(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[laughing dog]

Imagine if we took this smug handwaving approach to data that clearly appeared to show racism against black people. I think you would leading the charge to condemn us.

The irony of this post is truly overwhelming. Why is it that you are incapable of answering a simple question that was posed yesterday?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see the need to expend energy on assessing likelihoods when better data would more likely settle the question.

When better data is not available all we have left is various probability ranges based on what is available.

Probability ranges arising from judgment and nothing else are not terribly helpful, IMO>

This seems to go back to your comment that you don't view social sciences as science. You seem to be uncomfortable with making judgment calls on possible likelihoods of various options unless the data and evidence come down strongly on one side or another.

I would highly encourage you to read this book: Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

It is probably the best book I have ever read about how to more rigorously quantify uncertainties when the evidence is incomplete or unclear and to more rigorously quantify the probability of various explanations being true. The methods explained in the book are applicable to every empirical method.

I am familiar with Bayesian analysis. I just don't agree that making up probabilities is very helpful in determining whether an explanation is valid or not - they are helpful in determining the strengths of opinions or views. But I am always on the lookout for an interesting book to read. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Imagine if we took this smug handwaving approach to data that clearly appeared to show racism against black people. I think you would leading the charge to condemn us.

The irony of this post is truly overwhelming. Why is it that you are incapable of answering a simple question that was posed yesterday?

I have answered as best I can. Here. I will try again. If a school makes an effort to recruit in a particular area for the explicit reason that there are mostly people of a paticular race there, then that particular effort is discrimination based on race. Other efforts made by the same school are irrelevant to that being so. If they recruit in another area for the explicit reason that another race of people lives there, that too would be racial discrimination. The school could conceivably be doing both at the same time. If on the other hand they target the exact same area for some other non race related reason, then they are not doing it based on race, and are not engaging in racial discrimination. I know you will still continue to accuse me of "evading" but that is as simple and clear as I can put it for you.

In the meantime, you just answered and quoted a post of mine referring to the data Metaphor presented, by addresing this completely unrelated thought, and continuing to ignore said data.

I will leave it up to the reader to determine who is being evasive.

What really strikes me there is that politically I am probably far more on your side than Metaphor's. I am a Canadian socialist liberal. And yet he is speaking with reason and civility. You are not.

 

[laughing dog]

The irony of this post is truly overwhelming. Why is it that you are incapable of answering a simple question that was posed yesterday?

I have answered as best I can. Here. I will try again. If a school makes an effort to recruit in a particular area for the explicit reason that there are mostly people of a paticular race there, then that particular effort is discrimination based on race. Other efforts made by the same school are irrelevant to that being so. If they recruit in another area for the explicit reason that another race of people lives there, that too would be racial discrimination. The two do not undo that to the other. If on the other hand they target the exact same area for some other non race related reason, then they are not doing it based on race, and are not engaging in racial discrimination. I know you will still continue to accuse me of "evading" but that is as simple and clear as I can put it for you.

It only took a day to actually get a response. Simply uttering something is racial discrimination is not a cogent rationale. In order for this to racial discrimination, somehow, white students would have to be disadvantaged. You have not explained that whatsoever.

In the meantime, you just answered and quoted a post of mine referring to the data Metaphor presented, by addresing this completely unrelated thought, and continuing to ignore said data.

I have not ignored the data - if you had actually bothered to read this thread. Frankly, I see no reason to deal with your questions until you have sufficiently dealt with early ones.

I will leave it up to the reader to determine who is being evasive.

What really strikes me there is that politically I am probably far more on your side than Metaphor's. I am a Canadian socialist liberal. And yet he is speaking with reason and civility. You are not.

More meta-irony here.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

 

[Metaphor]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

They were not discriminating by race against Nevada, no.

But I can't for the life of me think what you think this analogy is about.

 

[bigfield]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

Clearly the Socratic Method isn't working for you.

I'm guessing what you are trying to do is convince people that affirmative action is as harmless as the above, i.e. promotional campaigns targeted at groups who aren't applying as often as the university thinks they should be. It's a red herring argument: not only no-one has raised any complaint about affirmative action in the form of targeted marketing, but your continued insistence on bringing it into the discussion is a distraction from the different AA policy that is the subject of the OP.


It's this simple: some affirmative action policies, such as targeted promotions, are positive as they increase the pool of applicants, and thereby raise the average aptitude of the applicant pool. Other affirmative action policies, such as giving preference to blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites, are positive as they lower the average aptitude of the successful applicant pool, and are therefore harmful.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

Clearly the Socratic Method isn't working for you.

I'm guessing what you are trying to do is convince people that affirmative action is as harmless as the above, i.e. promotional campaigns targeted at groups who aren't applying as often as the university thinks they should be. It's a red herring argument: not only no-one has raised any complaint about affirmative action in the form of targeted marketing, but your continued insistence on bringing it into the discussion is a distraction from the different AA policy that is the subject of the OP.


It's this simple: some affirmative action policies, such as targeted promotions, are positive as they increase the pool of applicants, and thereby raise the average aptitude of the applicant pool. Other affirmative action policies, such as giving preference to blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites, are positive as they lower the average aptitude of the successful applicant pool, and are therefore harmful.

The Socratic method is working fine. I am learning all kinds of things about the people who post here. The problem seems to be that they too are learning things about themselves and they don't like what they are seeing. And it is not a red herring. It is a simple question. But it is something I doubt some people here have ever thought about. They have no set counter so they run. Tell me, are you running?

Let me make it simpler for you. it is 1965, and let's say this same college has never sent recruiters to black schools before. Would it be discrimination then to do so?

Tell me, exactly what do you think the law is with regard to AA?

 

[George S]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

Advertising works for businesses and for colleges as well. If, for example, the U of Wis wanted to encourage diversity without AA they could advertise in Milwaukee and Kenosha. They would get applicants that may have been qualified but missed. UW had not been a school they were considering applying to. No special preference.

Historically the worst AA in history (IMHO) was at a school where I was an instructor. The administration (in their wisdom) added .5 to certain ethnic groups' GPA. (I recall an applicant with a 4.5 GPA on a 4-point scale (very good student)). At the time we had a waiting list to get into computer science. As it happened GPA was one of the important criteria at the time. We had one year in which our dropout rate among those with inflated GPAs was astonishing. We changed to using GRE (the highest correlation with success in Comp Sci was Verbal, not Mathematical GRE scores). Eventually the university removed the policy. It was eliminating qualified people and enabling unqualified people. Our Asian students did quite well. I have a print on the wall given me by an Asian student when she got her degree.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Athena, the answer to that question depends on why they go to that school (and why they excluded it in the past). If they go there because they want black students, then yes that effort is discrimination against nonblack students who go elsewhere. They were excluded from the effort specifically and purposefully because of their race. It is also an example of racism working against some people of the race it actually prefers (black students at nonblack schools), like when they hold a white guy down because he married a black woman.

If they go there because they want to widen their their search and find qualified students, and this school happens to have a lot of black students, then no, that effort is not racial discrimination. In many cases I would think that going to this school would be a ceasing of racial discrimination against its students, who I am guessing were excluded before because the school was predominantly black.

As for your question about advertising beer, if they target it based on race, then yes, that is racial discrimination. It probably isnt something anybody is really hurt by though, and i wouldn't object to it.

Oh, and thank you for your armchair psychological report, but I am actually perfectly comfortable applying reason to this discussion instead of faith.I am also open to argument and be would be happy to be convinced that the data Metaphor presented isn't due to racial discrimination. Got anything? Or do you agree that it is?

 

[bigfield]

Clearly the Socratic Method isn't working for you.

I'm guessing what you are trying to do is convince people that affirmative action is as harmless as the above, i.e. promotional campaigns targeted at groups who aren't applying as often as the university thinks they should be. It's a red herring argument: not only no-one has raised any complaint about affirmative action in the form of targeted marketing, but your continued insistence on bringing it into the discussion is a distraction from the different AA policy that is the subject of the OP.


It's this simple: some affirmative action policies, such as targeted promotions, are positive as they increase the pool of applicants, and thereby raise the average aptitude of the applicant pool. Other affirmative action policies, such as giving preference to blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites, are positive as they lower the average aptitude of the successful applicant pool, and are therefore harmful.

The Socratic method is working fine.

If that were true then you would not need to repeat your questions due to a lack of answers.

I am learning all kinds of things about the people who post here. The problem seems to be that they too are learning things about themselves and they don't like what they are seeing.

I don't care about what your mind reading abilities tell you.

And it is not a red herring.

Then demonstrate how this has any relevance to the discussion about the discrepancies in admissions. Those admissions discrepancies cannot be explained by the existence of targeted recruiting encouraging minorities to apply.

It is a simple question. But it is something I doubt some people here have ever thought about. They have no set counter so they run. Tell me, are you running?

It is hihly likely that at least some of the membership have not considered targeted recruiting policies by universities. However, I highly doubt those people are the rightists that you frequently argue with, as they obviously spend plenty of time arguing about affirmative action. Targeted recruiting has been discussed on FRDB before, and I am fairly certain most of the regular participants in he AA threads have established their positions, and therefore have a 'set counter'. With that in mind, it would be foolish to conclude that the lack of responses to you are due to an inability to respond. Instead, as Metaphor's response suggests, people may just think your question is inane.

Let me make it simpler for you. it is 1965, and let's say this same college has never sent recruiters to black schools before. Would it be discrimination then to do so?

You don't need to make it simpler - you should have read and comprehended my last post and seen that my following answer is merely a more detailed version of the point I have already made.

The only fair recruiting policy is one in which he university covers all schools that are reasonably within their feeder area. If the university has previously sent recruiters to other schools but not the black schools, then they were engaging in discrimination. The only way to end the discrimination is to send recruiters to the black schools as well. The university should dedicate extra recruiting efforts into those schools until the university is receiving a quantity of applicants from those schools that is representative of their student body's size and academic performance. And then afterwards, once those targets are met, they should ensure that they never resort to exclusively recruiting from non-black schools again.

That is beneficial affirmative action, as I already stated. It increases the number of students applying to the uni, and therefore increases the number of students who graduate from the university. That is a tangible benefit not only for the black students who were recruited, but for the university and for society who now have a greater number of university-educated professionals in their midst.

Tell me, exactly what do you think the law is with regard to AA?

You know I understand the US laws governing AA, since we have had lengthy discussions about the laws on FRDB. Stop talking down to me and go visit the archives if you think otherwise.

 

[George S]

Did anyone ever answer this question?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

I realize I did not answer your question. They were advertising in a new market. And they could produce enough* Coors so that the Nevadans were unharmed.

Does Harvard have to advertise to get enough* qualified applicants? No. Does Fennimore Junior College? Yes.

___
* Using an unlimited supply of beer but a limited supply of college slots.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It would be racial discrimination to go into a school specifically because there are no black students there. Do you disagree?

 

[laughing dog]

It's this simple: some affirmative action policies, such as targeted promotions, are positive as they increase the pool of applicants, and thereby raise the average aptitude of the applicant pool. Other affirmative action policies, such as giving preference to blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites, are positive as they lower the average aptitude of the successful applicant pool, and are therefore harmful.

For some reason, there are a number of posters who are unable to comprehend or accept that difference.

 

[bigfield]

I just realised I made an error. The second time I said positive in the text you quoted, I meant negative.

Sorry for amy confusion. I hope the meaning was clear despite the error, i.e. that lowering the applicant pool's aptitude is a bad thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea that the medical schools are using racist admissions policies. The data are there for anyone without blinders on to see. I especially don't know why since I've been told it wouldn't matter even if they were; it's morally acceptable to discriminate based on race because 'the public' needs doctors who 'look like them'. This is literally admitting that medical schools should be racist because the public is racist.

Why that's morally acceptable I'm sure I don't know.

Because it goes against their mantra that affirmative action does not discriminate.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea that the medical schools are using racist admissions policies. The data are there for anyone without blinders on to see. I especially don't know why since I've been told it wouldn't matter even if they were; it's morally acceptable to discriminate based on race because 'the public' needs doctors who 'look like them'. This is literally admitting that medical schools should be racist because the public is racist.

Why that's morally acceptable I'm sure I don't know.

Because it goes against their mantra that affirmative action does not discriminate.

This is made crystal clear as we bend over backwards to open the door to possible alternative explanations. I have asked for them numerous times, always being ignored. Metaphor actually made up some of his own. That is how little they seem to have to explain these stats.

 

[Davka]

The Socratic method is working fine.

If that were true then you would not need to repeat your questions due to a lack of answers.

When the pupils are too dense (or fearful) to provide answers, the robustness of the Socratic Method is not in doubt. The ability/desire of the pupils to learn is.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are we sure that Athena uses the socratic method? She just looks like she is being inane to me. She gets in the habit of asking completely tangental questions, and ignoring the answers people give.

 

[Davka]

Are we sure that Athena uses the socratic method? She just looks like she is being inane to me. She gets in the habit of asking completely tangental questions, and ignoring the answers people give.

That you think her questions are tangential shows how very obtuse you are being.