Do I dare: Afirmative Action revisited

[Joe DeFuria]

Now that the case is actually being heard by the Supreme Court, it's not totally out of line to bring up the subject again.

Some interesting commentary to kick off the "debate":

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/72248p-66960c.html

I cite the exchange between [Defense Attonrey] Payton and [Justice] Thomas for three reasons. In the first place, both are black. When one African-American sits on the Supreme Court and another represents one of the nation's foremost universities in a case of maximum importance, we cannot still be talking about an era when black people were second-class citizens.

Second, the faceoff represents both the virtues and the limitations of what we call diversity. Both are black, both are men, and yet they differ. This is the sort of diversity universities ought to promote, only, of course, they don't.

Last, we get to what ails affirmative action in the first place: Sooner or later, the argument for it gets so attenuated that it becomes downright silly. The reason is that some justification has to be found for violating the constitutional protection of equal treatment. Someone is being rejected on account of race. It is that simple.

[Sabastian]

Good stuff. It is about time.

[Natoma]

Someone also gets rejected on account of gender, geographic location, financial situation (good, bad, or mediocre), etc etc etc.

I should hope people realize that affirmative action is not only for minorities (all minorities, not just african americans), but women as well.

[Joe DeFuria]

I should hope people realize that affirmative action is not only for minorities (all minorities, not just african americans), but women as well.

And it's just as wrong "for women as well."

Another article, which also looks at women:

(4 parts to this article)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030401.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030402.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030403.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030404.shtml

[Saem]

It's hard to come up with a set of laws that can address the isms, such as sexism, racism and all that.

The only we can really do is ask those who are in the decision making chair to make a fair judgement, based on ones merits, nothing else.

[Sabastian]

Someone also gets rejected on account of gender, geographic location, financial situation (good, bad, or mediocre), etc etc etc.



News flash natoma these things happen to non minorities as well..

[Natoma]

Someone also gets rejected on account of gender, geographic location, financial situation (good, bad, or mediocre), etc etc etc.



News flash natoma these things happen to non minorities as well..

Huh. Did I ever imply anything else? :roll:

[Sabastian]

Someone also gets rejected on account of gender, geographic location, financial situation (good, bad, or mediocre), etc etc etc.



News flash natoma these things happen to non minorities as well..

Huh. Did I ever imply anything else? :roll:

So what ought the state do about all of this then? Impose affirmitive action type legislation in all instances? I hope that is not what you are implying.. Course you didn't say as much but that is what you imply. It amounts to the creation of a welfare state in order to achieve equal outcomes rather then equal treatment. What about ugly people, over weight people or the beautiful people whom are treated unfairly by the ungly .... on and on. You can't possibly justify state action in all instances of discriminatory situations but that is what you were making an argument for ... Where do you draw the line after you start such law making? The logic is flawed fundamentally and we ought not to pursue such utopian type mentalities.

[Natoma]

To Joe and Sabastian:

Thomas Sowell is very well written, intelligent, and unfortunately, very wrong. I finished reading his articles, and frankly he sounds more like a deacon at the church I grew up in who said "Why are you trying to go to Yale? Why don't you go to a local community college where you'll definitely succeed. Why go to Yale? Your parents can't afford it and you'll probably end up coming home anyways."

It's any wonder that his son now drives a UPS truck and has no prospects in terms of a higher education. That his son never pushed himself. It's defeatist attitudes like Thomas Sowell that are one of the reasons why many in the black community don't strive to be better than they are. And if you do, you're condemned by many as trying to "act white."

There was a study done a while ago that showed that if one calls up for a job and uses a "black" name, they are many times more likely to be shown the door than if they use a "white" name. This is but one example of still existing biases against minorities in society (hello, racial profiling anyone?) that are slowly but surely being whittled away. *However* I do not feel that we are there yet, and frankly so do a lot of people, minority and otherwise.

There are many black people who have risen into the middle and upper class, but is it truly fair to judge someone else because of one person's successes? Just because Michael Jordan is a multi-millionaire and has marketed himself extremely well, does that mean that all black people should be able to as well and live like kings? Of course not.

The biases in this country against minorities of all kind still exist many places. The glass ceiling. Racial profiling. etc etc etc.

Now, as I've stated before in the last thread about this subject, I believe that AA in its current form does not address *today's* environment. It worked and suited the environment of the 60's, 70's, and 80's. But I honestly feel that in the late 80's, early 90's, a shift began, mainly because my generation (born in the 70's and coming of age today) was the first one born under a legally free society for minorities. Thus my generation naturally was able to fully soak up the benefits. I liken it to a situation where a first generation of immigrants never really take advantage of the opportunities present to them, but their children do.

Anyways, AA, imo, should be changed so that it does not incur any greater weight in the admissions process than the points given for geographic location, financial status, legacy, or gender, because those are factors that are not talent based, such as music and sports, but still do matter in the world. I don't believe that it should be done away with at this time. Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

[Sabastian]

I havent the stomack for this today. But as it is you know my stance on the topic anyhow. Affermitive Action is state sanction discrimination and it ought to be thrown out as such. Blacks account for 10-12% of the total US population. In some areas they have a 17% enrollment rate in some others the enrolment rate is 5% which gives us an average enrollment rate that is representative of the percent of blacks in the US. Time to throw out the legislation of Affermitive Action unless of course you are making arguments for a greater percent of representation in secondary education then the black population of the US actually represent. Which would not surprise me.

[Natoma]

I havent the stomack for this today. But as it is you know my stance on the topic anyhow. Affermitive Action is state sanction discrimination and it ought to be thrown out as such. Blacks account for 10-12% of the total US population. In some areas they have a 17% enrollment rate in some others the enrolment rate is 5% which gives us an average enrollment rate that is representative of the percent of blacks in the US. Time to throw out the legislation of Affermitive Action unless of course you are making arguments for a greater percent of representation in secondary education then the black population of the US actually represent. Which would not surprise me.

Are you debating with me or at me Sabastian? This is the second time where you've stated that you think I'm saying something I'm not.

Read the last two paragraphs of my last post to understand how I feel about AA, and drive through.

[Joe DeFuria]

Thomas Sowell is very well written, intelligent, and unfortunately, very wrong. I finished reading his articles, and frankly he sounds more like a deacon at the church I grew up in who said "Why are you trying to go to Yale? Why don't you go to a local community college where you'll definitely succeed. Why go to Yale? Your parents can't afford it and you'll probably end up coming home anyways."

That's funny, because Thomas Sowell said nothing of the sort. Interesting how you must resort to mis-representation to make your own misguided point.

From what Sowell said, sure...go ahead and try to get into Yale. YOU SHOULD try to get into Yale. You SHOULD aspire to Yale or whatever college you want. MANY HAVE. But if you can't get it based on merit, you simply don't deserve to get in. And if you get in, NOT based on merit, you have a higher liklihood of not succeeding at that institution, because you are competing against those "more qualified" than you.

It's common sense.

Christ Natoma, you accuse me of not reading things? Where did he say aything like one shouldn't try to get into Yale?

It's any wonder that his son now drives a UPS truck and has no prospects in terms of a higher education.

Ah, going the personal destruction route now? Typical.

That his son never pushed himself. It's defeatist attitudes like Thomas Sowell that are one of the reasons why many in the black community don't strive to be better than they are.

Quite the opposite. It's the reliance on things like quotas that gives folks the sense that they don't need to work as hard, because there's an "easier" way.

And if you do, you're condemned by many as trying to "act white."

I agree there. Any time a black is successful and succeeds without the "help" of the black leadership supported programs, that successful black is villified as a "sell-out" and an "uncle-tom."

But that's a problem with the black leadership, not something quotas will fix.

There are many black people who have risen into the middle and upper class, but is it truly fair to judge someone else because of one person's successes?

No, just as it's not fair to judge the "preamture failure" of someone else because of someone else's difficulties.

Just because Michael Jordan is a multi-millionaire and has marketed himself extremely well, does that mean that all black people should be able to as well and live like kings? Of course not.

Of course not. Just like all black people (or white people, or women, or martians) should not expect to get into Yale.

The biases in this country against minorities of all kind still exist many places. The glass ceiling. Racial profiling. etc etc etc.

Yes, and like the authors of the articles I cited....the only way you can try and "justify" the obvious unfairness of something like quotas, is to try and claim the benefits outweigh the "unfairness" of it.

Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

It's never a "bad time" to end unfairness. The longer it goes on, the more resentment it causes, and the harder the real problem becomes.

[Natoma]

Thomas Sowell is very well written, intelligent, and unfortunately, very wrong. I finished reading his articles, and frankly he sounds more like a deacon at the church I grew up in who said "Why are you trying to go to Yale? Why don't you go to a local community college where you'll definitely succeed. Why go to Yale? Your parents can't afford it and you'll probably end up coming home anyways."

That's funny, because Thomas Sowell said nothing of the sort. Interesting how you must resort to mis-representation to make your own misguided point.

From what Sowell said, sure...go ahead and try to get into Yale. YOU SHOULD try to get into Yale. You SHOULD aspire to Yale or whatever college you want. MANY HAVE. But if you can't get it based on merit, you simply don't deserve to get in. And if you get in, NOT based on merit, you have a higher liklihood of not succeeding at that institution, because you are competing against those "more qualified" than you.

It's common sense.

First, I didn't misrepresent anything. I said that he sounds like one of the deacons at the church I grew up in, and I quoted what that deacon said to me, in a sunday school class no less. I took the overall timbre of Thomas Sowell's articles and that is what I came away with.

Second, what do you consider "more qualified" Joe? Is someone who has a B average, with a 1500 SAT more qualified than someone with an A average, but a 1300 SAT?

Is someone "more qualified" who has outstanding musical abilities, but has never worked a day in their community to give back? I mean, musical ability is merit based, while working in the community to give back is most certainly not reliant on talent. Shouldn't community work be deemed as inadmissable in the admissions process? We're all just numbers right?

Is someone "more qualified" because they have straight A's and legacy, but can't offer anything but good grades? They're not well rounded?

Is someone "more qualified" because they come from a rural county as opposed to a city?

It's any wonder that his son now drives a UPS truck and has no prospects in terms of a higher education.

Ah, going the personal destruction route now? Typical.

Please stop taking whole thoughts and breaking them into individual sentences. That's not how it was written, and in some cases it totally wreak's havoc on the original meaning of the written words.

It's any wonder that his son now drives a UPS truck and has no prospects in terms of a higher education. That his son never pushed himself. It's defeatist attitudes like Thomas Sowell that are one of the reasons why many in the black community don't strive to be better than they are. And if you do, you're condemned by many as trying to "act white."

That his son never pushed himself. It's defeatist attitudes like Thomas Sowell that are one of the reasons why many in the black community don't strive to be better than they are.

Quite the opposite. It's the reliance on things like quotas that gives folks the sense that they don't need to work as hard, because there's an "easier" way.

Uhm, no. I grew up knowing that I had a "leg up" in *certain* situations due to my ethnicity, especially when I was applying to colleges. *However* did I stop working as hard as I could because I knew that? Hell no. And I know a *lot* of my black friends who were in the same situation.

Now, *some* people will see the system and not try to be better than they are. But that is a reflection on those people, not everyone. And it is most certainly not based on one's race. It is universal to humanity.

Don't make generalizations about things you don't know about. That's about as stupid as saying people on welfare are all lazy bums who are leeches on society.

And if you do, you're condemned by many as trying to "act white."

I agree there. Any time a black is successful and succeeds without the "help" of the black leadership supported programs, that successful black is villified as a "sell-out" and an "uncle-tom."

But that's a problem with the black leadership, not quotas.

Wrong again Joe. Blacks that succeed in sports, or rap, or other "typical" black dominated arenas are not deemed sellouts by the "masses." It's those that succeed in areas such as business, politics, etc, that are said to be sellouts. The ones that use their minds as their way of getting ahead.

This is not a problem with black leadership. It's one of the self destructive tendencies held over from 300 years of oppression. You'd be surprised how much baggage people from my parent's generation still hold over today. They grew up in a society in which they were spat upon and told they weren't as good. That kind of psychological damage, done to a people for a very long time, takes a while to be purged. Certainly not as little time as 35-40 years. I grew up in a family that taught me that I had the opportunity to go as far as I could take myself, and I've always internalized that.

Some black people in my generation, however, have not been so lucky.

It most certainly has not been purged completely, but we are getting there.

Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

It's never a "bad time" to end unfairness. The longer it goes on, the more resentment it causes, and the harder the real problem becomes.

As I said earlier, which you *yet again* cropped out in order to make your point.

Anyways, AA, imo, should be changed so that it does not incur any greater weight in the admissions process than the points given for geographic location, financial status, legacy, or gender, because those are factors that are not talent based, such as music and sports, but still do matter in the world. I don't believe that it should be done away with at this time. Mend the system, as it should be. But it's not time to end it yet.

[Joe DeFuria]

First, I didn't misrepresent anything.

You surley did.

I said that he sounds like one of the deacons at the church I grew up in,

Which is a blatant misrepresentation of what Sowell said, as I explained in my last post.

and I quoted what that deacon said to me, in a sunday school class no less. I took the overall timbre of Thomas Sowell's articles and that is what I came away with.

Then quite frankly, you are hopeless. How someone can come up with an "overall timbre" of Sowell saying "don't try it, because you'll probably fail", is beyond me.

Your decon was an idiot, by the way.

Second, what do you consider "more qualified" Joe? Is someone who has a B average, with a 1500 SAT more qualified than someone with an A average, but a 1300 SAT?....

What constitutes "qualification" is up to each college to decide, isn't it Natoma? It certainly has nothing to do with the color of your skin though, unless you believe in racial descrimination.


Uhm, no. I grew up knowing that I had a "leg up" in *certain* situations due to my ethnicity, especially when I was applying to colleges. *However* did I stop working as hard as I could because I knew that? Hell no. And I know a *lot* of my black friends who were in the same situation.

Gee, Natoma, just becase "you" succeeded and worked hard, does that mean that others will too?

Now, *some* people will see the system and not try to be better than they are. But that is a reflection on those people, not everyone

How hypocritical.
Just becayse SOME people may in fact be racially descriminated against in some way, that is a reflection on THOSE PEOPLE who descriminate. Not on the insitution as a whole. So the institution doesn't need quotas.

Don't make generalizations about things you don't know about.

Lol...I made a generalization to comabt YOUR generalization. Don't like fair play, huh? But I knew that, because you support quotas.

That's about as stupid as saying people on welfare are all lazy bums who are leeches on society.

Just about as stupid as saying blacks that are taught by people like your decon won't push themselves, right Natoma? (That's YOUR generalization that I was combating). But then, YOU are living testament to the contrary, right?

Wrong again Joe. Blacks that succeed in sports, or rap, or other "typical" black dominated arenas are not deemed sellouts by the "masses."

And blacks like Colin Powell, and Justice Thoms ARE. I should clarify: CONSERVATIVE blacks are considered sell-outs.

It's those that succeed in areas such as business, politics, etc, that are said to be sellouts. The ones that use their minds as their way of getting ahead.

Huh? the ones that use their minds are said to be sell-outs? That was my point.

This is not a problem with black leadership. It's one of the self destructive tendencies held over from 300 years of oppression.

Agree and disagree. Specifically, it's my opinion that much of "black leadership" PROMOTES self-destructive tendencies by supporting things like quotas.

You'd be surprised how much baggage people from my parent's generation still hold over today. They grew up in a society in which they were spat upon and told they weren't as good. That kind of psychological damage, done to a people for a very long time, takes a while to be purged.

On this, you are correct. It does take time. And that's the problem. You think things like quotas make it better. That it's "good", because it makes it easier to endure the time until "we don't need it anymore."

Quotas and other "unfair" policies don't make it better. It makes the TIME it takes (which is already long) even LONGER.

Unfortunatley, it creates MORE resentment, and causes MORE people to spit on you and tell you you're not "as good"....because you are going through the system unfairly.

I grew up in a family that taught me that I had the opportunity to go as far as I could take myself, and I've always internalized that.

Great. That's exactly what it takes. Real people, real families to instill that type of ideology. That's what solves the problem. Not political polcies that support further racism.

Some black people in my generation, however, have not been so lucky.

I agree. And though it may sound harsh...that's their problem. If some parent wants to set an example for their kids by saying "the white man is keeping us down, I'm on welfare because of him, and you don't have those new Nikes because of him. Working hard and sacrifice isn't enough."

I could care less about them.

As I said earlier, which you *yet again* cropped out in order to make your point.

I *cropped it out* because it was inconsequential to my response.

I'll say it again, AGAIN cropping it out. It's never to EARLY to remove unfairness.

[Natoma]

Sigh. It's no use responding to you Joe. You only take what makes you feel comfortable and ignore everything else. As you said, if something doesn't fit with how you want to respond, it's inconsequential and deserves to be chucked.

You don't try to converse with people. You converse *at* people.

That is no way to have a working debate. If anyone else decides to have a two way discussion, I'll be watching.

[Joe DeFuria]

Gee, Natoma,

If you don't have anything further constructive to add to the discussion, then just duck out. (Where have I heard that?)

Great apologies if there are one or two sentences of yours that I didn't "account for" in my response. :roll:

Is there some specific question you want me to address that I haven't already?

That is no way to have a working debate. If anyone else decides to have a two way discussion, I'll be watching.

Yup. Anytime someone can read Sowell's article and discern a "general timbre" similar to that which your decon described, it's pretty much a lost cause indeed.

But then, you just CHUCKED my entire last post because you are uncomfortable with it. Why am I not surprised? I see...YOU can chuck whole entire posts "deservedly", wheras I can snip a sentence or two (and tell you WHY), and it's because I'm "uncomfortable" with something?

I have another idea about who is "uncomfortable" with the position they are taking....

[CosmoKramer]

WTF? Do I agree with conservative Joe? The horror.

[Joe DeFuria]

WTF? Do I agree with conservative Joe? The horror.

Lol....don't let it happen again! :)

[Fred]

Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and an attack on merit based systems. Particularly against Caucasians and Asians. To say its not precisely that, is just a spin of the most grotesque nature.

I don't care if theirs racial profiling in the world, *and frankly their should be if its backed up by serious statistics, but thats another debate*, why should higher education have a role in equalizing such a thing, to the disadvantage of other more qualified students. Do we really want to dumb down our training?

Now if you showed me a system where 2 individuals were 100% the same in every sense of the word, then yea sure pick the disadvantaged underrepresented one, however this is not the case in practise. Hence its an attack on merit.

Moreover, it casts whats known as a badge of inferiority on the races/genders that are selected. Which is unconstitutional, and probably negates any benefits they might gain. 'Oh you just got your Harvard education b/c your black eh'

Theres a lot of rascism in the world, and yes believe it or not White males are discriminated against too. Particularly in this day and age of the PC idiots.

[Fred]

Another thing I always found funny. People should read the book the 'Blank State'. Its a good read on the current neurobiological research into the human brain and the issues of nature/nurture and how gender/race are treated.

Remember when the Bell Curve was announced. The book that showed gender and race disparity in IQ tests. The majority of the attacks on the research were laughable. People seemingly prefered to be blinded by principle rather than analyze something scientifically.

Now it turns out, that there ARE serious scientific problems with the book, particularly if the hasty conclusion is accepted. Like for instance, the fact that there is NO scientifically accepted DEFINITION of race to begin with. Which just makes the Affirmative action people look stupid.

However WHAT if a certain scientifically formulated group is prone to be at a disadvantage in Higher education. Wouldn't it be unfair to try to promote them to a higher standing to the disadvantage of others irregardless?

I could for instance make a case that retarded people are underrepresented in higher education, that they have historically been discrimanated against, etc etc. What then?

[Sharkfood]

There was a study done a while ago that showed that if one calls up for a job and uses a "black" name, they are many times more likely to be shown the door than if they use a "white" name.

This study was done where? For a position as branch-manager for a local KKK establishment? I enjoy these kinds of studies. There are plenty of them that also insist upon sexual discrimination because women aren't allowed to apply for Chippendales positions either.

Second, what do you consider "more qualified" Joe? Is someone who has a B average, with a 1500 SAT more qualified than someone with an A average, but a 1300 SAT?

Actually, it's even easier than that. True story- a white person and minority.. Went to the same high-school, took similar classes. White person with 4.2 GPA (advanced placement) and >1400 SAT. Minority with 3.7 GPA and <1100 SAT. Minority got slot in University of California. White person did not and was told slot was unavailable as they had to "fullfil their minority requirement." So here you have a good example of what Affirmative Action creates- reversed discrimination and complete discarding of the qualification system.

Lesser qualifications + "preferred" race = acceptance. It's the same problem but in reverse.

The same thing exists here with police force/highway patrol jobs. If a man and woman both sign up for local enforcement jobs, the women's physical tests are substantially lower than a man's for the same position. This should dictate to any thinking person that either:
a) The test result requirements somehow do not fit the job position and should therefore be scrapped.
b) Women that are somehow lesser qualified physically for the same roles are being allowed the same positions.

[Natoma]

There was a study done a while ago that showed that if one calls up for a job and uses a "black" name, they are many times more likely to be shown the door than if they use a "white" name.

This study was done where? For a position as branch-manager for a local KKK establishment? I enjoy these kinds of studies. There are plenty of them that also insist upon sexual discrimination because women aren't allowed to apply for Chippendales positions either.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=study+black+name+white+name+job

Second, what do you consider "more qualified" Joe? Is someone who has a B average, with a 1500 SAT more qualified than someone with an A average, but a 1300 SAT?

Actually, it's even easier than that. True story- a white person and minority.. Went to the same high-school, took similar classes. White person with 4.2 GPA (advanced placement) and >1400 SAT. Minority with 3.7 GPA and <1100 SAT. Minority got slot in University of California. White person did not and was told slot was unavailable as they had to "fullfil their minority requirement." So here you have a good example of what Affirmative Action creates- reversed discrimination and complete discarding of the qualification system.

Lesser qualifications + "preferred" race = acceptance. It's the same problem but in reverse.

The same thing exists here with police force/highway patrol jobs. If a man and woman both sign up for local enforcement jobs, the women's physical tests are substantially lower than a man's for the same position. This should dictate to any thinking person that either:
a) The test result requirements somehow do not fit the job position and should therefore be scrapped.
b) Women that are somehow lesser qualified physically for the same roles are being allowed the same positions.

Those are singular instances. I seriously doubt that that is widespread. And if they said "We have to fulfill our minority requirement" then they can be sued, and rightfully so. AA is not about quotas. It's about giving weight to racial factors, just as colleges give weight to your geographic location, your financial status, your gender, and whether or not you have legacy at that particular school..

All are non-talent based factors. But the thing is, should other non-talent based factors weigh in as well? Things like community service? Or should only talent-factors be decided upon?

Grades, Musical ability, sports ability, etc, and nothing else?

[Fred]

Natoma, answer YES. Community service shows leadership, these are ACTIVE talents somebody can display. Its not something that you can't do anything about, like race or gender.

Legacy, financial status et al shoulnd't be considered either (although the latter realistically one can't do anything about, especially in a private organizations with no financial aid packages)

I find it amusing that AA people criticize legacy based enrollment actually. Considering its the same thing they try to do, just for a different group.

Legacy, gender/race based enrollment is merit based discrimination. Its ridiculous, anticonsistutional, and needs to stop.

[MrsSkywalker]

I think the time has definitely come to let it go. If we keep AA, my sons are going to have one hell of a hard time getting into college, no matter how well they do acedemically...and that just defeats the whole purpose of AA. Equal rights does not mean "special rights for certain groups".

What I would like to see is something like this: I would like to see the university/college give an exam and choose the top "x" amount of students. What's wrong with that idea? Oh, I've heard all the arguments. "Inner city kids don't test well." "Standardized tests aren't fair." You can't take a test? Then what the hell are you doing going to college? You want to go on to higher education, then you need to earn it.

As far as the community service criteria goes, I disagree with that as well. College is for learning, not helping little old ladies cross the street. Too much emphasis is placed on the social aspect of college in this country. Why is someone that spent two years on the high school pep squad more deserving of a college education than a geek who has a perfect GPA, but just didn't feel the school spirit within? Volunteering is great, don't get me wrong. But if I was on a college board of admissions, I'd pick the geek with the 4.0 any day of the week.

[Natoma]

Fred & MrsSkywalker

And therein lies the problem. The two of you have both given conscientious answers, however, you both disagree on what else constitutes non-talent based criteria.

Fred, you consider community service to be an active talent that someone can display. You believe that it shows leadership. MrsSkywalker does not agree however.

Personally, I don't think community service is something that should be factored in, in terms of merit. The reason is that spending 5-10hrs a week at a Senior Citizens' Home doesn't necessarily constitute talent, leadership, et al. Or cleaning up a park, or whatever. I consider community service to be a non-talent factor, such as AA (encompasses gender and race), legacy, financial status, and geographic location.

I criticize legacy only because you have people here that bemoan AA, yet have nothing to say when legacy is mentioned. You don't think Dubya got into Yale because of his grades now do you? It couldn't be because his dad went there, and was a Skull & Bones member, could it? ;)

That was in the 60's. What deserving student lost his spot because of that long-time institution? What deserving students throughout history have lost deserving spots because of blatant favoritism because of legacy? Shouldn't we end that as well as AA?

Financial status and geographic location are other "murky" factors as well. How is one person defined as being a 'better' qualifier because of how much money their parents make? Does a 'poor' student making B's and having a 1400 SAT deserve to be at a university moreso than a 'rich' student making A's and having a 1300 SAT? I mean, it can get pretty messy when you think about.

Geographic location is the same thing. Right now if you're from a rural area, you're given an automatic 'bump' in the ranking system. Does it make it fair to your children MrsSkywalker that they could be beaten out from someone who lives in the middle of Iowa, simply because of where you chose to raise them? That's not fair is it?

As for the standardized testing argument, I agree with you to a point MrsSkywalker. I agree that standardized testing is a good thing in theory. However, in practice what I've found happen is that many schools begin gearing their curriculums around the test, so they can receive better funding with higher scores, or better computer equipment, etc etc etc. So instead of learning for learnings sake, such as my education was, it becomes a directed effort that negates many of the other 'non-essential' factors of an education, like the humanities. How can you test that?

That's the main reason I'm against the wanton spread of standardized testing. We have yet to come up with a formula to propagate its spread without harming the fringe educational portions of a curriculum that have no 'test' value.

Anyways, in short, I believe that in a worst case scenario, AA's influence (race and gender inclusive) should be lessened so that it affects college entrance requirements as much as legacy and geographic location does. Right now I believe, at least in the Michigan case, it counts for more than those two, which I don't think is right.

In a best case scenario, everything that is not talent based should not be included. That means no legacy, no geographic location, no race, no gender, no financial status. Just grades with respect to your graduating class and your community, SAT scores, ACT scores, AP's, musical ability, athletic ability, and anything else I might have missed.

I believe it should be all or nothing. Because frankly you can find a modicum of 'unfairness' in any of the non-talent based factors that go into the college admissions process.

[Sharkfood]

Those are singular instances.

So how many "singular instances" does it take? It happens in the 1000's regularly out here on the west coast.

And if they said "We have to fulfill our minority requirement" then they can be sued, and rightfully so.

The Regents of the University of California would state this very clearly from the mid 80's through the mid 90's. It was stated to me directly as well.

Taking the University of California to court isn't going to help a student get into said universities. It's also a well known fact that students trying to get into college aren't exactly of financial capabilities to take these kinds of outfits to court. The few that have tried have failed due to poor funding.

AA is not about quotas. It's about giving weight to racial factors

This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. Giving weight to racial factors IS the same thing as quotas. It dictates that if you have X number of slots to accept, you skim off talent/requirements based on race, which then floats a lesser qualified number into the pool. As the pool of students greatly exceeds the number of seats available, they HAVE to impose quotas else the AA folks will scratch their heads why there wasnt a greater number of minority students accepted in regions with lesser quantities of minority students.

All are non-talent based factors. But the thing is, should other non-talent based factors weigh in as well? Things like community service? Or should only talent-factors be decided upon?

Community service IS a talent-factor. It's something that is available to all races, genders and creeds. It's a personal accomplishment that has no racial barriers. I don't see how doing homeless shelter mission work or community service can be argued as being a non-talent factor. Even physically handicapped people can perform community service.

The point is- AA has run rampant in California and Prop 209 was the first attempt to try and restore order. The voters spoke and this voter's intention law may be over-turned by AA special interest groups.

[Natoma]

Those are singular instances.

So how many "singular instances" does it take? It happens in the 1000's regularly out here on the west coast.

Do you have evidence to back up those numbers?


AA is not about quotas. It's about giving weight to racial factors

This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever heard. Giving weight to racial factors IS the same thing as quotas. It dictates that if you have X number of slots to accept, you skim off talent/requirements based on race, which then floats a lesser qualified number into the pool. As the pool of students greatly exceeds the number of seats available, they HAVE to impose quotas else the AA folks will scratch their heads why there wasnt a greater number of minority students accepted in regions with lesser quantities of minority students.

Uhm, no. Quotas = We need to accept a certain percentage to meet our minimum requirements.

Most schools I know have a point scale and you have to reach a certain point standard to be eligible for acceptance. You get points for SAT scores, AP classes, grades, race, gender, legacy, geographic location, financial status, good application essay, etc etc etc.

That scale most certainly does not equal quotas.

All are non-talent based factors. But the thing is, should other non-talent based factors weigh in as well? Things like community service? Or should only talent-factors be decided upon?

Community service IS a talent-factor. It's something that is available to all races, genders and creeds. It's a personal accomplishment that has no racial barriers. I don't see how doing homeless shelter mission work or community service can be argued as being a non-talent factor. Even physically handicapped people can perform community service.

How is community service a talent-factor? You don't have to have any talent to perform community service. Any joe schmoe can do it. Performance takes talent (dance, music, etc). Sports takes talent. Good grades takes talent. How does community service fit into that criteria?

Learning how to operate Windows is a personal accomplishment. Does that mean it should count on your application? ;)

The point is- AA has run rampant in California and Prop 209 was the first attempt to try and restore order. The voters spoke and this voter's intention law may be over-turned by AA special interest groups.

Frankly as I stated above, I think that *all* non-talent based factors should be done away with, or none of them. You simply cannot say "Well this one is not fair, so we'll get rid of it. This one is also not fair, but we'll keep it." That's what I call hypocritical. Not saying that you are hypocritical, but some I've listened to on this topic certainly have been.

Read my above post for clarification.

[Sharkfood]

Do you have evidence to back up those numbers?

It's common knowledge. And yes, there is plenty of evidence if you do a little research on Prop 209 and it's foundation here in California. I just dont have time to dig up all the bazillion of cases which are readily available if you so care to research the issue. Prop 209 has luckily helped curb some of this, but not all of it.

Most schools I know have a point scale and you have to reach a certain point standard to be eligible for acceptance. You get points for SAT scores, AP classes, grades, race, gender, legacy, geographic location, financial status, good application essay, etc etc etc.

I wouldn't have as much a beef with such a "point-scale" system as you have described. You can rest assured this isn't anything like the scale that was used by U.C. from the mid 80's to mid 90's.

How is community service a talent-factor? You don't have to have any talent to perform community service. Any joe schmoe can do it. Performance takes talent (dance, music, etc). Sports takes talent. Good grades takes talent. How does community service fit into that criteria?

Perhaps what is considered "talent" is the source of our disagreement (or possibly agreement in this case). I don't look at sports, dance, music and the like as "talent" and also do not believe such things such be proper heuristics for an applicants feasibility to move on to higher education.

The moment one places a "talent" scale on dance, football/hockey, playing a musical instrument, etc.etc. is the same day people are creating the image that a quadriplegic is talentless or otherwise less fit to study higher science, language or literature.