Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, studies have also shown that physicians are more willing to prescribe pain medication to white patients.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/10/black-patients-bias-prescriptions-pain-management-medicine-opioids

OK, let's go with that study...

From your article:

“A black patient with the same level of pain and everything else being accounted for was much less likely to receive an opioid prescription than a white patient with the same characteristics,” said study co-author Astha Singhal, an assistant professor at Boston University’s dental medicine school.

To determine whether there was a racial bias in pain medication prescriptions, the researchers looked at more than 60m records of pain-related emergency department visits from 2007 to 2011 for people aged 18 to 65.

Five conditions were examined and divided into two categories: definitive and non-definitive. The first referred to conditions that were easily diagnosed – kidney stones and long-bone fractures – and the second to conditions that are not: toothache, abdominal pain and back pain.

Black patients had about half the odds of being prescribed opioids compared to white patients for non-definitive conditions, according to the study, which Singhal co-authored with Renee Hsia of UC San Francisco and Yu-Yu Tien from the University of Iowa."

----

So, what about all the other factors in white vs. black lives? They are different, you know. Was that covered? Were these standard questionnaires on current health to all the survey participants?

"the researchers looked at more than 60m records of pain-related emergency department visits" Great, so what was in the records? Were they standardized? Of course not. What did they choose to count and how did they weigh the factors? What were the pre-existing condtions?

Why should I put any merit in this study? It's a headline and when it comes to race, you love headlines. Meanwhile, did you dig into the study?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

As long as people continue to believe that more minorities at an elite school make it less elite, you're safe.

Just keep your talk to the undesirable minorities. Not a whole lot of guesswork needed there.

It's not that people believe "undesirable minorities' in and of themselves make the school less elite, it's that when you lower the academic standards for minorities so they can get in, then you make the school less elite. You're bringing down the average GPA and scores of the entering class.

Very soon - if we're not there already - we're going to have to lower standards for everyone at every level. And that's because most everyone will be unable to meet higher standards and/or unable to pay for it. Read what Harvard's president had to say about it.

http://freakonomics.com/2015/09/03/the-president-of-harvard-will-see-you-now-full-transcript/

Go about three-fourths of the way down to where she talks about endowments and the importance of public education.

You people aren't doing the undesirable majority any favors.

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, studies have also shown that physicians are more willing to prescribe pain medication to white patients.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/10/black-patients-bias-prescriptions-pain-management-medicine-opioids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

And 70 years later the Jewish administration at the elites favors Jewish students by a huge amount. So the behavior now is no better than the 1950's only it is hidden under the statistics of "white admit rate". 2/3 of white admission goes unfairly to Jewish students that make up 2% of the population yet are 1/3 of the class at the elites. Non Jewish white students with equal test scores and gpas don't stand a chance against this ethnic bias. The difference now is if anyone takes a stand against unbalanced admission practice the admissions just deflects by calling people anti Semitic which is just BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

And 70 years later the Jewish administration at the elites favors Jewish students by a huge amount. So the behavior now is no better than the 1950's only it is hidden under the statistics of "white admit rate". 2/3 of white admission goes unfairly to Jewish students that make up 2% of the population yet are 1/3 of the class at the elites. Non Jewish white students with equal test scores and gpas don't stand a chance against this ethnic bias. The difference now is if anyone takes a stand against unbalanced admission practice the admissions just deflects by calling people anti Semitic which is just BS.

I'm not any of the PPs to whom you're responding. (But I did go to an HCBU!)

I'm taking a mental survey of all the Jewish people I know and they're all exceptionally smart. Many went to elite universities and that seems pretty right to and fair to me.

You sound exceptionally dumb.

I agree. The PP above you sounds resentful of the Jews' academic success, but they study long and hard, emphasize education very highly, and are brighter than average, as a group. (At least the Ashenazi Jews.) Why is it so surprising that they are over-represented in the top schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

And 70 years later the Jewish administration at the elites favors Jewish students by a huge amount. So the behavior now is no better than the 1950's only it is hidden under the statistics of "white admit rate". 2/3 of white admission goes unfairly to Jewish students that make up 2% of the population yet are 1/3 of the class at the elites. Non Jewish white students with equal test scores and gpas don't stand a chance against this ethnic bias. The difference now is if anyone takes a stand against unbalanced admission practice the admissions just deflects by calling people anti Semitic which is just BS.

I'm not any of the PPs to whom you're responding. (But I did go to an HCBU!)

I'm taking a mental survey of all the Jewish people I know and they're all exceptionally smart. Many went to elite universities and that seems pretty right to and fair to me.

You sound exceptionally dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

How do you propose you can do the income based admission? Based on whose income? How many years of income? Don't you include assets and stocks ? You see why this is an issue. This leads to a rabbit hole with many options to cheat the system. How do you prevent a wealthy son whose parents are divorced but taking only mother's much lower income and ignoring wealthy father's millions in the application? How do you prevent someone having big assets and lower income from abusing the system? There are many scenarios that I can think of. You can't cheat race as easily.

Also no matter how many times some one brings this up you want to ignore that one person's admission is not another person's rejection automatically and directly. There are more factors than such a simplistic zero some scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

And 70 years later the Jewish administration at the elites favors Jewish students by a huge amount. So the behavior now is no better than the 1950's only it is hidden under the statistics of "white admit rate". 2/3 of white admission goes unfairly to Jewish students that make up 2% of the population yet are 1/3 of the class at the elites. Non Jewish white students with equal test scores and gpas don't stand a chance against this ethnic bias. The difference now is if anyone takes a stand against unbalanced admission practice the admissions just deflects by calling people anti Semitic which is just BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

As long as people continue to believe that more minorities at an elite school make it less elite, you're safe.

Just keep your talk to the undesirable minorities. Not a whole lot of guesswork needed there.

It's not that people believe "undesirable minorities' in and of themselves make the school less elite, it's that when you lower the academic standards for minorities so they can get in, then you make the school less elite. You're bringing down the average GPA and scores of the entering class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At bottom, Justice O'Connor's rationale for affirmative action was that leaders come from elite institutions and more minorities need to attend elite institutions. So a bump up for a kid qualified for Wayne State or Michigan State based on grades and scores but not Michigan will get him or her into Michigan. It's a very snobby, elitist perspective. If your nonURM kid's ox is being gored by that displacement, you won't like it. But if your nonURM kid stil gets in, you'll profess not to care and talk up the virtues of diversity. Taking a public position against affirmative action is socially very very risky.

As long as people continue to believe that more minorities at an elite school make it less elite, you're safe.

Just keep your talk to the undesirable minorities. Not a whole lot of guesswork needed there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action cannot continue indefinitely. Considering that blacks were getting preferential treatment in the 1970s, we are now on the third generation getting into college with standards lowered to allow it. Jews and Asians immigrated here, and even among the poor, uneducated ones, their kids went to college on their own merits. How many more generations is this supposed to last?

I support color-blind, income-based affirmative action. Let's give all bright poor kids a chance, regardless of race.

I wonder if you're aware of the way you've contradicted yourself. Affirmative Action has failed for black people, according to you, but you support it for all poor kids "regardless of race."

I'm black, living a nice life, and support the continuation of Affirmative Action. I also happen to think there's a very strong case to be made for opening it up on the basis of income and other hurdles, and believe pretty strongly that the race-based frame of AA impedes that objective.

It's circular arguments like the PP's above and about a hundred other posts here that rely on the idea that black students are inferior and don't deserve access to the higher echelons of higher education - that's what's kinda killing the idea of opening it up to "all bright poor kids, regardless of race."

People are going to believe what they want, and I could not care less about the opinions of people who believe such tripe. But in the interest of making the case for income-based affirmative action that opens the door for low-income whites, let's put stereotypes aside for a bit and start looking at facts.

The fact is, there are more poor whites than any other demographic in the U.S. Not only is there not a lot of actionable discussion about what can change that, we're pretty vehement these days about stigmatizing that group as hopeless victims of their own poor decision-making. Let's put that aside for moment, too.

The race-based argument for and against affirmative action makes the same two mistakes that many college-bound freshmen - regardless of race - tend to make: 1) believing that admission is the ultimate objective, which leads to 2) not considering all the other factors that are necessary for success.

I think that was the most important lesson in JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. Everyone needs a push from behind (he had his grandmother, sister and aunt), but they also need someone - more like several someones - pulling them forward and guiding them each step of the way. He always had someone giving him a chance (sometimes more than one), giving him advice, pointing out his options, showing him what to do. One of the biggest factors in what educators call "summer melt" - that is, the confounding problem of kids who get the grades and the test scores to get into college but then never show up - is filling out forms and turning them in on time.

If we're going to have more kids making it out of poverty, we need more formerly poor people in strong positions to do that pulling and guiding - because they're the only ones who fully understand the obstacles. That means poor people of all kinds of backgrounds, overcoming all kinds of obstacles, making it to higher ground.

Put your objective beyond admissions to HYP and think about better outcomes - a variety of outcomes because there's a wide variety of people. And if more of them don't have better outcomes, the rest of us are going to get dragged down.

I mean, it's already started. Take a closer look at who's doing the dragging. It doesn't matter how well my black kid succeeds at life. We don't have a future workforce that can sustain the country I'm raising him in.

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, studies have also shown that physicians are more willing to prescribe pain medication to white patients.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/10/black-patients-bias-prescriptions-pain-management-medicine-opioids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the data that show white students are not going to college because black students took all their spots?

Thanks.

Which poster said white kids aren't going to college because black kids took all their spots?

There was a poster several pages back who said young white males were "harmed" by AA. Maybe that PP can explain what he meant by harmed.

That was me.

By "harm," I mean pay a price for affirmative action policies. It's simple math. Let's say a med school, for example, has X number of slots and have determined that they want 15% of the entering class to be black (since 15% of the broader population is black.) In order to accomplish that, they need to drop their GPA cut-off to 3.3. No white male would get in with that stat and instead needs a 3.6.

Unfortunately (for the white guy), he earned a 3.5. He's rejected. If slots didn't need to open up for black kids with 3.3, in order to meet AA goals, the school could drop down to 3.5 for everyone, race not a factor, and the white kid would have passed the cut-off. This can play out at med schools throughout the country, and he has to give up his dream of being a doctor. I've seen this happen in two instances with bright, caring young white men.

Whether this sacrifice is worth it to have a diverse population among doctors is a separate area of discussion. But you can't deny that the white kid paid a price as a result of affirmative action policies.

That's an interesting hypothetical, but in fact last year only 7% of students starting med school were black. So even with affirmative action, we can't get even close to a representative number of black students in med school.

https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf

The reason they couldn't get to the 15% is because there needs to be a hard cut-off at some point. You can't, for example, lower admissions standards to 2.8 (for blacks) in order to reach the goal. Otherwise, you are admitting students who are likely to fail the program. Still doesn't negate the point that when you have a finite number of slots with lower standards for Group A and higher standards for Group B, Group B pays a price.

I am also the PP who strongly supports AA policies, but based on income. This is more fair. And, as I've pointed out, if blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites, they will still be benefiting from AA.

How do you propose you can do the income based admission? Based on whose income? How many years of income? Don't you include assets and stocks ? You see why this is an issue. This leads to a rabbit hole with many options to cheat the system. How do you prevent a wealthy son whose parents are divorced but taking only mother's much lower income and ignoring wealthy father's millions in the application? How do you prevent someone having big assets and lower income from abusing the system? There are many scenarios that I can think of. You can't cheat race as easily.

Also no matter how many times some one brings this up you want to ignore that one person's admission is not another person's rejection automatically and directly. There are more factors than such a simplistic zero some scenario.