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

[Anonymous]

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.

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.....

PP here, the funny thing is a few years ago I would have agreed with you. But now after dealing in academia and the workplace with ‘white privilege’ ‘Toxic masculinity’ ‘patriarchy’, ‘unconscious bias’ ‘micro agression’ speech codes and censorship, recommendations that ‘climate deniers’ should die, death wishes for trump voters, encroaching race based socialist and globalist policies... I’m fearful I’m actually correct. Mind you I’m not fearful AOC would impose such, it’s the likes who would smash AOC aside and take power, like Stalin did Trotsky, and with an unyielding hand destroy all dissent. Look at the statements from the leadership of race based groups la raza, blm, even Antifa... don’t tell me they do not possess a zeal for totalitarian fanaticism.

[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.

Citation?

[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.

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.

You are wrong about Stanford. The course is part of Stanford’s new inclusion initiative for under-represented students. This is not a course, say, for humanities majors who are seeking a well rounded, not in depth education.

I cannot comment on your second paragraph as I am only familiar with Stanford’s program.

[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?

Because that degree from Harvard will more life changing for a kid with limited resources than it would be for a middle class kid with many resources available to him/her.

[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.

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.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because that degree from Harvard will more life changing for a kid with limited resources than it would be for a middle class kid with many resources available to him/her.

But they judge based on race, not "limited resources." They're not advertising that 50% of their student body is pulled from the bottom 50% of the economic levels of the US. If they tried that, maybe we'd find that basing admission on scores + economics leads to similar problems. Or maybe we'd find that there are plenty of high academic fliers in the bottom 50% of the US who won't need lowered standards to make it over the bar.

[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.

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.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor.

[Anonymous]

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.

You are poorly informed and have no compassion. FWIW, your use of the term "poor white trash" is very telling and reflects YOUR background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because that degree from Harvard will more life changing for a kid with limited resources than it would be for a middle class kid with many resources available to him/her.

But they judge based on race, not "limited resources." They're not advertising that 50% of their student body is pulled from the bottom 50% of the economic levels of the US. If they tried that, maybe we'd find that basing admission on scores + economics leads to similar problems. Or maybe we'd find that there are plenty of high academic fliers in the bottom 50% of the US who won't need lowered standards to make it over the bar.

A combination of scores + SES + race could work.

And today they do have some preference for 1st gen college kids. There would be some overlap there too

But until we have equal opportunities for all kids (from 0-18) I don’t think a pure meritocracy works for some of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Where do posters envision affluent children of any color in the 99.9 range of intelligence aka every poster on dcum's kids?

[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.

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.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here are all the Stanford Physics courses. Show us the one you say was created for stupid black students:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&academicYear=&page=0&q=PHYSICS&filter-departmentcode-PHYSICS=on&filter-coursestatus-Active=on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor.

Maybe there wasn’t easy access to calculus or AP physics in HS for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where do posters envision affluent children of any color in the 99.9 range of intelligence aka every poster on dcum's kids?

Luck of the draw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Citation?

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter. Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you.

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a required course for physics majors, but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor.

Your bigotry is clouding your logic. That is one class with extra help so students who did not go to an elite high school can catch up. I went to Princeton in 1976 and there was one freshman Physics course for those who had already learned Calculus in high school and another Physics course for those who hadn't and were taking Calculus concurrently. The students in the second course were not too stupid to be at Princeton and should not have been admitted, it just means they didn't go to top math and science prep schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do posters envision affluent children of any color in the 99.9 range of intelligence aka every poster on dcum's kids?

Luck of the draw

Exactly. I am always amazed by those around me who can pick the school they want to attend - and get in. Good for them.