Colorado Going Color Blind

[Felch]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But lots of players are at the bottom of the hill, regardless of race. Unless you can specifically state which individuals within a minority race are discriminated against and which aren't, it is inefficient and discriminatory to give advantages to those of a particular race.

This is a valid point. It's not like Oprah and Obama are in need of government assistance.

[Lorizael]

To be fair, Oprah and Obama probably don't receive government assistance due to their race. But there are less absurd examples that still prove the point.

[Felch]

My point is that some black Americans have done all right, to the point where they utterly dominate whites in their respective fields. Besides, this thread isn't even about government assistance.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is well taken.

I would agree in the case of disabled people too. I think all admissions should be done on merit only, if you have the marks you should get in.

I would love to see it where those who could not afford to go received the economic compensation that would help them, but only if they met the exact same standards as everyone else.

There were several scholarships available to disabled students only, and I refused to apply to them. I wanted to earn a scholarship by competing on a level playing field, becuase that is the best source of accomplishment, to know that you managed to overcome all the hurdles to succeed.

I don't see why we should rob talented black people of that sense of accomplishment by lowering admissions standards. If there were no difference, then no one could go to a black person and say that the only reason they got in is because of the colour of their skin.

[Ben Kenobi]

On a side but related note, I find it interesting that race is being associated with minorities in this thread, but women are seldom mentioned.

WRT to university admissions, they make about 60-40. How are they a minority? If anything it's the men who are a minority.

[Felch]

Women are the minority in the prison system.

Come on, ladies. Step it up!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I don't see why we should rob talented black people of that sense of accomplishment by lowering admissions standards. If there were no difference, then no one could go to a black person and say that the only reason they got in is because of the colour of their skin.

If you want to actually discuss this...

The major argument is that people with a poorer academic environment as children, due to socioeconomic factors, are less able to learn than they would have been if they were in a better situation.

However, socioeconomic 'affirmative action' is not entirely about 'making up for past wrongs' or even 'lowering standards'. A lot of these people are just as intelligent, and able to learn, as people with more education; they simply didn't receive as good of an education. (For example, the student who goes to a high school with no AP classes available, so no knowledge of calculus, physics, and only rudimentary chemistry; and a poor understanding of grammar.)

Colleges should be selecting those who are most intelligent, not those who have learned the most, so long as they have learned enough to begin the college (meet minimum standards); and AA is not about lowering the 'minimum' standards, it is about lowering the 'last man in' standard, which is higher than the minimum. That minimum standard should be, simply, you know enough that you will likely not flunk out. I'd argue that socioeconomic 'affirmative action' is actually in the college's best interest, in fact; if you were able to get to (say) 95% of the level of 'richer' students, with a ghetto-level education, doesn't that indicate you are probably pretty darn smart; and once you get to college, you probably will excel beyond those students' abilities. I'd certainly rather take that person, anyway, in my college...

College admissions should certainly not, in any event, be about 'giving people a sense of accomplishment'. It should be about selecting the best minds. Breaking it down to simply GPA and test scores is idiotic, in my mind, which is where that thinking gets you.

[Arrian]

I'd argue that socioeconomic 'affirmative action' is actually in the college's best interest, in fact; if you were able to get to (say) 95% of the level of 'richer' students, with a ghetto-level education, doesn't that indicate you are probably pretty darn smart; and once you get to college, you probably will excel beyond those students' abilities.

Well said.

-Arrian

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
College admissions should certainly not, in any event, be about 'giving people a sense of accomplishment'. It should be about selecting the best minds. Breaking it down to simply GPA and test scores is idiotic, in my mind, which is where that thinking gets you.

How do you select the best minds without some standards like GPA and tests? You could have interviews, but those would favor the socially capable dunces over socially inept wiz-kids. It's a tough problem.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
WRT to university admissions, they make about 60-40. How are they a minority? If anything it's the men who are a minority.

3 a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

...some black Americans have done all right...

So the blacks that can't do "all right" are what? Inherently inferior? Unable to overcome the obstacles in front of them? Failures strictly on an individual level? Subject to cultural differences? Come from disadvantaged backgrounds?

...it is inefficient and discriminatory to give advantages to those of a particular race.

Yes, it is, when all things are equal. A culture of racism still pervades and things are not equal. Affirmative Action attempts to address this lack of balance. I'm all for getting rid of Affirmative Action provided something better takes it's place or when people stop acting racist and sexist.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do want to discuss this, as it has meant a considerable amount to me personally.

I am speaking as someone who is part of a group that tends to get preferential treatment. I refused to take it because I wanted to prove myself on the same level playing field as everyone else.

The major argument is that people with a poorer academic environment as children, due to socioeconomic factors, are less able to learn than they would have been if they were in a better situation.

I could argue that my hearing made it much more difficult for me to actually understand what was being taught and to follow along with my lessons from the very start. I would have been able to learn more if I was in a better situation where I could actually hear.

At some point, people need to stop making excuses, and start taking responsibility for their own education. Yes, there are hurdles, yes it is more difficult, but people can and do overcome them, and it's not because they convince themselves that they are being held back because of their situation.

A lot of these people are just as intelligent, and able to learn, as people with more education; they simply didn't receive as good of an education.

You don't need to tell me that. I believe that these kids are just as smart as anybody else, and don't need the preferential treatment in order to succeed.

(For example, the student who goes to a high school with no AP classes available, so no knowledge of calculus, physics, and only rudimentary chemistry; and a poor understanding of grammar.)

That was very nearly my own fate, my school was the only one north of the lower mainland that offered IB. IB was my ticket out of the normal system, and into something better. I still had teachers telling me I couldn't do it, and I wasn't good enough to make it all the way!

Colleges should be selecting those who are most intelligent, not those who have learned the most, so long as they have learned enough to begin the college (meet minimum standards);

I think the colleges should admit those who do the best on the standardised tests, such as the SATs regardless of who they are, or whether finances will prove difficult. It should scale according to the marks one gets on the test.

That minimum standard should be, simply, you know enough that you will likely not flunk out.

It should be merit only. If you got the marks and the scores you get in. If you don't tough luck.

College admissions should certainly not, in any event, be about 'giving people a sense of accomplishment'. It should be about selecting the best minds. Breaking it down to simply GPA and test scores is idiotic, in my mind, which is where that thinking gets you.

Why is it idiotic? It's an empirical measure of those who have managed to succeed. You are asking that a completely arbitrary of the 'best minds' ought to be preferred to a system that is already colourblind.

I don't think there should be two standards, one for black people, and one for the rest of us, because that has bad consequences for black people over the long term. Don't you see how racist that is because you are basically assuming that black people can't live up to the same standards as everyone else.

I'm sorry, it is important that those who succeed do so on their own merits, not because they happen to be disabled or whatever. You have to understand this from the perspective of someone who's been through. Maybe it isn't important to you, but it was very important to me to go back and say, I did this and got in because I proved myself capable, not because of my disability.

[Ben Kenobi]

3 a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

That's a piss-poor definition. It's a fact that admissions disproportionately admit women. How can they be considered hard done by when a man and a woman of equal ability do not have the same outcomes?

If it were the other way around, say 40-60 I would agree with you, but that's not the case here.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
Yes, it is, when all things are equal.

No. Affirmative action is always inefficient and discriminatory; it's just easier to justify when racism still exists.

I'm all for getting rid of Affirmative Action provided something better takes it's place or when people stop acting racist and sexist.

1. Massive, country-wide reforms to ensure that poor kids can get primary and secondary education as good as rich kids can get.

2. Socio-economic affirmative action so that kids who display intelligence but not education can still receive a good higher education.

3. A culture shift so that poor people can focus more on educating themselves enough to get well-paying jobs than on having children and raising families.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's a piss-poor definition. It's a fact that admissions disproportionately admit women. How can they be considered hard done by when a man and a woman of equal ability do not have the same outcomes?

If it were the other way around, say 40-60 I would agree with you, but that's not the case here.

What's the percentage of PhDs earned by males and by females. What's the average income of a male with a college degree and that of a female with the same degree? Ever heard of something termed a "glass ceiling"? How many female presidents have there been?

[Ben Kenobi]

What's the percentage of PhDs earned by males and by females.

50/50. What's your point?

What's the average income of a male with a college degree and that of a female with the same degree?

On an hourly basis, who makes more?

Ever heard of something termed a "glass ceiling"? How many female presidents have there been?

What does that have to do with the fact that universities disproportionately admit women? Are you saying it's good to discriminate against men, just because they are men? Can't you see how that can be turned around against your own argument?