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

[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.

What you are saying is complete bullshit. Those courses have nothing to do with URM students. The top colleges have always had science courses that were not for science majors and did not require advanced math, because they want the liberal arts students to take them without worrying about it hurting their GPA and knocking them out of an elite law school. Students nicknamed the courses Physics for Poets, Rocks for Jocks, etc., but their purpose was to encourage students to learn something outside of their major.

And for the post above, B- students are not being admitted to elite colleges under Affirmative Action. Only kids of rich/famous legacies or elite athletic recruits would get in with B- averages. The boost that comes with Affirmative Action is that Harvard and Princeton take kids who would get into Georgetown or Duke without it; Georgetown takes kids who would get into UVA without it, and so on down the list. None of these kids are dumb-asses, so stop with the absurd stereotyping.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It isn't a zero sum game. Every time a college was forced to stop discriminating against women, blacks, and other minority students, they increased the total enrollment so that they did not have to cut back on white male slots, and especially legacy slots. White kids are getting into the same schools they would have gotten into in the past.

That is 100% not true. You are in complete denial, but it is a fact that poorer-scoring blacks are getting into schools that are rejecting better-scoring whites. Without AA, the whites would have gotten in but their lost they place to blacks.

Again, what proof do you have of this?

[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?

The individual didn't get in, not the minority. You can apply to any school you want. See the Harvard Lawsuit. My DC didn't even apply to Harvard and had a better, much more well-rounded app than one of the applicants in the suit.

I thought some were arguing for income based merit aid but, now you are discussing the merits of the Harvard lawsuit? Got it. I'm at the top,of the rabbit hole and I choose to hop away from this discussion being held at a much higher level than dcum forum.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Born white trash and now DCUM’s nightmare: white trash with money. I used my whiteness to get through bad schools, join the Navy, get a GED, take every hazardous pay station offered to leave the Navy with enough money to get a undergrad and grad degrees from programs where my whiteness put me in the minority among Chinese and Indian students. Yessiree, I could not have worked in temperatures ranging from minus 40 degrees to 120 degrees without my whiteness. I could not have gotten through electrical engineering degrees without my whiteness. I could not have set up my company or competed for set aside contracts without my whiteness.

White trash with money is the worst kind. You really don’t get it.

I totally get it. You are trying to say that I had to do nothing to get to from a rural slum to a business owner than to be white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see adding an economic aspect to it but we aren’t even close when it comes to racial equality. The lingering effects of systematic racism will take a long time to diminish.

So you're saying that we should continue to favor blacks over poor, disadvantaged whites until blacks mas a whole achieve "racial equality?"

And how is that measured? When blacks have the same net worth as whites? That will be impossible as long as blacks continue to have a 75% out-of-wedlock birth rate. You can't ignore personal behavior that leads to poverty, and say "let's keep giving mediocre blacks from middle class families preferential treatment over high-achieving poor whites until the average net worth of blacks is the same as whites."

Ahhh, it was going to come out eventually. Was just wondering how long. If those aren’t stereotypes I don’t know what is. I work for a membership organization of the most senior black executives in corporate America. We now have the studies that show in order for black people to succeed, they must significantly exceed metrics used to rate black and white candidates. They outpace their white counterparts consistently. Lots of data out there. You wouldn’t know because you are clearly perpetuating historical racist tropes.

Ahh but you racially denigrate Condoleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Thomas Sewell, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, etc because they don’t think as you demand they do. Are they too uppity for you? Hypocrite!

[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.

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.

Not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see adding an economic aspect to it but we aren’t even close when it comes to racial equality. The lingering effects of systematic racism will take a long time to diminish.

So you're saying that we should continue to favor blacks over poor, disadvantaged whites until blacks mas a whole achieve "racial equality?"

And how is that measured? When blacks have the same net worth as whites? That will be impossible as long as blacks continue to have a 75% out-of-wedlock birth rate. You can't ignore personal behavior that leads to poverty, and say "let's keep giving mediocre blacks from middle class families preferential treatment over high-achieving poor whites until the average net worth of blacks is the same as whites."

Ahhh, it was going to come out eventually. Was just wondering how long. If those aren’t stereotypes I don’t know what is. I work for a membership organization of the most senior black executives in corporate America. We now have the studies that show in order for black people to succeed, they must significantly exceed metrics used to rate black and white candidates. They outpace their white counterparts consistently. Lots of data out there. You wouldn’t know because you are clearly perpetuating historical racist tropes.

Ahh but you racially denigrate Condoleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Thomas Sewell, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, etc because they don’t think as you demand they do. Are they too uppity for you? Hypocrite!

+1

[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.

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.

It’s a push by Stanford to address the high dropout rates amongst URMs in pre-med and stem fields. Not sure these universities are doing these URM kids any favors by getting them in over their heads.

[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.

It’s a very dangerous time, these people hold the same opinions as the elites in Germany circa early 1930. In a decade they had their racial inferiors in gas chambers. We are but ten years away (if they are given power) from these radical insane leftwing loons putting us in gas chambers. I’m not exaggerating, there rhetoric is very honest with open remarks about what their end goal is.

[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.

Heard an interesting interview recently with the president of DC’s all female Trinity College. As more women went to co ed colleges and Trinity lost their traditional white middle class students, Trinity made an outreach to AA women from DC. President reported about 37% graduation rate among these women despite financial support, tutoring, child care, etc. it is very difficult

[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.

I’m white, spouse is Asian, we feel the same. We are trying to teach our children as you but MoCo schools are indoctrinating them against us every day in every class. To bad we can’t afford private school... must be our white asian privilege...

[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.

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.

It’s a very dangerous time, these people hold the same opinions as the elites in Germany circa early 1930. In a decade they had their racial inferiors in gas chambers. We are but ten years away (if they are given power) from these radical insane leftwing loons putting us in gas chambers. I’m not exaggerating, there rhetoric is very honest with open remarks about what their end goal is.

Speaking of loons, PP.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Born white trash and now DCUM’s nightmare: white trash with money. I used my whiteness to get through bad schools, join the Navy, get a GED, take every hazardous pay station offered to leave the Navy with enough money to get a undergrad and grad degrees from programs where my whiteness put me in the minority among Chinese and Indian students. Yessiree, I could not have worked in temperatures ranging from minus 40 degrees to 120 degrees without my whiteness. I could not have gotten through electrical engineering degrees without my whiteness. I could not have set up my company or competed for set aside contracts without my whiteness.

White trash with money is the worst kind. You really don’t get it.

He does get it, you don’t. I’m heartened to know there are good people like PP out there fighting the good fight. As a fellow sailor myself who spent a few in rather austere conditions myself (with other fine Americans black Asian and white!) I can only say stay strong my brother!