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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who sees Sun-Tzuesque strategy all over this thread?

Rabbits, this terrain is not winnable. Abort.

Not as clever as you wish, little bunny.

Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your intended path of action to lead to permanent change? I view this ultimately as an issue for the courts to decide, not a political forum. I view this - political opinion - terrain to be as useful as swampland.

In don't have an intended path, as I have no real influence. I'm nothing more than a taxpayer and voter. But as to whether this discussion is useful, you could say the same about just about any of the political,threads on this forum. Do you also consider the other threads swampland?

I'd say a brave politician could run on this being one of his goals to enact via Congress. I'd much prefer to see a new policy put forward that helps all disadvantaged and high-achieving kids regardless of race as opposed to the current one that favors a particular race regardless of income. It's just more fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your intended path of action to lead to permanent change? I view this ultimately as an issue for the courts to decide, not a political forum. I view this - political opinion - terrain to be as useful as swampland.

In don't have an intended path, as I have no real influence. I'm nothing more than a taxpayer and voter. But as to whether this discussion is useful, you could say the same about just about any of the political,threads on this forum. Do you also consider the other threads swampland?

I'd say a brave politician could run on this being one of his goals to enact via Congress. I'd much prefer to see a new policy put forward that helps all disadvantaged and high-achieving kids regardless of race as opposed to the current one that favors a particular race regardless of income. It's just more fair.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 descendants were making progress on breaking the cycle of poverty until the Democratic Great Society programs killed marriage in the black community.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 descendants were making progress on breaking the cycle of poverty until the Democratic Great Society programs killed marriage in the black community.

How so?

In 1960, 67% of black adults were married. This generally gave families more stability and economic security. After the programs, women were dis-incentivized to marry because the government could provide the economic security (however slight) that a husband once provided. In 2011, 31% of black adults were married, and 725 of black babies ere born outside of marriage. The well documented economic and social benefits are denied to many in the black community.

[Anonymous]

^^ 72%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your intended path of action to lead to permanent change? I view this ultimately as an issue for the courts to decide, not a political forum. I view this - political opinion - terrain to be as useful as swampland.

NP. Ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide yes, but states, through ballot initiatives, have acted too.

[Anonymous]

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.

Keep dreaming your nonsense. I'm sure you also believe school shooting/mass shooting are gun control issues and not because white, working class men are angry that they can't get decent employment.
More fed agencies need to move to middle America

[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.

Keep dreaming your nonsense. I'm sure you also believe school shooting/mass shooting are gun control issues and not because white, working class men are angry that they can't get decent employment.
More fed agencies need to move to middle America

? You really think white male mass shooters kill people because they can't find jobs? Holy smokes!!!

The excuses you frail white privileged men come up with. So pathetic.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, and I've heard black graduates complain that people wonder if they got in - and through - on their own, or whether lesser standards applied. Well. You can't have it both ways. If you lower standards to admit minorities who otherwise would have been rejected, every minority will then be suspected of getting in because of lesser standards.

The people who suffer, beyond the whites who are outright rejected, are the minorities who would have gotten in on their own. If a school has an entering class of 2000 students, 10% of whom are black (200), approximately 70 of them qualified under the "white standard." Approximately 130 would have had to go to a lesser school, if equal standards were applied.

The other ones who suffer are the many excellent Asian Americans who are rejected because according to the racial/ PC police they are "overrepresented."

Get off the cross we need the wood. Apply to a different school. Move on. Be smart and take a full scholarship instead of taking high yielding money out of a lucrative market. Harvard is ONE school.

DP. So why can't the minorities admitted to Harvard under lower standards apply to a different school? Why do the Asians have to go to the lesser school when their grades and scores were higher?

Because their spots were taken by legacies and athletes?

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, and I've heard black graduates complain that people wonder if they got in - and through - on their own, or whether lesser standards applied. Well. You can't have it both ways. If you lower standards to admit minorities who otherwise would have been rejected, every minority will then be suspected of getting in because of lesser standards.

The people who suffer, beyond the whites who are outright rejected, are the minorities who would have gotten in on their own. If a school has an entering class of 2000 students, 10% of whom are black (200), approximately 70 of them qualified under the "white standard." Approximately 130 would have had to go to a lesser school, if equal standards were applied.

The other ones who suffer are the many excellent Asian Americans who are rejected because according to the racial/ PC police they are "overrepresented."

Get off the cross we need the wood. Apply to a different school. Move on. Be smart and take a full scholarship instead of taking high yielding money out of a lucrative market. Harvard is ONE school.

DP. So why can't the minorities admitted to Harvard under lower standards apply to a different school? Why do the Asians have to go to the lesser school when their grades and scores were higher?

Because their spots were taken by legacies and athletes?

No, their spots were taken by black students with much lower grades and test scores.

[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?

Because it is possible to become a significant contributor in physics or math without having the “right” high school experience. If Stanford believes these kids are in that cohort, they should whatever they could to encourage them. I remind you of that swiss patent clerk who never went to a “rigorous college prep school”.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, and I've heard black graduates complain that people wonder if they got in - and through - on their own, or whether lesser standards applied. Well. You can't have it both ways. If you lower standards to admit minorities who otherwise would have been rejected, every minority will then be suspected of getting in because of lesser standards.

The people who suffer, beyond the whites who are outright rejected, are the minorities who would have gotten in on their own. If a school has an entering class of 2000 students, 10% of whom are black (200), approximately 70 of them qualified under the "white standard." Approximately 130 would have had to go to a lesser school, if equal standards were applied.

The other ones who suffer are the many excellent Asian Americans who are rejected because according to the racial/ PC police they are "overrepresented."

Get off the cross we need the wood. Apply to a different school. Move on. Be smart and take a full scholarship instead of taking high yielding money out of a lucrative market. Harvard is ONE school.

DP. So why can't the minorities admitted to Harvard under lower standards apply to a different school? Why do the Asians have to go to the lesser school when their grades and scores were higher?

Because their spots were taken by legacies and athletes?

No, their spots were taken by black students with much lower grades and test scores.

Much lower than the athletes? Really?

[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.

Yes, and I've heard black graduates complain that people wonder if they got in - and through - on their own, or whether lesser standards applied. Well. You can't have it both ways. If you lower standards to admit minorities who otherwise would have been rejected, every minority will then be suspected of getting in because of lesser standards.

The people who suffer, beyond the whites who are outright rejected, are the minorities who would have gotten in on their own. If a school has an entering class of 2000 students, 10% of whom are black (200), approximately 70 of them qualified under the "white standard." Approximately 130 would have had to go to a lesser school, if equal standards were applied.

The other ones who suffer are the many excellent Asian Americans who are rejected because according to the racial/ PC police they are "overrepresented."

Get off the cross we need the wood. Apply to a different school. Move on. Be smart and take a full scholarship instead of taking high yielding money out of a lucrative market. Harvard is ONE school.

DP. So why can't the minorities admitted to Harvard under lower standards apply to a different school? Why do the Asians have to go to the lesser school when their grades and scores were higher?

Because their spots were taken by legacies and athletes?

No, their spots were taken by black students with much lower grades and test scores.

Much lower than the athletes? Really?

What about grad programs where they are no athletes? Why should middle-income black kids with much worse grades and test scores get admitted white kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your intended path of action to lead to permanent change? I view this ultimately as an issue for the courts to decide, not a political forum. I view this - political opinion - terrain to be as useful as swampland.

In don't have an intended path, as I have no real influence. I'm nothing more than a taxpayer and voter. But as to whether this discussion is useful, you could say the same about just about any of the political,threads on this forum. Do you also consider the other threads swampland?

I'd say a brave politician could run on this being one of his goals to enact via Congress. I'd much prefer to see a new policy put forward that helps all disadvantaged and high-achieving kids regardless of race as opposed to the current one that favors a particular race regardless of income. It's just more fair.

+100

Also agree