Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?

[Ifreann]

Affirmative action has always seemed unfair to me. It's not my fault I was born white and I don't see why a black or Hispanic (although many Hispanics are actually white) person's college application should be treated with preference over mine. The injustices of the past are not mine to pay. I know I will be called a racist by so many people on here but I just want to express my opinion and see what others have to say about it.

Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?

Why or why not?

Also, if you're not from the U.S. does your country have its own version of Affirmative Action?

No.
You are not racist. It should be based off of academics and merit of character.

So you support affirmative action, whose goal is to actively take steps to ensure that those are the bases upon which people get jobs or college places, not race or gender or what have you.

[Mavorpen]

No.
You are not racist. It should be based off of academics and merit of character.

Like I've said before, why should colleges just be interested in tossing students into a moshpit of MENSA-Level Genius white kids?

Because that's how God intended it, silly. The natural hierarchy is clearly

Whites
Those actually good minorities, or "ideal minorities, " Asians
The rest of the minorities who are too lazy to deserve anything.

Clearly any attempt to dismantle this is an affront to God.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No.
You are not racist. It should be based off of academics and merit of character.

So you support affirmative action, whose goal is to actively take steps to ensure that those are the bases upon which people get jobs or college places, not race or gender or what have you.

Well, the college has a legitimate interest in using race as one of the many factors, but not the sole factor in an admission.

I went to the University of Texas at Dallas, and there wasn't a slant towards a specific race or religion or whathaveyou. I got exposed to several people who were great: Palestinians, Israelis, Chinese, Indian, white, hispanic, black, and so on. And they all came from different backgrounds and different abilities to deal with things as well as different academic performance. However, I did learn as much from the Asian kid with Cs as I also learned from the successful "white" kid from a rich family with As who also happened to be Portuguese and was taking his degree in Foreign Relations and was making research on poverty.

The goal of college is not to get the best of the best, which is what jobs try to get, but to educate people. Sure, you can do it based on merit, but then again how many people from other races were in college before Kennedy?

[Saiwania]

Why does people who earn Bs and Cs at colleges would lower the standard of academic institutions and why should we have schools full of 180+ IQ geniuses?

Presumably because the C and D students will end up failing college more so than people who make straight As. The students who make poor grades should prove that they'd be able to make it. Diversity for diversity's sake is well, kind of pathetic if it means that the riff raff who get in will end up failing and just take a seat of someone else who will be far more motivated and driven to get results.

[Mavorpen]

Why does people who earn Bs and Cs at colleges would lower the standard of academic institutions and why should we have schools full of 180+ IQ geniuses?

Presumably because the C and D students will end up failing college more so than people who make straight As. The students who make poor grades should prove that they'd be able to make it. Diversity for diversity's sake is well, kind of pathetic if it means that the riff raff who get in will end up failing and just take a seat of someone else who will be far more motivated and driven to get results.

It's hilarious how you changed "B's and Cs" to "Cs and Ds." It's like you realized your argument is wrong when you base it off of what he actually posted and decided to change his argument for him and reply to that instead.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why does people who earn Bs and Cs at colleges would lower the standard of academic institutions and why should we have schools full of 180+ IQ geniuses?

Presumably because the C and D students will end up failing college more so than people who make straight As. The students who make poor grades should prove that they'd be able to make it. Diversity for diversity's sake is well, kind of pathetic if it means that the riff raff who get in will end up failing and just take a seat of someone else who will be far more motivated and driven to get results.

Well, SOMEONE has to make Bs and Cs. Ds? You will pass your classes, but then again, the college admissions process doesn't look at that. It looks at a candidate and asks the question: Can he do the work?

Grades are important to determine whether a student will be able to remain in a good status within the college. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or that only A-Tier kids should be able to get into college.

[Lamplight Caverns]

No, I'm not.

I could delve in to 'reverse racism' or whatever, but at the end of the day, my opinion is summed up in your OP.

If a AA, Hispanic, Asian, whatever has more merit for whatever position we're competing for, that's one thing, that's pretty much how it /works/.

Otherwise, it's pretty much quota filling bullshit that's unneeded.

[Farnhamia]

No, I'm not.

I could delve in to 'reverse racism' or whatever, but at the end of the day, my opinion is summed up in your OP.

If a AA, Hispanic, Asian, whatever has more merit for whatever position we're competing for, that's one thing, that's pretty much how it /works/.

Otherwise, it's pretty much quota filling bullshit that's unneeded.

Source for AA in the US being all about quotas?

[Mavorpen]

No, I'm not.

I could delve in to 'reverse racism' or whatever, but at the end of the day, my opinion is summed up in your OP.

If a AA, Hispanic, Asian, whatever has more merit for whatever position we're competing for, that's one thing, that's pretty much how it /works/.

Otherwise, it's pretty much quota filling bullshit that's unneeded.

No it isn't. SCOTUS already ruled quotas unconstitutional.

[Saiwania]

Grades are important to determine whether a student will be able to remain in a good status within the college. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or that only A-Tier kids should be able to get into college.

The way I envision how it should be are universities catering to people from different "tiers" on the grade scale. I can't get into Harvard because I'm not Harvard material. I'd need to graduate at a lower ranked university with great grades to have a chance at a higher ranked university. The lower ranked colleges such as the community ones are entry level and thus for everyone else. The elite schools are for the elite.

Expecting someone who did poorly in high school to perform as well at an elite university is unrealistic. If they couldn't make the grades then, what makes them think they can now?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Grades are important to determine whether a student will be able to remain in a good status within the college. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or that only A-Tier kids should be able to get into college.

The way I envision how it should be are universities catering to people from different "tiers" on the grade scale. I can't get into Harvard because I'm not Harvard material. I'd need to graduate at a lower ranked university with great grades to have a chance at a higher ranked university. The lower ranked colleges such as the community ones are entry level and thus for everyone else. The elite schools are for the elite.

Expecting someone who did poorly in high school to perform as well at an elite university is unrealistic. If they couldn't make the grades then, what makes them think they can now?

"Harvard Material" isn't you getting a perfect 4.0+ in High School.

I understand what you're saying, but colleges don't work like that either. An ivy league college would rather choose the C to A student (placing him squarely on a B-tier) but had family hardships, had to work full time while studying and taking care of his siblings, and trying to do the best he can to actually achieve something rather than the B student who did nothing in particular, was privileged, and went to a private school.

Expecting people to not make it on Ivy League colleges just because of their academic performance is futile. People change. What you seem to not grasp is that Harvard isn't hard to get because of its standing, it is hard to get because of the money you'll end up spending on your education. To be honest, I could have gotten into Harvard and gone there, but have massive loans on my name isn't my style. Although loans are useful, a quick finance overview tells that if I am going to spend over 64,000 dollars on my education and I will have over 40,000 dollars in debt without any outstanding grants that will lower that to at least 20,000 after I graduate it's probably not worth going to Harvard either, for me. Other people's dream is to go there no matter what their grades are.

[Saiwania]

"Harvard Material" isn't you getting a perfect 4.0+ in High School.
I understand what you're saying, but colleges don't work like that either.

I'm saying if someone wanted to start a college that only accepted 4.0+ people, I wouldn't see the harm in that. Who wouldn't want to take pride in the fact that they managed to get into the hardest school to get into in the world?

[Ifreann]

So you support affirmative action, whose goal is to actively take steps to ensure that those are the bases upon which people get jobs or college places, not race or gender or what have you.

Well, the college has a legitimate interest in using race as one of the many factors, but not the sole factor in an admission.

I went to the University of Texas at Dallas, and there wasn't a slant towards a specific race or religion or whathaveyou. I got exposed to several people who were great: Palestinians, Israelis, Chinese, Indian, white, hispanic, black, and so on. And they all came from different backgrounds and different abilities to deal with things as well as different academic performance. However, I did learn as much from the Asian kid with Cs as I also learned from the successful "white" kid from a rich family with As who also happened to be Portuguese and was taking his degree in Foreign Relations and was making research on poverty.

The goal of college is not to get the best of the best, which is what jobs try to get, but to educate people. Sure, you can do it based on merit, but then again how many people from other races were in college before Kennedy?

Fair point. I think we can make a distinction between an admissions policy that seeks to encourage diversity and one that seeks to discourage it, and reasonably permit the former. Though I'm sure that will be taken badly by opponents of affirmative action.

---

Why does people who earn Bs and Cs at colleges would lower the standard of academic institutions and why should we have schools full of 180+ IQ geniuses?

Presumably because the C and D students will end up failing college more so than people who make straight As. The students who make poor grades should prove that they'd be able to make it. Diversity for diversity's sake is well, kind of pathetic if it means that the riff raff who get in will end up failing and just take a seat of someone else who will be far more motivated and driven to get results.

If there was anyone left who took you seriously on anything related to race I'm sure that using the term "riff raff" sincerely will solve that.

---

"Harvard Material" isn't you getting a perfect 4.0+ in High School.
I understand what you're saying, but colleges don't work like that either.

I'm saying if someone wanted to start a college that only accepted 4.0+ people, I wouldn't see the harm in that. Who wouldn't want to take pride in the fact that they managed to get into the hardest school to get into in the world?

Exclusivity does not imply quality.

[Patridam]

Presumably because the C and D students will end up failing college more so than people who make straight As. The students who make poor grades should prove that they'd be able to make it. Diversity for diversity's sake is well, kind of pathetic if it means that the riff raff who get in will end up failing and just take a seat of someone else who will be far more motivated and driven to get results.

Well, SOMEONE has to make Bs and Cs. Ds? You will pass your classes, but then again, the college admissions process doesn't look at that. It looks at a candidate and asks the question: Can he do the work?

Grades are important to determine whether a student will be able to remain in a good status within the college. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or that only A-Tier kids should be able to get into college.

Even in the highest-tier colleges, grades are not the only consideration. Community service, admissions essays, the SAT, and sometimes even interviews enter into the decisions. Those are all designed to consider whether the student merits admissions to that college in particular. Although a D student would certainly have difficulty getting into Harvard, a community college would most likely still admit them, so more or less everyone has a decent chance of going to a college, if not the best ones.

Anyway, that's a bit of a digression. I still stand by the point that race should not enter into the decision process of whether or not a student merits admission.

[Lydenburg]

This shit again.

For the last time, no.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Like I've said before, why should colleges just be interested in tossing students into a moshpit of MENSA-Level Genius white kids?

Because that's how God intended it, silly. The natural hierarchy is clearly

Whites
Those actually good minorities, or "ideal minorities, " Asians
The rest of the minorities who are too lazy to deserve anything.

Clearly any attempt to dismantle this is an affront to God.

Well going down that road is essentially attacking selection by academics/merit in general. Just saying.

E: I've always wondered why some people are obsessed with e.g. attending a certain school even when they know full well they either cannot live up it or will be overworked. Students should be grouped with students which are capable of, and, quite frankly, willing to, learn as much. Between an academically poor black and an academically poor white, neither deserve a place in a high competitivity school. Actually getting in would do nothing but harm them because they simply do not have the capability or willingness to study as hard, and will be overworked.

[Mavorpen]

Because that's how God intended it, silly. The natural hierarchy is clearly

Whites
Those actually good minorities, or "ideal minorities, " Asians
The rest of the minorities who are too lazy to deserve anything.

Clearly any attempt to dismantle this is an affront to God.

Well going down that road is essentially attacking selection by academics/merit in general. Just saying.

No it isn't. That would be impossible as "merit" is inherently subjective. It's why you'll find some universities that don't even take standardized tests like SAT into consideration.

[Patridam]

Translation: I have no argument, and I'll run away while pretending I won anyway, WEEEEE!

I take it you are familiar with California's Proposition 209?
It was passed in 1996, amending the state constitution to prohibit the consideration of race, sex, and ethnicity in (public) college admissions and (public) employment.

Before it was passed, public colleges in the state considered race as a factor when deciding what students would be admitted. Sometimes, a desire to remain "representative" of ethnicity (that is, having a proportion of whites to blacks etc. representative of the state's population) became a more important criterion in the admissions process than actual merit (that would be grades, SAT/ACT scores, admissions essays, and extracurricular history).

Now, these colleges still use "socioeconomic affirmative action"; that is, giving extra "points" towards poorer applicants, in their admissions processes, but they are required to be race blind. And they are seemingly going to stay that way after 500 Chinese-Americans protested outside the office of a senator who wanted to repeal 209.

Depending on the year or on the source, accusations can be made the the black populations of UC Berkely and UCLA have dropped after the law was passed. But if a student cannot get into a college with a race blind admissions process, they simply don't deserve to be at that college! Do I complain that the NBA is 78% black in a country that is 72% white? No, since making something "racially proportional" should not be anyone's priority when they are choosing applicants (to a team, to a school, to a job; whatever). The qualifications of the applicant should be not just the main consideration, but in my mind, the only consideration. But considering qualifications and wealth is still a step forward from qualifications, wealth, and race.

Sources:
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/08/11/affi ... udy-shows/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... stand.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_e ... in_the_NBA

[Mavorpen]

I take it you are familiar with California's Proposition 209?

Yeah.

Before it was passed, public colleges in the state considered race as a factor when deciding what students would be admitted.

Yep.

Sometimes, a desire to remain "representative" of ethnicity (that is, having a proportion of whites to blacks etc. representative of the state's population) became a more important criterion in the admissions process than actual merit (that would be grades, SAT/ACT scores, admissions essays, and extracurricular history).

What? Yeah, this is an unsubstantiated bullshit claim.

Now, these colleges still use "socioeconomic affirmative action"; that is, giving extra "points" towards poorer applicants, in their admissions processes, but they are required to be race blind. And they are seemingly going to stay that way after 500 Chinese-Americans protested outside the office of a senator who wanted to repeal 209.

You know they aren't actually being race blind, right? California schools still target minorities, they just do it less explicitly.

Depending on the year or on the source, accusations can be made the the black populations of UC Berkely and UCLA have dropped after the law was passed. But if a student cannot get into a college with a race blind admissions process, they simply don't deserve to be at that college!

What in the world are you talking about? It's not a matter of them not being able to get in. It's a matter of racial bias preventing them from getting in.

Do I complain that the NBA is 78% black in a country that is 72% white?

I don't give a shit what you think about the NBA, personally, as it's downright irrelevant.

The qualifications of the applicant should be not just the main consideration, but in my mind, the only consideration.

Then it's a good thing you aren't on any college admissions boards or in charge of hiring individuals for jobs, because they don't accept this tunnel vision bullshit at all.

[Patridam]

Depending on the year or on the source, accusations can be made the the black populations of UC Berkely and UCLA have dropped after the law was passed. But if a student cannot get into a college with a race blind admissions process, they simply don't deserve to be at that college!

What in the world are you talking about? It's not a matter of them not being able to get in. It's a matter of racial bias preventing them from getting in.

What? Give some substance to this claim that admissions are 'inherently biased'.

[Mavorpen]

What in the world are you talking about? It's not a matter of them not being able to get in. It's a matter of racial bias preventing them from getting in.

What? Give some substance to this claim that admissions are 'inherently biased'.

I'm not going to give substance to a claim that wasn't made.

I take it you cut out the rest of my post because you conceded it?

[Lydenburg]

How about this: you aren't the least bit convincing in your tirade. It's too damn late for me to refute you with facts.

Translation: I have no argument, and I'll run away while pretending I won anyway, WEEEEE!

I hate being on the receiving end of your debating style Mav, but this made me chortle for about five minutes while trying not to picture Patridam frolicking blissfully back to his utopia. WEEEEE!

[Mavorpen]

Translation: I have no argument, and I'll run away while pretending I won anyway, WEEEEE!

I hate being on the receiving end of your debating style Mav, but this made me chortle for about five minutes while trying not to picture Patridam frolicking blissfully back to his utopia. WEEEEE!

Now you've gotten me thinking about it.

[Patridam]

What? Give some substance to this claim that admissions are 'inherently biased'.

I'm not going to give substance to a claim that wasn't made.

I take it you cut out the rest of my post because you conceded it?

Then what is this racial bias? Why do minorities so desperately need affirmative action?

And no, but you made conflicting statements, so I'm not quite sure how to pose an argument against them:

What? Yeah, this is an unsubstantiated bullshit claim.

You state that the idea that college admissions target minorities to promote diversity is a bullshit claim.

You know they aren't actually being race blind, right? California schools still target minorities, they just do it less explicitly.

And then proceed to admit that they have always targeted minorities and still do, by abusing loopholes.

You're already arguing with yourself, so I can't see why I should even be here.

Translation: I have no argument, and I'll run away while pretending I won anyway, WEEEEE!

I hate being on the receiving end of your debating style Mav, but this made me chortle for about five minutes while trying not to picture Patridam frolicking blissfully back to his utopia. WEEEEE!

God forbid I try to go to sleep at 11 PM. Forgive me.

[Mavorpen]

Then what is this racial bias?

Are you asking me what racial bias is?

Why do minorities so desperately need affirmative action?

Because of underrepresentation as a result of racial discrimination.

And no, but you made conflicting statements, so I'm not quite sure how to pose an argument against them:

What? Yeah, this is an unsubstantiated bullshit claim.

You state that the idea that college admissions target minorities to promote diversity is a bullshit claim.

Oh stop fucking lying.

What I called bullshit was, explicitly:

Sometimes, a desire to remain "representative" of ethnicity (that is, having a proportion of whites to blacks etc. representative of the state's population) became a more important criterion in the admissions process than actual merit (that would be grades, SAT/ACT scores, admissions essays, and extracurricular history).

I didn't say the idea that college admissions target minorities to promote diversity is bullshit. I said the idea that California universities considered race as a desire to remain representative as a more important criteria was bullshit.

Don't blatantly lie because you don't want to back up your nonsense.

And then proceed to admit that they have always targeted minorities and still do, by abusing loopholes.

You're already arguing with yourself, so I can't see why I should even be here.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing with what you stated. And now you seem to have suffered from something that has wiped what you posted from your mind.