Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of spots at competitive colleges will go to white kids. They will continue on their easy path of upward mobility. Why are you so focused on the handful of spots that go to URMs? What about other spots at those colleges that go to other kids with lesser grades? Don't hear you complaining once about them.

+1 I recently talked to a white acquaintance who said her 13 year old daughter is interested in going to medical school, but "she probably won't get in because affirmative action will give all the spots to blacks". She has her excuses ready 10 years in advance! <sarcasm> After all, affirmative action is the only possible reason why she couldn't get in medical school <\sarcasm>

No, your acquaintance probably read the AAMC charts that showed how difficult it is for whites to get in. (And if she's Asian, it's even worse.) It's actually quite discouraging to see how blacks with a B average get into medical school and whites with an A- average have to kiss their dream of becoming a doctor goodbye - unless they go to some crap Caribbean school.

When I meet a white doctor who recently graduated, I know how smart he must be. He had all the odds stacked against him, and still he made it.

No my acquaintance is an idiot. There are 3% fewer slots for white applicants because of AA.

Link to your nonsense?

The black population is 7.3% of medical schools so that is the maximum size of the effect.
(https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/04/673318859/the-push-for-diversity-in-medical-school-is-slowly-paying-off) There have been quotes here that 2/3 of black medical students would not have gotten in without affirmative action. That seems high to me but lets take it as gospel. Then 7.3*2/3 = 4.9% of spots are being reserved by affirmative action. So 95% of whites would still get into medical school whether affirmative action exists or not.

It is not ideal that medical schools have to consider skin color. But it is the right thing for now because

(1) There is overwhelming evidence that black patients are not treated as well as white patients by white doctors. The purpose of medical schools is to supply healers for all the population. To achieve this goal we need more black doctors.
(2) There is overwhelming evidence that black doctors face more discrimination all through their career. (See the previous post about black doctors salaries.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

Exactly.

Nobody ever said they were entitled. But in many cases their grades and scores would have taken them in that direction, but AA policies instead favored lower-scoring blacks. So why are black kids with lower grades ENTITLED? Any why can't the poorer-scoring black kids go to some other school? You people seem to be saying that 3rd tier universities are good enough for poor white Billy from the housing projects, even with his A- average, and yet Daeshanda should go to Ivy with her B+. Why not just turn it around: Let the better student go to the better school, and the so-so student go to the lesser university?

As soon as we have a level playing field that'd be fine. But today in 2019 we still have white supremacists proudly marching the streets. We have a POTUS who hesitates to disavow them. We have harsh backlash to BLM. We have people still worshipping Confederate war heros and the flag. We have systematic racism / implicit bias.

We are not ready for that. If a handful of white people have a slightly less optimal outcome? That's a price I'm willing to pay. Sorry, Billy.

I'm not going to argue with you about the POTUS disavowing the fringe element of white supremacists, since he clearly did that and you in your liberal fog refuse to acknowledge it.

But, to get this straight, you say that you are willing to send all the Billys (poor white kids from the housing projects who, despite their hardships, managed to get all As) to community college or a lesser school because that is a price YOU are willing to pay? Such a liberal. You guys are willing to pay for anything as long as it is not you personally paying the price. So generous.

All I can say is thank god that my parents went to college before AA was in effect. They both had after-school jobs that got that home at MIDNIGHT to help pay the family's bills, and still managed to ace their college admissions tests. I shudder to think how different their lives would have been if they had been shut out of college because Dashanda, who did much worse academically, was seen as deserving a chance - and the whites weren't.

I said he HESITATED to disavow. Which was 100% accurate.

Why do you think that every.single.poor.white.kid won't go to college because they are "losing their spots" to URMs? How many Billys do you think there are? How many kids are actually affecting by AA? What is the real-life impact? Not another hypothetical med student that doesn't exist. You'll need to account for all of the rich white kids who scored a tiny bit higher than Billy but also didn't get in. And all of the URMs who did score higher than him.

I am perfectly fine if my kids go to a "lesser" school (even community college) if that means more URMs can go to an elite college. They will be fine.

I'm SO SURE you will be fine if you kids, who earned all As, are relegated to community college (you should walk around there.....kids are carrying remedial English books and Alegebra I books), so that Dashanda with her Bs can go to a good university.

P.S Maybe you should ask your kids if they'd be willing to go community college instead of a good four-year university so Dashanda can take their slots. Maybe they feel differently about your being so willing to sacrifice their futures for your liberal ideals that punish whites.

IMO the only downside of community college is not having the quintessential college experience (dorms, parties, etc.), but for jobs, etc. my kids would be fine. In fact, two very successful people in my family (from poor families) both started in community college.

^^
Plus...still waiting for a reply to this....

"How many Billys do you think there are? How many kids are actually affecting by AA? What is the real-life impact? Not another hypothetical med student that doesn't exist. You'll need to account for all of the rich white kids who scored a tiny bit higher than Billy but also didn't get in. And all of the URMs who did score higher than him. "

1) I think you should ask your kids if they are willing to miss the quintessential college experience so that black kids who are much worse students than they can go to a much better school.

2) Stop with the rich kids talk. This is about POOR whites who lose out on a chance for a good life because the Dashandas are favored, despite their superior academic records.

3) As for how many kids are actually affected by AA, about 2/3 of black kids would NOT be admitted if standards were applied equally. So you'd have to know how many black kids are currently in college (maybe close to 2 million), meaning that close to 700,000 whites with superior academics are impacted.

1) They probably aren't willing, but in reality they would be fine in the end. It's not a death sentence.


2) Let's say there are 100 spots for a selective program. Out of that, the target is 20 URM.

And there are 500 applicants (20% acceptance rate) - 400 white/asian + 100 URM

Let's say 80 slots are filled by the top 80 whites/asians, leaving 320 white/asian applicants.

The remaining 20 slots go to the top 20 URMs, leaving 80 applicants.

Some URMs will score well -- let's say 10 would have made the top 100 regardless of race. So then there are only 10 spots that may go to a lower-performing applicant (with AA).

We already know that Billy's scores weren't as good as the top 80 white/asians + 10 URMs. If we didn't have AA he'd still be competing for one of those 10 spots against the remaining 320 whites/asians. Odds still aren't that great -- chances are he's more likely to lose the spot to a better qualified white/asian.

Just because Billy didn't get in doesn't automatically mean he "lost" the spot to a URM. He most likely would have lost it to another better-scoring majority applicant anyway.

Understand?


3) Source?

Then it's not a death sentence for the lower-scoring black kids to go to community college, either - and it would be more fair, given that they are the poorer students.

And you're saying that Billy lost out to better whites and Asians - which shows the flaw of AA policies. Billy is forced to compete against whites, and blacks compete against blacks (with lower standards applied to the latter). If race-based AA policies didn't exist, Billy would compete equally with those of all races, and he would have gotten in.

And I knew you would ask me for my source. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Let's just say I worked in the admissions field and it was well documented. Without AA, the black population of the most competitive schools would be about 3% rather than the 14% - 15% that universities aim for (and lower their admissions standards to obtain).

The problem often comes about because in order to admit enough black students to reach the 14%, good schools have to lower the standards to such a degree that they risk lowering the overall reputation of the school. It then becomes a compromise situation: should we allow the 3.1 GPA black kids in order to "up" our black numbers, or should eliminate the 3.3 GPA black kids and settle for just a 10% black count?

You'd be surprised what goes on.

Is your Ivy grad student any good at #s? If so, have her explain 11:01 to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As for black female doctors, could it be the same reason that women make less than men across the board? Because they take more time off for their families? Wonder if this is changing for younger women?

But why would black female doctors make *much* less than white female doctors?

I would guess that black women MDs are more likely than white women MDs to be in primary care fields rather than lucrative specialty areas and more likely to be in practices with higher proportions of Medicare and Medicaid patients. To what extent that is their choice versus how much they are steered in those areas is a good question. One of the big problems in health care is that the top medical students know that the big money is providing specialty care for rich people. Rural areas, poor urban areas, and community hospitals rely on minority and foreign-trained docs because the top white med school graduates run away from those areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.

And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all.

My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault.

And again, a liberal above personalizes everything. Why are you so selfish as to think that I am concerned by the inequity of AA only because it affects me personally? It does not. My daughter is a graduate of Johns Hopkins and is currently at an IVY, pursuing her grad degree. She is doing great, as well. (And why is it necessary to take a swipe at me as a mother, blaming me for the failure you envision my daughter is? It's not even true! Damn but you liberals can be nasty.)

My sympathy lies with the poor white kids, who have excelled academically despite financial hardships, only to lose out to black kids with worse school records - INCLUDING middle-class black kids and for no other reason than skin color. It's abhorrent that liberals have such disdain for poor whites.

The chances are that, for those very few seats that go to URMs that receive an AA boost (not all do), the poor white kids would have "lost out" anyway to other white kids who scored marginally better. There are many more majority applicants than URMs. That's the whole issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of spots at competitive colleges will go to white kids. They will continue on their easy path of upward mobility. Why are you so focused on the handful of spots that go to URMs? What about other spots at those colleges that go to other kids with lesser grades? Don't hear you complaining once about them.

+1 I recently talked to a white acquaintance who said her 13 year old daughter is interested in going to medical school, but "she probably won't get in because affirmative action will give all the spots to blacks". She has her excuses ready 10 years in advance! <sarcasm> After all, affirmative action is the only possible reason why she couldn't get in medical school <\sarcasm>

No, your acquaintance probably read the AAMC charts that showed how difficult it is for whites to get in. (And if she's Asian, it's even worse.) It's actually quite discouraging to see how blacks with a B average get into medical school and whites with an A- average have to kiss their dream of becoming a doctor goodbye - unless they go to some crap Caribbean school.

When I meet a white doctor who recently graduated, I know how smart he must be. He had all the odds stacked against him, and still he made it.

No my acquaintance is an idiot. There are 3% fewer slots for white applicants because of AA.

I got news for you. Unless your acquaintance's kid can get all As and garner a top score on the MCAT, she will lose her place to a black kid with a B+ average and a score slightly above average on the MCAT. Data don't lie; liberals do.

Nope - the kid is much more likely to lose the spot to a white or asian kid with slightly better scores.

Only because the competition is segmented by race, in keeping with AA policies: whites have to compete against whites, and blacks against blacks. If racial preferences for blacks were removed, the kid would get in over a black kid. You're buying into the current AA policy, which forces a A- white kid to lose out to an A white kid, only because they had to reserve spots for the B black kids.

That's the point! You're showing how unfair AA is to the (rejected) white kids who are academically superior students to the (accepted) black kids.

Not all white kids score higher than all black kids.

How many kids are we talking? Small % of all applicants. Small price to pay.

Anonymous wrote:How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.

And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all.

2 generations after CENTURIES of slavery and continued systematic racism (to this very day!) is a joke.

How about until systematic racism is gone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.

And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all.

My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault.

And again, a liberal above personalizes everything. Why are you so selfish as to think that I am concerned by the inequity of AA only because it affects me personally? It does not. My daughter is a graduate of Johns Hopkins and is currently at an IVY, pursuing her grad degree. She is doing great, as well. (And why is it necessary to take a swipe at me as a mother, blaming me for the failure you envision my daughter is? It's not even true! Damn but you liberals can be nasty.)

My sympathy lies with the poor white kids, who have excelled academically despite financial hardships, only to lose out to black kids with worse school records - INCLUDING middle-class black kids and for no other reason than skin color. It's abhorrent that liberals have such disdain for poor whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

Exactly.

Nobody ever said they were entitled. But in many cases their grades and scores would have taken them in that direction, but AA policies instead favored lower-scoring blacks. So why are black kids with lower grades ENTITLED? Any why can't the poorer-scoring black kids go to some other school? You people seem to be saying that 3rd tier universities are good enough for poor white Billy from the housing projects, even with his A- average, and yet Daeshanda should go to Ivy with her B+. Why not just turn it around: Let the better student go to the better school, and the so-so student go to the lesser university?

As soon as we have a level playing field that'd be fine. But today in 2019 we still have white supremacists proudly marching the streets. We have a POTUS who hesitates to disavow them. We have harsh backlash to BLM. We have people still worshipping Confederate war heros and the flag. We have systematic racism / implicit bias.

We are not ready for that. If a handful of white people have a slightly less optimal outcome? That's a price I'm willing to pay. Sorry, Billy.

I'm not going to argue with you about the POTUS disavowing the fringe element of white supremacists, since he clearly did that and you in your liberal fog refuse to acknowledge it.

But, to get this straight, you say that you are willing to send all the Billys (poor white kids from the housing projects who, despite their hardships, managed to get all As) to community college or a lesser school because that is a price YOU are willing to pay? Such a liberal. You guys are willing to pay for anything as long as it is not you personally paying the price. So generous.

All I can say is thank god that my parents went to college before AA was in effect. They both had after-school jobs that got that home at MIDNIGHT to help pay the family's bills, and still managed to ace their college admissions tests. I shudder to think how different their lives would have been if they had been shut out of college because Dashanda, who did much worse academically, was seen as deserving a chance - and the whites weren't.

I said he HESITATED to disavow. Which was 100% accurate.

Why do you think that every.single.poor.white.kid won't go to college because they are "losing their spots" to URMs? How many Billys do you think there are? How many kids are actually affecting by AA? What is the real-life impact? Not another hypothetical med student that doesn't exist. You'll need to account for all of the rich white kids who scored a tiny bit higher than Billy but also didn't get in. And all of the URMs who did score higher than him.

I am perfectly fine if my kids go to a "lesser" school (even community college) if that means more URMs can go to an elite college. They will be fine.

I'm SO SURE you will be fine if you kids, who earned all As, are relegated to community college (you should walk around there.....kids are carrying remedial English books and Alegebra I books), so that Dashanda with her Bs can go to a good university.

P.S Maybe you should ask your kids if they'd be willing to go community college instead of a good four-year university so Dashanda can take their slots. Maybe they feel differently about your being so willing to sacrifice their futures for your liberal ideals that punish whites.

IMO the only downside of community college is not having the quintessential college experience (dorms, parties, etc.), but for jobs, etc. my kids would be fine. In fact, two very successful people in my family (from poor families) both started in community college.

^^
Plus...still waiting for a reply to this....

"How many Billys do you think there are? How many kids are actually affecting by AA? What is the real-life impact? Not another hypothetical med student that doesn't exist. You'll need to account for all of the rich white kids who scored a tiny bit higher than Billy but also didn't get in. And all of the URMs who did score higher than him. "

1) I think you should ask your kids if they are willing to miss the quintessential college experience so that black kids who are much worse students than they can go to a much better school.

2) Stop with the rich kids talk. This is about POOR whites who lose out on a chance for a good life because the Dashandas are favored, despite their superior academic records.

3) As for how many kids are actually affected by AA, about 2/3 of black kids would NOT be admitted if standards were applied equally. So you'd have to know how many black kids are currently in college (maybe close to 2 million), meaning that close to 700,000 whites with superior academics are impacted.

1) They probably aren't willing, but in reality they would be fine in the end. It's not a death sentence.


2) Let's say there are 100 spots for a selective program. Out of that, the target is 20 URM.

And there are 500 applicants (20% acceptance rate) - 400 white/asian + 100 URM

Let's say 80 slots are filled by the top 80 whites/asians, leaving 320 white/asian applicants.

The remaining 20 slots go to the top 20 URMs, leaving 80 applicants.

Some URMs will score well -- let's say 10 would have made the top 100 regardless of race. So then there are only 10 spots that may go to a lower-performing applicant (with AA).

We already know that Billy's scores weren't as good as the top 80 white/asians + 10 URMs. If we didn't have AA he'd still be competing for one of those 10 spots against the remaining 320 whites/asians. Odds still aren't that great -- chances are he's more likely to lose the spot to a better qualified white/asian.

Just because Billy didn't get in doesn't automatically mean he "lost" the spot to a URM. He most likely would have lost it to another better-scoring majority applicant anyway.

Understand?


3) Source?

Anonymous wrote:How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.

And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all.

My white kids are doing great. If yours aren't, it is your fault.

How many more generations of racial preference for blacks, at the expense of white kids, do you liberals envision? We've already had two full cycles.

And don't say until racial parity is achieved. That can only happen if blacks adjust specific negative behavior, like the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that makes success more difficult to where it "matches" whites. Some things ARE within the control of black people, after all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daeshanda is going to be discriminated against by white people all her life because of her name. Some of them will see her name, go straight to their stereotype and trash her resume without giving her education or qualifications any consideration. Nobody is ever going to do that to Billy.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

Walk around any DC agency. The percentage of black employees is way overrepresented. They are ORM! And they can't get fired, either.

And don't even get me started on the DC government. Whitey don't got no chance of getting a stinkin' job there. Maybe a token once in a while, but a promotion? Naaaaa.

It's DC. DC. I do hiring for a government contractor. Almost all of our recent hires are underemployed black women. They are educated and experienced but many are underemployed and do not have job security, so they are constantly looking for a better job that fits their qualifications and abilities. Whenever we advertise for a position in DC, all the white people who live in their white suburbs outside the Beltway do not want to commute and work in DC. They want to telework and they want higher pay than the job or their qualifications justify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of spots at competitive colleges will go to white kids. They will continue on their easy path of upward mobility. Why are you so focused on the handful of spots that go to URMs? What about other spots at those colleges that go to other kids with lesser grades? Don't hear you complaining once about them.

+1 I recently talked to a white acquaintance who said her 13 year old daughter is interested in going to medical school, but "she probably won't get in because affirmative action will give all the spots to blacks". She has her excuses ready 10 years in advance! <sarcasm> After all, affirmative action is the only possible reason why she couldn't get in medical school <\sarcasm>

No, your acquaintance probably read the AAMC charts that showed how difficult it is for whites to get in. (And if she's Asian, it's even worse.) It's actually quite discouraging to see how blacks with a B average get into medical school and whites with an A- average have to kiss their dream of becoming a doctor goodbye - unless they go to some crap Caribbean school.

When I meet a white doctor who recently graduated, I know how smart he must be. He had all the odds stacked against him, and still he made it.

No my acquaintance is an idiot. There are 3% fewer slots for white applicants because of AA.

I got news for you. Unless your acquaintance's kid can get all As and garner a top score on the MCAT, she will lose her place to a black kid with a B+ average and a score slightly above average on the MCAT. Data don't lie; liberals do.

Nope - the kid is much more likely to lose the spot to a white or asian kid with slightly better scores.

Only because the competition is segmented by race, in keeping with AA policies: whites have to compete against whites, and blacks against blacks. If racial preferences for blacks were removed, the kid would get in over a black kid. You're buying into the current AA policy, which forces a A- white kid to lose out to an A white kid, only because they had to reserve spots for the B black kids.

That's the point! You're showing how unfair AA is to the (rejected) white kids who are academically superior students to the (accepted) black kids.