Are you in favor of Affirmative Action?

[Fanosolia]

Remove the ideal of education and make them compete and you will find yourself with people thinking that people who are poor deserve to be poor because they couldn't "beat the next guy" at being better. That's not what we need in education. Being #1 in academia doesn't mean anything if by doing so you demoralized and put down #2, #3, and #4 and if you cheated your way to the top. That's what a meritocratic approach does to children, because competition is competition, not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of winning.

You pretty much summed up my feelings of the school System (in sort of the mentality I experinced from grades1-12). Not to mention why I oppose grades, or any scoring system.

[West Aurelia]

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?

I'm against affirmative action for the same reason as you. College applications should be based on merit and not race.

[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?

I'm against affirmative action for the same reason as you. College applications should be based on merit and not race.

That's the point of affirmative action.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I'm against affirmative action for the same reason as you. College applications should be based on merit and not race.

That's the point of affirmative action.

Wait so it is based on Merit when this happens (SAT point increases on predetermined aspects such as ethnicity)?

A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):

Whites: 0 (control group)
Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: –50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160[64]

[Ifreann]

That's the point of affirmative action.

Wait so it is based on Merit when this happens (SAT point increases on predetermined aspects such as ethnicity)?

A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):

Whites: 0 (control group)
Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: –50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160[64]

You might want to re-read that.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Wait so it is based on Merit when this happens (SAT point increases on predetermined aspects such as ethnicity)?

You might want to re-read that.

What have I misread? It is about a few sociologists doing research on the effects of affirmative action to people being admitted to top universities, and it shows that Whites and Asians are discriminated whilst blacks and latinos get increases, which is basically admitting that the blacks and latinos are intellectually inferior, as one would only support such grants on the sole basis of race if they believe that blacks and latinos are the ones who are inferior and need help from government mandate.

[Neutraligon]

You might want to re-read that.

What have I misread? It is about a few sociologists doing research on the effects of affirmative action to people being admitted to top universities, and it shows that Whites and Asians are discriminated whilst blacks and latinos get increases, which is basically admitting that the blacks and latinos are intellectually inferior, as one would only support such grants on the sole basis of race if they believe that blacks and latinos are the ones who are inferior and need help from government mandate.

Woud you support affirmative action if it instead focused on gender (so for instance male nurses getting the benefit) and income?

[Ifreann]

You might want to re-read that.

What have I misread?

No one's actually getting SAT point increases, that's just how they presented their findings.

As to your actual question, how colleges handle their admissions doesn't change what the point of affirmative action is.

[Saiwania]

Remove the ideal of education and make them compete and you will find yourself with people thinking that people who are poor deserve to be poor because they couldn't "beat the next guy" at being better. That's not what we need in education. Being #1 in academia doesn't mean anything if by doing so you demoralized and put down #2, #3, and #4 and if you cheated your way to the top. That's what a meritocratic approach does to children, because competition is competition, not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of winning.

A lot of people do see life as a huge game that you play to win, though. Shouldn't it be everyone's dream to "win" but to be able to accept the harsh reality that you don't get any rewards for 2nd best? You simply get passed up.

[Republic of Coldwater]

What have I misread? It is about a few sociologists doing research on the effects of affirmative action to people being admitted to top universities, and it shows that Whites and Asians are discriminated whilst blacks and latinos get increases, which is basically admitting that the blacks and latinos are intellectually inferior, as one would only support such grants on the sole basis of race if they believe that blacks and latinos are the ones who are inferior and need help from government mandate.

Woud you support affirmative action if it instead focused on gender (so for instance male nurses getting the benefit) and income?

No, as affirmative action hampers the ability of an employer to make the best decisions that maximizes efficiency for his/her business, and I oppose affirmative action to anyone.

[Ifreann]

Remove the ideal of education and make them compete and you will find yourself with people thinking that people who are poor deserve to be poor because they couldn't "beat the next guy" at being better. That's not what we need in education. Being #1 in academia doesn't mean anything if by doing so you demoralized and put down #2, #3, and #4 and if you cheated your way to the top. That's what a meritocratic approach does to children, because competition is competition, not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of winning.

A lot of people do see life as a huge game that you play to win, though. Shouldn't it be everyone's dream to be winning but to be able to accept the harsh reality that you don't get any rewards for 2nd best? You simply get passed up.

A lot of people don't see like as a huge game that you play to win, though.

[Neutraligon]

Woud you support affirmative action if it instead focused on gender (so for instance male nurses getting the benefit) and income?

No, as affirmative action hampers the ability of an employer to make the best decisions that maximizes efficiency for his/her business, and I oppose affirmative action to anyone.

I see your answer to an originally unequal playing field is to maintain the status-quo of an unequal playing field. One of the purposes of education is to even that playing field. That is supposed to happen during the school years before college, but it doesn't, leaving college one of the few ways of equalizing the playing field and allowing those who are less well off to better themselves. How they do once in college is what should determine how outside employers treat them.

[Saiwania]

I see your answer to an originally unequal playing field is to maintain the status-quo of an unequal playing field. One of the purposes of education is to even that playing field. That is supposed to happen during the school years before college, but it doesn't, leaving college one of the few ways of equalizing the playing field and allowing those who are less well off to better themselves. How they do once in college is what should determine how outside employers treat them.

College does not "level the playing field" for the most part. Certain degrees are economically worth more than other degrees. Then there is the matter of people who for whatever reason, just can't go to college because they're incapable of doing college level work and won't graduate. It only gives a college graduate a chance at moving up against someone else with less formal education.

[Fanosolia]

Remove the ideal of education and make them compete and you will find yourself with people thinking that people who are poor deserve to be poor because they couldn't "beat the next guy" at being better. That's not what we need in education. Being #1 in academia doesn't mean anything if by doing so you demoralized and put down #2, #3, and #4 and if you cheated your way to the top. That's what a meritocratic approach does to children, because competition is competition, not for the sake of learning, but for the sake of winning.

A lot of people do see life as a huge game that you play to win, though. Shouldn't it be everyone's dream to be "win" but to be able to accept the harsh reality that you don't get any rewards for 2nd best? You simply get passed up.

In fairness, you don't always get the job for being the best. You could be the best for the job, but you're either so good they fear they won't keep you, or you have a crap attitude. They don't only want the best, they want someone who's not going to be a pain to work with
(aka best fit).

[Neutraligon]

I see your answer to an originally unequal playing field is to maintain the status-quo of an unequal playing field. One of the purposes of education is to even that playing field. That is supposed to happen during the school years before college, but it doesn't, leaving college one of the few ways of equalizing the playing field and allowing those who are less well off to better themselves. How they do once in college is what should determine how outside employers treat them.

College does not "level the playing field" for the most part. Certain degrees are economically worth more than other degrees. Then there is the matter of people who for whatever reason, just can't go to college because they're incapable of doing college level work and won't graduate.

However it does to some extent level the playing field within those degrees. A person who is rich in the same degree as a person who is poor with equivalent performance are supposedly equal. This is not true coming out of high school. There is of course a floor at which you are willing to accept students. Oh and, affirmative action is not what you think it is, affirmative action is all things being equal, the person that increases diversity is the one that should be chosen. So for instance if I had the exact same performance as a man when trying to get into an engineering field, I as a female would increase diversity and thus I would be chosen. Similarly in the nursing field the man would be chosen because he would increase diversity.

[Saiwania]

Oh and, affirmative action is not what you think it is, affirmative action is all things being equal, the person that increases diversity is the one that should be chosen.

I know full well about what affirmative action is and I'm still going to be in opposition until the day I die. I'm not actually interested in increasing diversity at all. The end result is that my group would have to work harder to get in. I'd always lose against someone from a minority group because I wouldn't "increase diversity." And I for one, refuse to move to where I'd be in the minority.

[Ifreann]

Oh and, affirmative action is not what you think it is, affirmative action is all things being equal, the person that increases diversity is the one that should be chosen.

I know full well about what affirmative action is and I'm still going to be in opposition until the day I die. I'm not actually interested in increasing diversity at all. The end result is that my group would have to work harder to get in. I'd always lose against someone from a minority group because I wouldn't "increase diversity." And I for one, refuse to move to where I'd be in the minority.

Of course, that's a crazy way to think.

[Neutraligon]

Oh and, affirmative action is not what you think it is, affirmative action is all things being equal, the person that increases diversity is the one that should be chosen.

I know full well about what affirmative action is and I'm still going to be in opposition until the day I die. I'm not actually interested in increasing diversity at all. The end result is that my group would have to work harder to get in. I'd always lose against someone from a minority group because I wouldn't "increase diversity." And I for one, refuse to move to where I'd be in the minority.

You are male yes, then you would be at a gain in a nursing or teaching degree. You are white yes, then you would be a gain in a traditionally black college. The fact that you refuse to be part of a minority is your choice, you would still gain if you were ever in that situation.

[Fanosolia]

Oh and, affirmative action is not what you think it is, affirmative action is all things being equal, the person that increases diversity is the one that should be chosen.

I know full well about what affirmative action is and I'm still going to be in opposition until the day I die. I'm not actually interested in increasing diversity at all. The end result is that my group would have to work harder to get in. I'd always lose against someone from a minority group because I wouldn't "increase diversity." And I for one, refuse to move to where I'd be in the minority.

Diversity might not be nessarily of race or gender. Background, your experiences, your personality and maybe even your outlook on life also might play into that.

[Patridam]

What have I misread?

No one's actually getting SAT point increases, that's just how they presented their findings.

No, but they're receiving preferential treatment in the admissions process, equivalent to a better SAT score. As in, a black student with a 1180 SAT score would be chosen over a white student with a 1400 SAT score (with otherwise equivalent qualifications).

[Ifreann]

No one's actually getting SAT point increases, that's just how they presented their findings.

No, but they're receiving preferential treatment in the admissions process, equivalent to a better SAT score. As in, a black student with a 1180 SAT score would be chosen over a white student with a 1400 SAT score (with otherwise equivalent qualifications).

Presenting their finding in terms of SAT scores doesn't mean that either.

[Patridam]

Race is a factor of a factor of a factor of a factor. You won't see it being used as the sole criteria, which is what AA says they shouldn't, but they still use it as a minute factor in their admission programs. In other words, if AA wouldn't be there then race And gender WOULD be considered as a factor

Race, gender, and yes, even economic background should not be considered at all. I can't speak to what would happen without AA, because there are few/no colleges without it.

Sure, if you want to piss all over what college is all about you can go ahead and think that.

The problem with the meritocratic model is this: that wealth and better resources determine the power of the individual. The kids who go to private schools would have better opportunities than the kids who go to public schools that are not so great to begin with. Merit is only good for the business world, where it is presumed to be a deathmatch for the best jobs and skills. Colleges do not have an interest in it because they are in the business of educating the student body, not in providing the student body with a job.

You can cry meritocrats are right on this, if only to show your disdain at the humanist ideals of education and replace it in its stead for a system that will toss geniuses against geniuses and that you will end up seeing ruthless competition, all for the sake of being The Best (tm)

No system of choosing one over another is truly equal, but meritocracy is a damn sight better than making decisions based off race. Besides, I would argue that many colleges are orienting their goals more towards ensuring graduates get jobs, and education is a means to an end in that respect. Job placement percentages are the most lauded statistic in college advertising, and for a college to accept less than the best students it can get is setting itself up for lower job placement, lower graduation rates, and lower retention rates. Colleges are, in themselves, a business.

[Saiwania]

The fact that you refuse to be part of a minority is your choice, you would still gain if you were ever in that situation.

It is help that I wouldn't want but would be given anyways if I was a minority. It is either that I don't get a higher education or a job, or I get one or both and accept that fact that I'll be "bumped up" because of affirmative action and not because of my own efforts.

[Patridam]

No, but they're receiving preferential treatment in the admissions process, equivalent to a better SAT score. As in, a black student with a 1180 SAT score would be chosen over a white student with a 1400 SAT score (with otherwise equivalent qualifications).

Presenting their finding in terms of SAT scores doesn't mean that either.

That's almost exactly what it means, though not on a single case basis, but an overall one. It's not a perfect way to present it, but saying being black is equivalent to having a much better admission essay is much less scientific.

The fact that you refuse to be part of a minority is your choice, you would still gain if you were ever in that situation.

It is help that I wouldn't want but would be given anyways if I was a minority. It is either that I don't get a higher education or a job, or I get one or both and accept that fact that I'll be "bumped up" because of affirmative action and not because of my own efforts.

You would think that there might be some hurt pride or even guilt among the people who get what are essentially "race bonus points" and displace a more qualified person.

[Potenuse]

yes