe would you put a crop of B- stidents in with straight A students, and not expect the former group to struggle to keep up with the latter group?

I've worked in the industry. I can tell you that that a high percentage of the minorities admitted under the lesser AA standards require a lot of tutoring to stay in the program. (Competitive universities invest a lot in keeping the AA students in their programs since they want to keep the drop-out rate low.) By comparison, the minorities who would have gained admission under the standard guidelines, which constitute about a third of minorities. do not need extra tutoring to keep from failing. As one would expect. After all, they were "equal" in terms of grades and test scores as the non-minority students.

Stanford had to create a couple of “physics for dummies” type courses to boost retention of URM students. Is that really the way AA is supposed to work? Pretty pathetic.

Or was the class created for the athletes?

DP but I posted in another thread about the lower level physics classes at Stanford. The classes are for the underrepresented who could not do the rigorous work of Stanford classes. It is part of a push by Stanford to be more inclusive.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor.

Maybe there wasn’t easy access to calculus or AP physics in HS for them.

Nope, here's the course info page:

https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&q=PHYSICS41

Prerequisite: High school physics and MATH 20 or MATH 51 or CME 100 or equivalent. Minimum co-requisite: MATH 21 or equivalent.

Just high school physics. From the description for 41E: "Physics 41E ( Physics 41 Extended) is an 5-unit version of Physics 41 (4 units) for students with little or no high school physics or calculus." Why would a demanding school like Stanford accept into the physics major a student who has had little or no high school physics or calculus?

Calculus is a prerequisite.

For many middle-class+ kids, they have had 1-2 years of calculus and 1-2 years of physics (including AP) before they even enter college. Not all high schools offer AP-level courses so this class seems to help bridge the gap.

PO is basically saying Stanford shouldn’t admit any valedictorians from small county schools. At my high school, we had 5 students taking physics taught by a biology teacher and 6 of us teaching ourselves trigonometry in the corner of a geometry class that took 80% of our teacher’s time. According to all you elitists, I should not have been considered by Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. "

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I missed the part about "except for college admissions where the color of your skin matters a lot."

Affirmative action is a partial remedy for outrageous racial discrimination, which still exists in housing, education, and employment.

FFS how many handicaps do you want and for how long?

Until the cycle of poverty has been broken for all descendants of slaves.

The cycle was broken long ago until ‘Progressive’ policies destroyed the generations of gains blacks were making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. "

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I missed the part about "except for college admissions where the color of your skin matters a lot."

Affirmative action is a partial remedy for outrageous racial discrimination, which still exists in housing, education, and employment.

FFS how many handicaps do you want and for how long?

Until the cycle of poverty has been broken for all descendants of slaves.

Until you stop discriminating. The whole education system everywhere in the country is built around minimizing the number of black kids in the best schools. Suburbs are built around minimizing the number of black families in the best neighborhoods.

Before Affirmative Action, college admissions was not a meritocracy. It wasn’t even based on the students, as much as on the patronage, influence, and wealth of their parents. That is still there, but you have all been trained to blame all your disappointments on black people who just won’t in their place.