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?

Yes. Just like poor minority students are underrepresented compared to wealthier minority students. All of which helps demonstrate that this discussion about the importance of diversity is a lie. It's just an excuse. Elite schools will continue to recruit the wealthy, and publish their minority student numbers, made up of the same children of lawyers, doctors, politicians they've pulled their student bodies from forever. And the rest of us will nod approvingly because the schools are so woke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

Affirmative action inextricably links education with politics. I agree with you that we should not play political games with education. I'd be in favor of abolishing affirmative action from education altogether. Education should be a merit-based process. The color of your skin should not matter. The fact that someone is Asian should not cause them to lose a spot to a black person.

I'm with you!

Consider this: AA was designed to give the descendants of black Americans, who had suffered under Jim Crow and slavery, special consideration. Many people agreed that though imperfect, this was a justifiable policy for a finite number of years.

Then, activists expanded it to include women. OK.

Then, the justification shifted to "diversity", which we're told is unquestionably good. Suddenly, recent immigrants from Mexico are given preference over native born whites, even though there is no wrong to right.

Now, finally, I read (on twitter and elsewhere) that capitalism, imperialism, and settler colonialism are the unforgivable original sins of whiteness, and America is a racist, sexist, genocidal, patriarchal fraud squatting on stolen land. It is invalid and rotten to the core -- as is whiteness -- and it's pay back time big time.

Well, technically this IS true...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

Affirmative action inextricably links education with politics. I agree with you that we should not play political games with education. I'd be in favor of abolishing affirmative action from education altogether. Education should be a merit-based process. The color of your skin should not matter. The fact that someone is Asian should not cause them to lose a spot to a black person.

You're on your own. The FBI is dealing with seemingly systemic issues in higher ed. Let's let them deal with unlawful activities which impact every last one of us as Americans trying desperately to encourage our children to reach that brass ring to the best of their God given ability. By them hearing that from you - instead of giving them an excuse that x, y, or z held them back is a recipe to create an adult who falls short of their abilities.

I tell my children they'd be lucky if issues, such as these, were the only thing that held them back. There are bigger and more important issues to prioritize.

As an Asian American, I'm teaching my kids that the world is not fair, that Affirmative Action is not an excuse for failure but an extra hurdle that they can and must overcome. At the same time, I will point out the racist nature of affirmative action since it is true, and work to eliminate it because it is just to do so.

Same here

-- not Asian American

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

Affirmative action inextricably links education with politics. I agree with you that we should not play political games with education. I'd be in favor of abolishing affirmative action from education altogether. Education should be a merit-based process. The color of your skin should not matter. The fact that someone is Asian should not cause them to lose a spot to a black person.

Asian applicants are losing their spots to white people.

How is this possible considering the tiny percentage of blacks at elite colleges. Our 5 spots are really affecting you. Maybe you are just not that good or impressive outside of your scores.

Nope.

They are losing their spots to everyone else because of a system designed, in practice, to help wealthy blacks.

How is this possible considering the tiny percentage of blacks at elite colleges. Our 5 spots are really affecting you. Maybe you are just not that good or impressive outside of your scores.

I am not talking about myself. I had the highest grades in my school.

I am speaking of B+ white students who are losing their seats to B- black students, and believe me, we are talking about more than just five black stidents. If it mKes you feel better to think that a middle-class black kid has not raced a poorer white kid with better grades, so be it. But you are lying to yourself.

More like A- losing seats to C+

[Anonymous]

Get out of this a rabbit hole before you lose the daylight.

There are many exceptions and statistical variations. For example, U of IL business school purchased insurance from Lloyd's as a hedge against a reduction in Chinese students from China. (I recognize Asian is a large umbrella and this is one specific example.) They haven't had to pay out but, the school has seen a reduction.

Harvard has gotten a slap on the wrist and for all time there will be sour grapes who believed they should have gotten in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, enough.

Leave it to the education experts to wade through. Education should never be a political issue and maybe the states need to deal with their own special issues complying with the federal regulations already on them.

We already have politics over income levels as an barrier to higher education and it breaks my heart.

Enough.

Affirmative action inextricably links education with politics. I agree with you that we should not play political games with education. I'd be in favor of abolishing affirmative action from education altogether. Education should be a merit-based process. The color of your skin should not matter. The fact that someone is Asian should not cause them to lose a spot to a black person.

Asian applicants are losing their spots to white people.

How is this possible considering the tiny percentage of blacks at elite colleges. Our 5 spots are really affecting you. Maybe you are just not that good or impressive outside of your scores.

Nope.

They are losing their spots to everyone else because of a system designed, in practice, to help wealthy blacks.

How is this possible considering the tiny percentage of blacks at elite colleges. Our 5 spots are really affecting you. Maybe you are just not that good or impressive outside of your scores.

I am not talking about myself. I had the highest grades in my school.

I am speaking of B+ white students who are losing their seats to B- black students, and believe me, we are talking about more than just five black stidents. If it mKes you feel better to think that a middle-class black kid has not raced a poorer white kid with better grades, so be it. But you are lying to yourself.

More like A- losing seats to C+

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Well, my DC didn't into *any* schools the year they applied with standardized test scores in the 99.9 range. I have skin in this conversation.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, my DC didn't into *any* schools the year they applied with standardized test scores in the 99.9 range. I have skin in this conversation.

Having said that, I don't care how someone got into the school as long as they are trying their best to graduate. DC goes to a school now that accepted them with full merit scholarship 2 days after they applied. I have never met people with IQs this low in my entire life. Those students dropped out. Shocker.

If a student who has experiences in their life that held them back and yet they won't lay down wish to try: more power to them. My DC helped a friend as much as they could but, their homelife brought extreme chaos.

This is a school right here in the US in a state where people struggle yet, have great pride.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

What proof do you have that mediocre black kids are “stealing” spots from better performing white kids??