Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Only because the competition is segmented by race, in keeping with AA policies: whites have to compete against whites, and blacks against blacks. If racial preferences for blacks were removed, the kid would get in over a black kid. You're buying into the current AA policy, which forces a A- white kid to lose out to an A white kid, only because they had to reserve spots for the B black kids. That's the point! You're showing how unfair AA is to the (rejected) white kids who are academically superior students to the (accepted) black kids. |
Anonymous
It's DC. DC. I do hiring for a government contractor. Almost all of our recent hires are underemployed black women. They are educated and experienced but many are underemployed and do not have job security, so they are constantly looking for a better job that fits their qualifications and abilities. Whenever we advertise for a position in DC, all the white people who live in their white suburbs outside the Beltway do not want to commute and work in DC. They want to telework and they want higher pay than the job or their qualifications justify. |
Anonymous
|
How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.
And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all. |
Anonymous
My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault. |
Anonymous
1) They probably aren't willing, but in reality they would be fine in the end. It's not a death sentence. 2) Let's say there are 100 spots for a selective program. Out of that, the target is 20 URM. And there are 500 applicants (20% acceptance rate) - 400 white/asian + 100 URM Let's say 80 slots are filled by the top 80 whites/asians, leaving 320 white/asian applicants. The remaining 20 slots go to the top 20 URMs, leaving 80 applicants. Some URMs will score well -- let's say 10 would have made the top 100 regardless of race. So then there are only 10 spots that may go to a lower-performing applicant (with AA). We already know that Billy's scores weren't as good as the top 80 white/asians + 10 URMs. If we didn't have AA he'd still be competing for one of those 10 spots against the remaining 320 whites/asians. Odds still aren't that great -- chances are he's more likely to lose the spot to a better qualified white/asian. Just because Billy didn't get in doesn't automatically mean he "lost" the spot to a URM. He most likely would have lost it to another better-scoring majority applicant anyway. Understand? 3) Source? |
Anonymous
And again, a liberal above personalizes everything. Why are you so selfish as to think that I am concerned by the inequity of AA only because it affects me personally? It does not. My daughter is a graduate of Johns Hopkins and is currently at an IVY, pursuing her grad degree. She is doing great, as well. (And why is it necessary to take a swipe at me as a mother, blaming me for the failure you envision my daughter is? It's not even true! Damn but you liberals can be nasty.) My sympathy lies with the poor white kids, who have excelled academically despite financial hardships, only to lose out to black kids with worse school records - INCLUDING middle-class black kids and for no other reason than skin color. It's abhorrent that liberals have such disdain for poor whites. |
Anonymous
2 generations after CENTURIES of slavery and continued systematic racism (to this very day!) is a joke. How about until systematic racism is gone? |
Anonymous
Not all white kids score higher than all black kids. How many kids are we talking? Small % of all applicants. Small price to pay. |
Anonymous
The chances are that, for those very few seats that go to URMs that receive an AA boost (not all do), the poor white kids would have "lost out" anyway to other white kids who scored marginally better. There are many more majority applicants than URMs. That's the whole issue. |
Anonymous
I would guess that black women MDs are more likely than white women MDs to be in primary care fields rather than lucrative specialty areas and more likely to be in practices with higher proportions of Medicare and Medicaid patients. To what extent that is their choice versus how much they are steered in those areas is a good question. One of the big problems in health care is that the top medical students know that the big money is providing specialty care for rich people. Rural areas, poor urban areas, and community hospitals rely on minority and foreign-trained docs because the top white med school graduates run away from those areas. |
Anonymous
|
Is your Ivy grad student any good at #s? If so, have her explain 11:01 to you.
|
Anonymous
Then it's not a death sentence for the lower-scoring black kids to go to community college, either - and it would be more fair, given that they are the poorer students. And you're saying that Billy lost out to better whites and Asians - which shows the flaw of AA policies. Billy is forced to compete against whites, and blacks compete against blacks (with lower standards applied to the latter). If race-based AA policies didn't exist, Billy would compete equally with those of all races, and he would have gotten in. And I knew you would ask me for my source. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Let's just say I worked in the admissions field and it was well documented. Without AA, the black population of the most competitive schools would be about 3% rather than the 14% - 15% that universities aim for (and lower their admissions standards to obtain). The problem often comes about because in order to admit enough black students to reach the 14%, good schools have to lower the standards to such a degree that they risk lowering the overall reputation of the school. It then becomes a compromise situation: should we allow the 3.1 GPA black kids in order to "up" our black numbers, or should eliminate the 3.3 GPA black kids and settle for just a 10% black count? You'd be surprised what goes on. |
Anonymous
The black population is 7.3% of medical schools so that is the maximum size of the effect. (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off) There have been quotes here that 2/3 of black medical students would not have gotten in without affirmative action. That seems high to me but lets take it as gospel. Then 7.3*2/3 = 4.9% of spots are being reserved by affirmative action. So 95% of whites would still get into medical school whether affirmative action exists or not. It is not ideal that medical schools have to consider skin color. But it is the right thing for now because (1) There is overwhelming evidence that black patients are not treated as well as white patients by white doctors. The purpose of medical schools is to supply healers for all the population. To achieve this goal we need more black doctors. (2) There is overwhelming evidence that black doctors face more discrimination all through their career. (See the previous post about black doctors salaries.) |
Anonymous
The chances are that, for those very few seats that go to URMs that receive an AA boost (not all do), the poor white kids would have "lost out" anyway to other white kids who scored marginally better. There are many more majority applicants than URMs. That's the whole issue. Poor white kids with outstanding academic records from poor public schools do receive a boost. I am a white guy who was accepted by Princeton and Stanford from a rural county school. I was one of hundreds, if not thousands, who had great grades, similar SAT scores, great recommendations, etc. It would be hard to distinguish between us. I have no doubt that I was accepted because I was credited for excelling despite my school over kids who may have had slightly better SAT scores after their prep school AP classes and SAT tutoring. |
Anonymous
Having an URM attend a life-changing school is more beneficial in the long-run for the URM community. More role models, more influence. Sorry, Billy. Of course you can't share a source. BA. 
And, no, it's absolutely not true that Billy would have automatically gotten in if AA were removed. The chances are that other marginally-better white/asian kids would have taken that spot. It's really just a handful of spots when you look at the whole applicant pool. And elite colleges admit more than just top test scores. They are looking for a dynamic, interesting, and DIVERSE cohort. Maybe some URMs didn't have great test scores but were great leaders/athletes/musicians. It's not all about the test scores. |