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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow. Just because I am opposed to giving preferential treatment based on race, rather than the more fair policy based on SES that would help all disadvantaged children REGARDLESS of race, I have a "problem with black people"?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that black patients receive much poorer care from white doctors than white patients?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that male black doctors earn $50,000 less per year than male white doctors?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the rampant discrimination that black doctors experience in medical school and throughout their career?

Do you have objective data to support your assertions? What rampant discrimination in medical schools?

[Anonymous]

Medical schools give a lot of extra tutoring to the black students admitted under the lower standards. The last thing they want is to have a high drop-out rate among blacks, so they have to work with them to get them through the program. Now the blacks who would have gotten in under the "white" standards anyway? They do fine. Just as good as the whites. As would be expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I can’t wade through this. Suffice it say that with AA, it just cones down to whose ox is being gored. If a privileged white couple is able to get their less than stellar son into a top ranked school, that’s that, no worries, and they can keep up the social pose as “big fans” of affirmative action.

Yes, this is true. I've often seen how liberals "change their spots" when the impact of liberal policies impact them directly. But as long as they have the money to buy their way to escape it, they're fine.

Pretty much. That’s why they like to imagine that it’s only “poor” or “loser” whites who take the hit. Rich folk figure that their money can effectively immunize them and they can get their white kids to the top of the heap. But I’m not sure that view can be sustained. Or that it’s helpful as an overall matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medical schools give a lot of extra tutoring to the black students admitted under the lower standards. The last thing they want is to have a high drop-out rate among blacks, so they have to work with them to get them through the program. Now the blacks who would have gotten in under the "white" standards anyway? They do fine. Just as good as the whites. As would be expected.

Maybe even better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now.....what I have just discovered is very interesting.

The AAMC, a very liberal organization, used to have charts that showed the acceptance rates, broken down by race, for any given combination of grades and MCAT scores. So, for example, you could look up and see what happened to a student with a 37 MCAT score (I think they have a new test so the points might be different) and a 3.6 GPA, broken down by race. You'd see that for that combo, 88% of black applicants were accepted to medical school, whereas only 45% of white students were. If you went down, to a combined 35 MCAT/3.4 GPA, you'd see that 60% of blacks were accepted, and only 25% of whites. You could drop even further, and find that a lousy MCAT score of 32 and a GPA of 3.2, you still had 20% of blacks getting in and ZERO whites.

But apparently, they are not disclosing that any longer. It brings to the forefront the inequity of what we are discussing here - that black kids who were decent but not exceptional college students overwhelmingly get into med school, and that white kids who were better overwhelmingly do not.

When you have to hide the results of liberal policies because the outcome screams "unfair!," you know something is wrong.

(If someone else can find the comparison chart - showing black/white acceptance rates by "cell" (the cell being the MCAT/GPA score), please post it. I couldn't find it, unless it's buried in the weeds somewhere.

Maybe as part of an amicus brief somewhere?
?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racial resentment lady has been making up stats.

Total Enrollment by U.S. Medical School and Race/Ethnicity (Alone), 2018-2019
https://www.aamc.org/download/321540/data/factstableb5-1.pdf

That means nothing, you liberal fool. Why didn't you link to the chart that shows how easy it is for a so-so black kid to get into med school and how impossible it is for a white kid? The fact that even with the low standards for black applicants (black kids with a straight B can get in!) they still can't get the numbers higher show how difficult it is to find black med school applicants with grades and test scores as good as whites, on average.

It shows there are not that many black medical students and that one-seventh of them are at 3 HBCUs: Howard, Morehouse, and Meharry, so you have no complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow. Just because I am opposed to giving preferential treatment based on race, rather than the more fair policy based on SES that would help all disadvantaged children REGARDLESS of race, I have a "problem with black people"?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that black patients receive much poorer care from white doctors than white patients?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that male black doctors earn $50,000 less per year than male white doctors?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the rampant discrimination that black doctors experience in medical school and throughout their career?

Do you have objective data to support your assertions? What rampant discrimination in medical schools?

I have previously posted links about how black patients receive much poorer care from white doctors, and how black doctors earn much less than white doctors. Let me know if you want me to repost these links.

The discrimination in medical schools is harder to quantify. But I could tell you many stories from my personal experience if you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds like he/she has a problem with Black people. He/she assumes that, one, Black people are the only group that benefits from Affirmative Action. Two, Black people by nature are less qualified than whites. Three, every time a Black student is admitted to a highly selective university, it is at the expense of some white student.

OP, how many more qualified students, regardless of "race", are declined admissions because of a lower qualified legacy admit?

Wow. Just because I am opposed to giving preferential treatment based on race, rather than the more fair policy based on SES that would help all disadvantaged children REGARDLESS of race, I have a "problem with black people"? And it is *I* who assume black people by nature are less qualified??

Au contraire. It is the liberals here who are up in arms to defend a policy that favors one race over another, with the assumption that blacks NEED to have lower standards in order to achieve. I, by comparison, realize it is not skin color that disadvantages someone, but rather financial hardship (which of course many blacks experience). Thus, I would expect that a middle-class black kid, with educated professional parents, would get just as good grades as her white classmates and therefore requires no "leg up" for admission. It is the poor students, black and white both, who are at the disadvantage, and an SES-based AA policy would help them.

And while not every white student loses out to a black student who gets poorer grades, when you create a lower-level "sub-class" of black kids, who are required to compete only with one another, you absolutely are costing SOME white kids the spots. The shame comes in when it is a white kid who, against all odds, grew up in poverty and still attained high grades in school, yet loses out to a middle-class black kid who did not do nearly as well.

It really seems that we have some extreme leftists on this forum, and unless a person supports a policy that helps blacks while concurrently hurting whites, they start in with the racist accusations. The racists are the ones who insist on favoring lower-scoring blacks over better-scoring whites, due solely to skin color, while concurrently making disdainful remarks about "white trash" and how community college is good enough for white boys.

Why are you only focused on black students, not other URMs?

Or athletes - Ivy League colleges don't give athletic scholarships so maybe it's a rich, white LAX bro taking Billy's spot?

Or legacies - so it's OK for rich kids to take that spot?

Why do you assume that the poor white kids are "losing spots" to middle-class black kids? You are completely speculating on demographics. Maybe it's all rich white kids who aren't getting a spot - is that any better?

What other URMs? The Jews? Asians? (Oh wait.....) The only other URM I can think of who are URM are Latinos, and they get preferential treatment as well. But not as pronounced as blacks. But I oppose preferences there too. I think the BEST students should get in, with some extra consideration given to low-income students. I'm not insisting that "white trash" should go to "community college" like some of the liberal racists on this forum.

As far as Richie Rich, I've already said I'm opposed to that - but that when big donors are at stake, or championships, you can't change it.

So you just accept that Harvard needs to have a rich, white LAX bro over poor, white Billy. That is simply unchangeable. But trying to lift up URM kids - specifically black kids? Absolutely worth changing.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault.

That's an attack, not an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

2 generations after CENTURIES of slavery and continued systematic racism (to this very day!) is a joke.

How about until systematic racism is gone?

Well, as long as we have "affirmative action" we will, by definition, have systemic racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault.

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.

Agreed.

The same folks who used to be anti-black now try to be so cool while being anti-white.

LIAR. The anti-black people are now GOP.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417154906/dixies-long-journey-from-democratic-stronghold-to-republican-redoubt

What? It's progressives who think native-born black Americans are unable to compete or otherwise be held to the same standards as everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

2 generations after CENTURIES of slavery and continued systematic racism (to this very day!) is a joke.

How about until systematic racism is gone?

Well, as long as we have "affirmative action" we will, by definition, have systemic racism.

This whole thread is two or three people saying over and over again that there is no discrimination against black people, so they should just stay in their place and let white boys have everything that their mothers think they are entitled to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow. Just because I am opposed to giving preferential treatment based on race, rather than the more fair policy based on SES that would help all disadvantaged children REGARDLESS of race, I have a "problem with black people"?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that black patients receive much poorer care from white doctors than white patients?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that male black doctors earn $50,000 less per year than male white doctors?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the rampant discrimination that black doctors experience in medical school and throughout their career?

All three of your scenarios could result from the fact that, on average, American born black medical students are less qualified than their Asian and white peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wow. Just because I am opposed to giving preferential treatment based on race, rather than the more fair policy based on SES that would help all disadvantaged children REGARDLESS of race, I have a "problem with black people"?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that black patients receive much poorer care from white doctors than white patients?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the problem that male black doctors earn $50,000 less per year than male white doctors?

How does a policy only based on SES solve the rampant discrimination that black doctors experience in medical school and throughout their career?

All three of your scenarios could result from the fact that, on average, American born black medical students are less qualified than their Asian and white peers.

Black patients receive poorer medical care than white patients from white doctors because black medical students are less qualified than their Asian and white peers??? What sort of logic is that ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

2 generations after CENTURIES of slavery and continued systematic racism (to this very day!) is a joke.

How about until systematic racism is gone?

Well, as long as we have "affirmative action" we will, by definition, have systemic racism.

This whole thread is two or three people saying over and over again that there is no discrimination against black people, so they should just stay in their place and let white boys have everything that their mothers think they are entitled to.

The problem is that white mommies of all political persuasions think THEIR sons are entitled to everything.