(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Metaphor]

and it is never assumed that they earned their place at a university or their well paying job through affirmative action rather than through their own talents and accomplishments.

Why would anyone ever assume White people got their place at university through affirmative action? White people are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action; they are the victims.

Since affirmative action openly and specifically works by a selection bias against higher-achieving groups (typically, Asians and Whites) and in favour of lower-achieving groups (that is, Blacks and Hispanics), why wouldn't someone wonder if a Black or Hispanic graduate student got their place partly due to their group membership?

This is a poison of your own making, since you support and defend affirmative action. If there were no affirmative action, no one could dismiss an accomplishment by a person as merely the result of affirmative action, could they?

 

[Toni]

and it is never assumed that they earned their place at a university or their well paying job through affirmative action rather than through their own talents and accomplishments.

Why would anyone ever assume White people got their place at university through affirmative action? White people are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action; they are the victims.

Since affirmative action openly and specifically works by a selection bias against higher-achieving groups (typically, Asians and Whites) and in favour of lower-achieving groups (that is, Blacks and Hispanics), why wouldn't someone wonder if a Black or Hispanic graduate student got their place partly due to their group membership?

This is a poison of your own making, since you support and defend affirmative action. If there were no affirmative action, no one could dismiss an accomplishment by a person as merely the result of affirmative action, could they?

Yeah, you still don't understand how affirmative action works.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Davka]

 

[laughing dog]

Why would anyone ever assume White people got their place at university through affirmative action? White people are not the beneficiaries of affirmative action; they are the victims.

That is untrue. It may help white women. I suppose it might even be used to help white men to break into areas that are predominantly female or minority dominated. And, of course, no one ever assumed that WASP men got their professorships because they were white men - even though they often did. Hell, the Harvard economics department refused to hire jews in the 1940s - 70s, which cost them Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.


[

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, you still don't understand how affirmative action works.

I understand exactly how it works, which is why I oppose it. It's very easy for you to claim I don't understand it, but you've not pointed out what I've written that demonstrates I don't understand it.

 

[Metaphor]

That is untrue. It may help white women.

That's true, but I was thinking of the more narrow scope of graduate admissions into law and medical school, and I have not read that there is any gender-based affirmative action in such admissions.

I suppose it might even be used to help white men to break into areas that are predominantly female or minority dominated. And, of course, no one ever assumed that WASP men got their professorships because they were white men - even though they often did. Hell, the Harvard economics department refused to hire jews in the 1940s - 70s, which cost them Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

If other races were arbitrarily excluded from consideration, then yes, the field was made easier for them by excluding those that might have competed for those positions. Of course -- that's exactly how affirmative action works right now -- it allows elements other than merit (namely, race) to influence admission. Every time you allow an arbitrary criteria to influence a decision, you'll make poorer quality hiring/admission decisions. I suppose Harvard found that out, eventually.

If there were gender-based affirmative action that favoured men for admission into certain fields dominated by women,
i) I don't know of any in particular
ii) They'd be just as wrong

When I discussed this issue last time, the only gender-based scholarships I was able to find for university study were for females, despite the fact that women outnumber men as undergraduates, and even though there are female dominated fields at university which could logically be candidates for male-only scholarships -- English literature and nursing, for example. I even found a gender-based (ie female-only) scholarship for majoring in English literature!

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 1883

There are two major problems with that cartoon:

i) It represents Blacks and Whites by a single person for each race throughout 200+ years, as if a race were reducible to a single representative, and as if the people alive now had any moral responsibility for the sins of their fathers

ii) It implies that Whites benefitted overall from enslavement of and racism against Blacks, which is patent nonsense. Slavery in America has made everyone alive today worse off than they would have been were there no slavery.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, you still don't understand how affirmative action works.

I understand exactly how it works, which is why I oppose it. It's very easy for you to claim I don't understand it, but you've not pointed out what I've written that demonstrates I don't understand it.

But you don't understand it: you believe that it takes unqualified candidates from under represented minorities and gives them admissions over highly qualified candidates who do not belong to under represented minorities. You insist that the only qualifications that should be considered are MCAT scores and GPA without acknowledging that medical schools in fact do an excellent job of selecting candidates, as demonstrated by the very low failure rate of candidates. Because medical schools take qualified candidates, not unqualified candidates.

You have not considered nor demonstrated that significant numbers of high scoring Asian and white candidates are denied admission to medical school. I don't believe that you've considered that such highly scoring candidates likely apply to multiple top rated medical schools, regardless of whether their actual interests are a good match for that particular medical school. Certain students apply to certain schools as a way to boost their status. I am certain that not all students with very high GPAs and very high MCAT scores are admitted to medical schools because frankly, some of them have no business becoming doctors. I've known such candidates who are frankly very happy with their Ph.D's in mathematics and physics which is where they belong and where their talents (which do not include a high level of interpersonal skills in the cases I am thinking of) and abilities are much better utilized.

 

[Toni]

That's true, but I was thinking of the more narrow scope of graduate admissions into law and medical school, and I have not read that there is any gender-based affirmative action in such admissions.

I suppose it might even be used to help white men to break into areas that are predominantly female or minority dominated. And, of course, no one ever assumed that WASP men got their professorships because they were white men - even though they often did. Hell, the Harvard economics department refused to hire jews in the 1940s - 70s, which cost them Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

If other races were arbitrarily excluded from consideration, then yes, the field was made easier for them by excluding those that might have competed for those positions. Of course -- that's exactly how affirmative action works right now -- it allows elements other than merit (namely, race) to influence admission. Every time you allow an arbitrary criteria to influence a decision, you'll make poorer quality hiring/admission decisions. I suppose Harvard found that out, eventually.

If there were gender-based affirmative action that favoured men for admission into certain fields dominated by women,
i) I don't know of any in particular
ii) They'd be just as wrong

When I discussed this issue last time, the only gender-based scholarships I was able to find for university study were for females, despite the fact that women outnumber men as undergraduates, and even though there are female dominated fields at university which could logically be candidates for male-only scholarships -- English literature and nursing, for example. I even found a gender-based (ie female-only) scholarship for majoring in English literature!

It's not called affirmative action but yes, indeed: male candidates for primary school positions as well as for nursing are highly sought after.

 

[laughing dog]

That's true, but I was thinking of the more narrow scope of graduate admissions into law and medical school, and I have not read that there is any gender-based affirmative action in such admissions.

I suppose it might even be used to help white men to break into areas that are predominantly female or minority dominated. And, of course, no one ever assumed that WASP men got their professorships because they were white men - even though they often did. Hell, the Harvard economics department refused to hire jews in the 1940s - 70s, which cost them Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

If other races were arbitrarily excluded from consideration, then yes, the field was made easier for them by excluding those that might have competed for those positions. Of course -- that's exactly how affirmative action works right now -- it allows elements other than merit (namely, race) to influence admission. Every time you allow an arbitrary criteria to influence a decision, you'll make poorer quality hiring/admission decisions. I suppose Harvard found that out, eventually.

If there were gender-based affirmative action that favoured men for admission into certain fields dominated by women,
i) I don't know of any in particular
ii) They'd be just as wrong

When I discussed this issue last time, the only gender-based scholarships I was able to find for university study were for females, despite the fact that women outnumber men as undergraduates, and even though there are female dominated fields at university which could logically be candidates for male-only scholarships -- English literature and nursing, for example. I even found a gender-based (ie female-only) scholarship for majoring in English literature!

Gender-based scholarships may or may not be example of affirmative action depending on their intent.

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

 

[Metaphor]

That's true, but I was thinking of the more narrow scope of graduate admissions into law and medical school, and I have not read that there is any gender-based affirmative action in such admissions.



If other races were arbitrarily excluded from consideration, then yes, the field was made easier for them by excluding those that might have competed for those positions. Of course -- that's exactly how affirmative action works right now -- it allows elements other than merit (namely, race) to influence admission. Every time you allow an arbitrary criteria to influence a decision, you'll make poorer quality hiring/admission decisions. I suppose Harvard found that out, eventually.

If there were gender-based affirmative action that favoured men for admission into certain fields dominated by women,
i) I don't know of any in particular
ii) They'd be just as wrong

When I discussed this issue last time, the only gender-based scholarships I was able to find for university study were for females, despite the fact that women outnumber men as undergraduates, and even though there are female dominated fields at university which could logically be candidates for male-only scholarships -- English literature and nursing, for example. I even found a gender-based (ie female-only) scholarship for majoring in English literature!

Gender-based scholarships may or may not be example of affirmative action depending on their intent.

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

I have never suggested that AA leads to the recruitment of unqualified candidates. But, just like many people who apply for a job may be rated 'suitable', some are more qualified, and have more merit, are ranked higher on objective measures, than others.

And every time someone who is less qualified, has less objective merit, is hired for an arbitrary reason like gender or race, the whole enterprise suffers for it. The lesser candidate won't do as good a job, they won't produce as much, the world will literally have less wealth than it could have had, had the most qualified, the most objectively merited person, been hired.

 

[Metaphor]

That's true, but I was thinking of the more narrow scope of graduate admissions into law and medical school, and I have not read that there is any gender-based affirmative action in such admissions.



If other races were arbitrarily excluded from consideration, then yes, the field was made easier for them by excluding those that might have competed for those positions. Of course -- that's exactly how affirmative action works right now -- it allows elements other than merit (namely, race) to influence admission. Every time you allow an arbitrary criteria to influence a decision, you'll make poorer quality hiring/admission decisions. I suppose Harvard found that out, eventually.

If there were gender-based affirmative action that favoured men for admission into certain fields dominated by women,
i) I don't know of any in particular
ii) They'd be just as wrong

When I discussed this issue last time, the only gender-based scholarships I was able to find for university study were for females, despite the fact that women outnumber men as undergraduates, and even though there are female dominated fields at university which could logically be candidates for male-only scholarships -- English literature and nursing, for example. I even found a gender-based (ie female-only) scholarship for majoring in English literature!

It's not called affirmative action but yes, indeed: male candidates for primary school positions as well as for nursing are highly sought after.

If a university is preferencing male candidates for teaching and nursing degrees, that is appalling. A candidate's gender does not make him more qualified to be a teacher or nurse.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

 

[Axulus]

Gender-based scholarships may or may not be example of affirmative action depending on their intent.

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

I have never suggested that AA leads to the recruitment of unqualified candidates. But, just like many people who apply for a job may be rated 'suitable', some are more qualified, and have more merit, are ranked higher on objective measures, than others.

And every time someone who is less qualified, has less objective merit, is hired for an arbitrary reason like gender or race, the whole enterprise suffers for it. The lesser candidate won't do as good a job, they won't produce as much, the world will literally have less wealth than it could have had, had the most qualified, the most objectively merited person, been hired.

What about scenarios when race is arguably a predictive indicator of merit? For whatever reason, an equally qualified black candidate and, to a less extent, someone of Hispanic decent for a college admission on paper (SAT and GPA) is a little less likely to earn a four year degree and less likely to move on to a masters or PhD program after earning a four year degree. Various factors are posited to explain it - stress of dealing with family life that is more likely to be poor which can affect grades, desire/incentive to help them out by going to work today by dropping out of college or failing to continue on to graduate school to support them financially, plus other possible reasons. I guess the question is, what determines merit? It would seem to be whomever is the most likely to graduate and maybe continue on to graduate school should be a significant consideration, which means race should be used as a criteria if it is a predictive factor, even though it seems discriminatory. This can at times be true for male vs female as well, depending on the particular graduate program in question (where males may be less likely to complete it than females and vice versa, all else equal on paper). What do you think?

 

[Metaphor]

What about scenarios when race is arguably a predictive indicator of merit? For whatever reason, an equally qualified black candidate and, to a less extent, someone of Hispanic decent for a college admission on paper (SAT and GPA) is a little less likely to earn a four year degree and less likely to move on to a masters or PhD program after earning a four year degree. Various factors are posited to explain it - stress of dealing with family life that is more likely to be poor which can affect grades, desire/incentive to help them out by going to work today by dropping out of college or failing to continue on to graduate school to support them financially, plus other possible reasons. I guess the question is, what determines merit? It would seem to be whomever is the most likely to graduate and maybe continue on to graduate school should be a significant consideration, which means race should be used as a criteria if it is a predictive factor, even though it seems discriminatory. This can at times be true for male vs female as well, depending on the particular graduate program in question (where males may be less likely to complete it than females and vice versa, all else equal on paper). What do you think?

The world has become very selective --I'd say incoherently selective -- about what contexts it will and won't allow discrimination based on immutable characteristics (both legally allowed and socially allowed.)

For example, society -- and the law -- does not blink an eye when young men are charged more on their car insurance excess compared to young women. Yet in the same breath, society balks at charging women more for health insurance, even though women incur more health costs (by bearing children and living longer, on average).

Now, something rubs me the wrong way about disadvantaging (or advantaging) someone for merely belonging to a group with a certain average on a certain immutable characteristic. It seems to me a version of 'the sins of the fathers' being visited upon the sons. So, I don't think men should be charged more than women for motor car insurance, even if men, as a group, are more likely to claim. And nor should women be charged more for health insurance, merely because women claim more. The solution to the former is to ban differential insurance rates for immutable group characteristics (like race or gender). The solution for the latter is single payer health insurance.

Now, it may also be true that, when controlling for grades and aptitude (statistically speaking), Black students might still be less likely to graduate than students of other races. This would mean that, if you were using objective selection criteria alone, Black students with a certain GPA and aptitude score should be less preferred for entry into a course compared to a nonBlack student with the same scores. This would also apply the other way: if it were shown that Black students were more likely to finish a course than nonBlack students with the same GPA and aptitude scores, they should be preferred to those students for entry.

But using race as a criterion so openly might lead to a better graduate completion rate, but opens up a can of worms that's better left shut. So, don't use race as a selection criterion. Just stop discriminating by race. Full stop.

A consequence of a race and gender blind admission process (or hiring process, or promotion process) is that some races and genders will be unevenly represented. For example, in Australia, the dinky little bikes that mail carriers use have an upper weight limit for the rider. Men are taller, heavier, and more obese than women, and so this rule is likely to rule out a lot more men than women from even being able to apply. But it's not arbitrarily ruling them out -- it's related to the job requirements.

 

[Underseer]

I have never suggested that AA leads to the recruitment of unqualified candidates. But, just like many people who apply for a job may be rated 'suitable', some are more qualified, and have more merit, are ranked higher on objective measures, than others.

And every time someone who is less qualified, has less objective merit, is hired for an arbitrary reason like gender or race, the whole enterprise suffers for it. The lesser candidate won't do as good a job, they won't produce as much, the world will literally have less wealth than it could have had, had the most qualified, the most objectively merited person, been hired.

What about scenarios when race is arguably a predictive indicator of merit? For whatever reason, an equally qualified black candidate and, to a less extent, someone of Hispanic decent for a college admission on paper (SAT and GPA) is a little less likely to earn a four year degree and less likely to move on to a masters or PhD program after earning a four year degree. Various factors are posited to explain it - stress of dealing with family life that is more likely to be poor which can affect grades, desire/incentive to help them out by going to work today by dropping out of college or failing to continue on to graduate school to support them financially, plus other possible reasons. I guess the question is, what determines merit? It would seem to be whomever is the most likely to graduate and maybe continue on to graduate school should be a significant consideration, which means race should be used as a criteria if it is a predictive factor, even though it seems discriminatory. This can at times be true for male vs female as well, depending on the particular graduate program in question (where males may be less likely to complete it than females and vice versa, all else equal on paper). What do you think?

You don't seem to understand how the selection process works in colleges.

You get various points for various things. If the university happens to be low on oboe players, then incoming oboe players get more points than other students. This does not mean that non-oboe players are being persecuted.

If the university happens to have more students from suburban and urban backgrounds, people from rural backgrounds get more points. This is to provide a more diverse student body so that students can be exposed to as many perspectives as possible, not evidence that suburban students are being persecuted.

You get points for having higher grades. This does not mean students with lower grades are being persecuted.

You get points for doing charity work. This does not mean students who don't do charity work are being persecuted.

You get points for having higher SAT scores. This does not mean students with lower SAT scores are being persecuted.

If the school makes a lot of money from its athletic program, then talented athletes get a ridiculous amount of points. Frankly, this is unfair.

If your family gave a lot of money to the university, then you get in no matter how bad your grades are. This is even more unfair.

However, what the selection committees do to increase the diversity of the student population is not evidence that Asian students are being persecuted (and let's face it, if the selection process were changed the way you want, there would be fewer white students and more Asian students). Points assigned for a wide variety of things and race is a very small part of that decision and the points assigned for that make up a small part of the overall consideration. If this upsets you and you want to attend a university with less diversity, you can always attend a university with less diversity, such as an evangelical university.

 

[Metaphor]

If the university happens to have more students from suburban and urban backgrounds, people from rural backgrounds get more points. This is to provide a more diverse student body so that students can be exposed to as many perspectives as possible, not evidence that suburban students are being persecuted.

This seems to me quite ludicrous. What if a university has decided it has too many liberal students? Should it seek out those with conservative credentials?

If the school makes a lot of money from its athletic program, then talented athletes get a ridiculous amount of points. Frankly, this is unfair.

Why is that unfair, but 'extra points to Oboe players' not unfair?

However, what the selection committees do to increase the diversity of the student population is not evidence that Asian students are being persecuted (and let's face it, if the selection process were changed the way you want, there would be fewer white students and more Asian students).

If the Asian students earned the grades, why shouldn't there be more?

Points assigned for a wide variety of things and race is a very small part of that decision and the points assigned for that make up a small part of the overall consideration. If this upsets you and you want to attend a university with less diversity, you can always attend a university with less diversity, such as an evangelical university.

Diversity has nothing to do with it.

I'd be interested in getting into a university where academic merit is highest.

"Charity work" is all well and nice, but is it related to graduating on time and with a good academic record? If it's unrelated, why should it earn you a spot?

Race has even less to do with merit and academia than charity work. It should play no part whatever in the selection process.

 

[Toni]

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

Sure. But again, you are operating on the assumption that the only thing that matters or should matter is GPA and test scores. Or that the difference between scoring at the 95th percentile is significantly different than scoring at the 94th percentile. Or the 90th or 99th percentile.

If the only thing that matters is test scores, a university has a student body full of great test takers. This is not the same thing as great thinkers or great future doctors, lawyers, accountants (ok, maybe accountants), teachers, etc.

A person who scores very high on the SAT or ACT may have scored so well because he/she is very intelligent and is very talented academically. Or may have scored very highly because his or her mommy and daddy paid for years of cram courses starting in middle school, scheduled every single minute of his/her day from infancy on, to ensure there would be no distractions and no bad influences (i.e. things which wouldn't beef up a college resume, er application) in their child's life. Because their child would of course be a doctor or an engineer! Even if he preferred to dance. Or paint. Or teach elementary school.

You are an admissions counselor. You have before you 3 applications for the remaining spot.

One applicant scored in the top 3 percent of the SAT and also the ACT, only one of which was necessary. They graduated first in their prep school class. They wrote an essay filled with quotes from well known scientists. You know that they were admitted to an Ivy already but their application says your school is their first choice. During their interview, they answer in one word sentences, do not make eye contact, seem distracted. Their parents are both waiting in the outer office, on the edge of their chairs.

The second applicant scored in the top 5 percent of the SAT and did not take the ACT which is ok: it wasn't required. Also graduated top of their class at their small, private school. Their college application is filled with stellar 'activities, including editor of student newspaper, several service organizations, marching band, lead in the school musical for 3 years running. During the interview, this student talks animatedly about all of his/her achievements thus far and about how s/he intends to win a Nobel in Chemistry and intends to go to medical school at Harvard.

The third applicant scored in the top 8 percent of the SAT, no ACT and graduated in the top 10 percent of their class, which was a large competitive urban school. In addition to a few of the usual extracurriculars, this student held a part time job at a local convenience store, helped care for younger siblings, and also started a literacy program that targeted older immigrants who hang out at the local park. This student is polite and well spoken and asks about opportunities for study abroad, diversity at the university, and the strength of several programs.

Which student do you admit?

 

[Metaphor]

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

Sure. But again, you are operating on the assumption that the only thing that matters or should matter is GPA and test scores. Or that the difference between scoring at the 95th percentile is significantly different than scoring at the 94th percentile. Or the 90th or 99th percentile.

If the only thing that matters is test scores, a university has a student body full of great test takers. This is not the same thing as great thinkers or great future doctors, lawyers, accountants (ok, maybe accountants), teachers, etc.

A person who scores very high on the SAT or ACT may have scored so well because he/she is very intelligent and is very talented academically. Or may have scored very highly because his or her mommy and daddy paid for years of cram courses starting in middle school, scheduled every single minute of his/her day from infancy on, to ensure there would be no distractions and no bad influences (i.e. things which wouldn't beef up a college resume, er application) in their child's life. Because their child would of course be a doctor or an engineer! Even if he preferred to dance. Or paint. Or teach elementary school.

You are an admissions counselor. You have before you 3 applications for the remaining spot.

One applicant scored in the top 3 percent of the SAT and also the ACT, only one of which was necessary. They graduated first in their prep school class. They wrote an essay filled with quotes from well known scientists. You know that they were admitted to an Ivy already but their application says your school is their first choice. During their interview, they answer in one word sentences, do not make eye contact, seem distracted. Their parents are both waiting in the outer office, on the edge of their chairs.

The second applicant scored in the top 5 percent of the SAT and did not take the ACT which is ok: it wasn't required. Also graduated top of their class at their small, private school. Their college application is filled with stellar 'activities, including editor of student newspaper, several service organizations, marching band, lead in the school musical for 3 years running. During the interview, this student talks animatedly about all of his/her achievements thus far and about how s/he intends to win a Nobel in Chemistry and intends to go to medical school at Harvard.

The third applicant scored in the top 8 percent of the SAT, no ACT and graduated in the top 10 percent of their class, which was a large competitive urban school. In addition to a few of the usual extracurriculars, this student held a part time job at a local convenience store, helped care for younger siblings, and also started a literacy program that targeted older immigrants who hang out at the local park. This student is polite and well spoken and asks about opportunities for study abroad, diversity at the university, and the strength of several programs.

Which student do you admit?

But if you haven't told us the race of each applicant, are you suggesting that admission decisions should leave race out of it?

I'm gobsmacked that you've finally seen the light.