Do I dare: Afirmative Action revisited

[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?source...e=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.