Proof of why URMs do NOT want SES-based affirmative action to take place of race-based policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please tell me what exactly the argument over SES-based affirmative action is?

It will drastically reduce the number of URMs in top colleges. The children of poor whites score the same on the SAT as as the children of affluent Blacks.

This is a gross generalization and wrong, to boot. Affluence is what affects the score, not race.

Yes, that's the party line, but it isn't backed up by data. From this link: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."

So yeah, if you actually changed affirmative action to help out poor kids it would drastically reduce the number of URM students.

Reference please. And please cite to credible reference(s). I'd like to know where all these IQ tests are taken place.

This is just ...wow. How can this be?

A couple of things probably explain it:

1) The percentage of dirt poor whites going to college is undoubtedly lower than that of affluent blacks; thus you're probably only getting the better students out of the bunch.

2) Blacks in the US have an average IQ of 85; whites of about 103; basically the same one standard deviation we see in the SAT scores. The kids are regressing to different means.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. I hate my iPhone most times. Please cite reputable references to your argument PP. I'm convinced people make up all kinds of bullshit to further their racial agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate my iPhone most times. Please cite reputable references to your argument PP. I'm convinced people make up all kinds of bullshit to further their racial agendas.

This really shouldn't be a controversial thing to say at all; it's been tested extensively and the results are always the same. It's one of the most robust findings in cognitive science.

"Rushton & Jensen (2005) wrote that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They stated that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median). According to Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton the black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that are claimed best to represent the general intelligence factor g.[46] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[47][48] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[49]"

The controversy comes in as to "why" there's a one standard deviation difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So take race off the application. Then nobody should complain about being discriminated against.

But I bet they will.

Seems clear you are not understanding the larger issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate my iPhone most times. Please cite reputable references to your argument PP. I'm convinced people make up all kinds of bullshit to further their racial agendas.

This really shouldn't be a controversial thing to say at all; it's been tested extensively and the results are always the same. It's one of the most robust findings in cognitive science.

"Rushton & Jensen (2005) wrote that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They stated that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median). According to Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton the black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that are claimed best to represent the general intelligence factor g.[46] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[47][48] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[49]"

The controversy comes in as to "why" there's a one standard deviation difference.

Well it is controversial. Who, when, how are questions not asked and answered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate my iPhone most times. Please cite reputable references to your argument PP. I'm convinced people make up all kinds of bullshit to further their racial agendas.

This really shouldn't be a controversial thing to say at all; it's been tested extensively and the results are always the same. It's one of the most robust findings in cognitive science.

"Rushton & Jensen (2005) wrote that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They stated that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median). According to Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton the black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that are claimed best to represent the general intelligence factor g.[46] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[47][48] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[49]"

The controversy comes in as to "why" there's a one standard deviation difference.

Well it is controversial. Who, when, how are questions not asked and answered.

I've often felt that progressives treat studies on IQ differences like conservatives treat studies on global warming. It doesn't fit their world view, therefore they must attack it, science be damned.

[Anonymous]

So what is your point PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its weird that people focus so much on college, when the problem is with K-12 education. The segregation in K-12 is absolutely rampant. Many affluent whites have never spent a day in a state school.

Not really. Even blacks in affluent schools perform below their white peers. I'm not sure what the answer is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is your point PP?

My point was that affirmative action based on SES wouldn't be effective if the goal is to get URMs into top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

Athletics, legacy, money, etc. are all determined by the colleges themselves. Affirmative action is required by the GOVERNMENT. If you don't see the difference, then it's not worth my time debating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

Athletics, legacy, money, etc. are all determined by the colleges themselves. Affirmative action is required by the GOVERNMENT. If you don't see the difference, then it's not worth my time debating.

How is it required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

Athletics, legacy, money, etc. are all determined by the colleges themselves. Affirmative action is required by the GOVERNMENT. If you don't see the difference, then it's not worth my time debating.

Well, it is not worth your time debating because you just proved that you do not really know what you are talking about. But ask yourself this...why did Ms. Fisher sue the university and not the "GOVERNMENT"

[Anonymous]

This is a case of many not wanting to know facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a case of many not wanting to know facts.

I do not think it is that- although in these discussions people tend use "facts" to muddy up the water.

To me, the issue is whether a holistic admission process, taking into account factors, other than grades and scores, is a valid way to populate the student body. It is actually a pretty simple question with complicated answers.

Proof of that is that many Whites reject holistic admission when it comes to Blacks and Latinos but embrace it whenever Asians assert that they are discriminated against in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Huh. I have NEVER seen anyone say that admission should be based off test scores and grades. Admissions SHOULD be holistic.

Race just shouldn't be a factor.