Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

How do you "prove" someone is a non-Asian person of color?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

Therein lies the issue. Everyone is looking for a leg up, no one wants to actually do the work to get ahead.

What do you mean by "do the work to get ahead" ? Define that? Asians also top any admission tests and do plenty of "extra-curricular" activities. So are you ok if Asians are over 50% in any top school, because based on any objective measure they sure deserve it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

They will "never" move up? Wow. If you think race-based preferences to college are the ONLY shot they will ever have in their entire lives, you have a terribly cynical and sad view of these kids and their potential. Certainly, there are other ways for them to succeed in life and for us to help them succeed.

Not to mention, you haven't accounted for mismatch theory, whereby there is good reason to believe that students do better when placed with peers who have similar grades and test scores as them.

(Also, you're just casually trying to slip in the whole "disadvantaged background" qualifier. Race-based preferences pertain to race, not other factors like socioeconomic background.)

Well the "never move up" pertains to most not all as there are exceptions to any rule. College is a real stepping stone for someone coming from a poor socio -economic background. And yes blacks and hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So there is a co-relation between race and socio-economic background. Race along with socio-economic background is what the schools use for admissions, not race alone. But since the majority of blacks and hispanics qualify based on socio-economic status then race is a clear marker. UNTIL they improve their socio-economic status significantly then they deserve a helping hand in admissions. Many of them more than catch up while in college because it was their environment that was holding them back not lack of ability or effort.

If blacks and Hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantages backgrounds, as you say, then then would continue to benefit from affirmative action if it were based on income, not race. Why should a poor black or Hispanic be advantaged over a poor white Asian, or Jew?

Also, why should a rich black or hispanic be advantaged over a poor white, Jew, or Asian?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

As far as I can tell, no one has suggested race is the only criteria used for admissions.

Anonymous wrote:Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. [b]Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match[/b]. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

WTH What advantages do Asians come with over whites? Asians are most recent immigrants 1 st generation or second while whites have been here a lot longer.

Asian parents come with a very high education attainment than average whites. Have you been watching the spelling bee or National science/math competitions? Asians top these disproportional to their 5% population. Asian Indians have been winning spelling bees every year for a decade now. The competition is only among Asian Indians because they have created the eco system to keep winning this. Many whites discount these as nothing more than memorizing words BUT it creates a culture of dedication to education, focus and competitive spirit that is applied to everything in life and they go on to be successful in college and career as doctors, engineers, lawyers and entrepreneurs. If there is no affirmative action, Asians will take over 50% of seats in every top 25 college in America?

I am sure you will be totally fine with it because you want it to be all merit based right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

Therein lies the issue. Everyone is looking for a leg up, no one wants to actually do the work to get ahead.

Anyone who has been to a college fair or visit lately knows that it is very much a competition between colleges to raise their proportion of "students of color" and international students. They publish flyers that specifically state their percentages of students by race. It's quite disconcerting to the typical white suburbian student who is working their ass off and watching others sail by.

Anonymous wrote:I'm generally pro-affirmative action but wouldn't a policy of affirmative action based on income work to accomplish the same goals AND take the wind out of the sails of the white nationalists?

I agree with this theoretically. But the issue is how do you prove someone is from poor socio-economic background. Income can be fudged many ways and wealthy whites/asians will work with their accountants to make themselves "financially look poor" for couple of years before their kids apply. Also does income alone change the social background of blacks? No. Many lower middle income or middle income blacks still live in a majority black neighborhood for family reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:identity politics, GOP style.

Well, to be fair, Identity Politics was indeed started by liberals.


Check your status here:

- black or African
- white
- Asian
- Hispanic
- Native American
- two or more races
- other
- in love with a tree
- polyamorous
- bisexual ambidextrous
- pansexual wiccan
- still deciding
- Brony


Each day, without fail, my middle school daughter would share some story about how another kid in her class has either switched gender or had embraced some other "form." I can no longer keep up.

So?

My rising junior dd recently filled out some info form on a college website. She was telling me that it not only presented about 10+ gender identity options, but the race question actually was phrased as "which race do you identify as." I suppose we can all just choose whatever we want now. It's like identity mad libs.

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. [b]Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match[/b]. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

WTH What advantages do Asians come with over whites? Asians are most recent immigrants 1 st generation or second while whites have been here a lot longer.

Anonymous wrote:should the leaker of this alleged document be prosecuted and imprisonmened upon conviction?

^^ imprisoned

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

They will "never" move up? Wow. If you think race-based preferences to college are the ONLY shot they will ever have in their entire lives, you have a terribly cynical and sad view of these kids and their potential. Certainly, there are other ways for them to succeed in life and for us to help them succeed.

Not to mention, you haven't accounted for mismatch theory, whereby there is good reason to believe that students do better when placed with peers who have similar grades and test scores as them.

(Also, you're just casually trying to slip in the whole "disadvantaged background" qualifier. Race-based preferences pertain to race, not other factors like socioeconomic background.)

Well the "never move up" pertains to most not all as there are exceptions to any rule. College is a real stepping stone for someone coming from a poor socio -economic background. And yes blacks and hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So there is a co-relation between race and socio-economic background. Race along with socio-economic background is what the schools use for admissions, not race alone. But since the majority of blacks and hispanics qualify based on socio-economic status then race is a clear marker. UNTIL they improve their socio-economic status significantly then they deserve a helping hand in admissions. Many of them more than catch up while in college because it was their environment that was holding them back not lack of ability or effort.

If blacks and Hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantages backgrounds, as you say, then then would continue to benefit from affirmative action if it were based on income, not race. Why should a poor black or Hispanic be advantaged over a poor white Asian, or Jew?

Also, why should a rich black or hispanic be advantaged over a poor white, Jew, or Asian?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.

DP. We get it. The question is, why should race be a factor at all? If you claim that blacks, in general, come from poorer and less educated backgrounds than whites, they will still gain by an income-based system. It is patently unfair that, for instance, a poor Jew with a 3.6 loses out to a higher SES black with a 3.2. I say we need to be race-blind.

should the leaker of this alleged document be prosecuted and imprisonmened upon conviction?

Anonymous wrote:Under represented minorities need affirmative action because often times they know no one who has successfully navigated college. For example, I was the first person in my family to graduate high school in 1990. I was given the vague instruction to go to college. There was no support beyond the go to college statement. No money, no advice, no touring colleges, no assistance with filling out forms, no one could tell me where to apply or where they went to school as starting point. NOTHING.

Most white people have at least one member of their families (can be extended) who have attended college. There are a lot of things beyond just money and grades that go into supporting and fostering a successful college student that minorities do not get.

Very well said. Many people take things for granted. You do not know how difficult it is for a disadvantaged minority(Asians are a minority but not historically disadvantaged like blacks with slavery) unless you walk in their shoes for a lifetime.

I am sure whites will be rooting for Affirmative Action had they been slaves to blacks for centuries.

Anonymous wrote:Under represented minorities need affirmative action because often times they know no one who has successfully navigated college. For example, I was the first person in my family to graduate high school in 1990. I was given the vague instruction to go to college. There was no support beyond the go to college statement. No money, no advice, no touring colleges, no assistance with filling out forms, no one could tell me where to apply or where they went to school as starting point. NOTHING.

Most white people have at least one member of their families (can be extended) who have attended college. There are a lot of things beyond just money and grades that go into supporting and fostering a successful college student that minorities do not get.

First-generation college-bound students will correlate with lower SES. We'd capture them in an income-based system. The only difference is that blacks and Hispanics wouldn't be singled out for special treatment.

BTW, if it makes you feel better, both my parents went to college. Yet, I had no advice as to where to go, there were no college tours, and I certainly got no help filling out the forms. The difference was there there was some money (which would exclude me from the income-based system). Just pointing out that some of the disadvantages you faced were also part of the experience of 2nd generation students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal tech admissions model for all schools.

Cal Tech is 29% whites, 41% Asian and 16% URM.

MIT is 35% white, 26% Asian, and 20% URM.

All the white people clebrating this need to take a minute and realize that if college admissions were truly race blind, there would be fewer whites and fewer URMs, and a lot more Asians. Right now, Asians are the group that takes a hit on college admissions, not whites. And both of the big lawsuits out there on race based admissions are brought by Asian Americans-- not whites.

Bingo. This is what many people are not getting. The affirmative action takes from Asians and gives it to Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. I am of Asian origin and honestly the really good asian students get through to top public schools like Berkley, UNC, UVA, Michigan etc EVEN IF they are rejected admission to Ivies. They do just fine in the end.

So I am for AA but it should be based on Socio-Economic factors with income as a big factor.

No. What you are not getting is that many people oppose race-based preferences in admissions for principled reasons - regardless of whether Asian Americans or anyone else might benefit most from their removal.

You didn't read my last sentence. Without Affirmative action many blacks and hispanics coming from disadvantaged background will never move up. College is ONLY one aspect of life NOT ALL for the wealthy and upper middle class. Students coming from a high social class get to where they want regardless of which college they go to. Thats not the case for many blacks if they never get to college and finish college because they get sucked right back into the gloom of their neighborhood.

They will "never" move up? Wow. If you think race-based preferences to college are the ONLY shot they will ever have in their entire lives, you have a terribly cynical and sad view of these kids and their potential. Certainly, there are other ways for them to succeed in life and for us to help them succeed.

Not to mention, you haven't accounted for mismatch theory, whereby there is good reason to believe that students do better when placed with peers who have similar grades and test scores as them.

(Also, you're just casually trying to slip in the whole "disadvantaged background" qualifier. Race-based preferences pertain to race, not other factors like socioeconomic background.)

Well the "never move up" pertains to most not all as there are exceptions to any rule. College is a real stepping stone for someone coming from a poor socio -economic background. And yes blacks and hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So there is a co-relation between race and socio-economic background. Race along with socio-economic background is what the schools use for admissions, not race alone. But since the majority of blacks and hispanics qualify based on socio-economic status then race is a clear marker. UNTIL they improve their socio-economic status significantly then they deserve a helping hand in admissions. Many of them more than catch up while in college because it was their environment that was holding them back not lack of ability or effort.

If blacks and Hispanics OVERWHELMINGLY come from disadvantages backgrounds, as you say, then then would continue to benefit from affirmative action if it were based on income, not race. Why should a poor black or Hispanic be advantaged over a poor white Asian, or Jew?

Also, why should a rich black or hispanic be advantaged over a poor white, Jew, or Asian?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Race is one of the criteria and not ONLY criterion used for admissions. There is no algorithm which includes various factors such as income, historical injustices, social status, family assets, Family alumni history, various scores, GPA, extra curricular activities etc. The issue is how do you allocate weight to each of these factors. So admissions is highly subjective and will always remain so. But the point being elite schools should not be like 75% asian, 20% white and the rest blacks and hispanics. Without Affirmative action thats how it will be. Asians come with so many advantages that the blacks or even whites simply can't match. The schools want to have a more balanced mix and they should have that right.