Today's SCOTUS ruling - Affirmative Action

[PLATO]

That's great but why give a middle class black kid an upper hand over a poor white kid? Taking socioeconomic status into account is a much better way to help disadvantaged people get into college than race-based affirmative action.

There are benefits to the culture in general, other than the economic opportunity, of everyone receiving a diverse education. However, in many cases the socioeconomic status and race walk hand in hand. Exposing "white" kids to "black" culture has as great a benefit as exposing "black" kids to "white" culture and both of those benefits exceed exposing "poor" kids to "affluent" culture and vice versa...although that in itself does have some merit.

[Ben Kenobi]

It depends. Some people believe that minorities have achieved a level where they no longer need the help of race to get equal consideration and opportunity. That is not racism.

Your analysis revolves around the assumption that all white people are 'privileged'. This is not so.

What about the non-privileged white person? Do they receive any consideration? See, AA amounts to discrimination against these folks, and also against Minorities that have no issues with meeting the standards.

It's not even about hurting just white folks, but AA policies also hurt asian folks too.

If some minorities are having issues meeting the standards, but other minorities (ie, Asians), are not - then doesn't that indicate that the assumption that minorities have disadvantages just for being minorities false?

Secondly, how are you ever going to eliminate the performance gap without having to reach the same standard as everyone else? You aren't. AA is institutionalized racism because it holds one race to a different standard than another. It also ensures that performance gaps instead of being eliminated are retained in perpetuity.

It's also not actually helping minorities. If people know that you didn't have to work as hard to get in and didn't have to work as hard to stay, then your degree is automatically worth less just because of the color of your skin and not your qualities or credentials.

[DaShi]

Your analysis revolves around the assumption that all white people are 'privileged'. This is not so.

What about the non-privileged white person? Do they receive any consideration? See, AA amounts to discrimination against these folks, and also against Minorities that have no issues with meeting the standards.

It's not even about hurting just white folks, but AA policies also hurt asian folks too.

If some minorities are having issues meeting the standards, but other minorities (ie, Asians), are not - then doesn't that indicate that the assumption that minorities have disadvantages just for being minorities false?

Secondly, how are you ever going to eliminate the performance gap without having to reach the same standard as everyone else? You aren't. AA is institutionalized racism because it holds one race to a different standard than another. It also ensures that performance gaps instead of being eliminated are retained in perpetuity.

It's also not actually helping minorities. If people know that you didn't have to work as hard to get in and didn't have to work as hard to stay, then your degree is automatically worth less just because of the color of your skin and not your qualities or credentials.

There's affirmative action for asians too.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, in many cases the socioeconomic status and race walk hand in hand. Exposing "white" kids to "black" culture has as great a benefit as exposing "black" kids to "white" culture and both of those benefits exceed exposing "poor" kids to "affluent" culture and vice versa...although that in itself does have some merit.

How would one measure this purported benefit? How would you be able to prove in an empirical fashion that this is what is actually happening? I get it that you assume and very much want this to happen - but this is a honest question. How do you prove it?

[Ben Kenobi]

There's affirmative action for asians too.

Nope, there isn't. Just the opposite. They get limit quotas placed on them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ivy-league-discriminates-against-asians-2012-12

[snoopy369]

One of the things I think you miss out on in arguing a strict socioeconomic guideline, other than diversity (which works both ways), is that colleges are, while not for-profit (generally), at least somewhat driven to ensure they get enough tuition money from their students as to not go bankrupt or lessen the quality of education. It's all well and good to say 'let in more poor people', but if you let in more poor people explicitly you are explicitly lowering your revenue (as those students must get full scholarships to actually attend, or your program was useless) and either lowering the aid you give to lower middle class students (who also are dependent on significant aid) or lowering the quality of education. Making the argument that you should do that explicitly on the government's behalf is a poor idea, in my opinion, unless the government is going to kick in some cash to cover the difference.

I'd also add that a lot of schools DO select at least in part for socioeconomic diversity, and do offer full rides to poorer students. UChicago for example offers full rides nowadays to a large number of its undergraduates - anybody who falls into the lower middle class or poor categories - and aggressively selects for diversity in all forms, without specifically affirmative action. But it also has a massive endowment; while it's probably the most aggressively diverse school in the Ivy/equivalent group, it certainly has a far easier time doing so than a smaller school or a state school that has 20k+ undergrads. Of course, many state schools _do_ offer full rides to in-state kids; New Mexico for example has the Rainbow (lottery) scholarship for anyone graduating high school in state going to a 4 year college, full tuition and IIRC room+Board+books, as long as you meet certain fairly easy to meet criteria on SATs and GPA.

At the end of the day, though, both of these programs - socioeconomic AA and racial AA - have the same root problem: they don't help people get a better education in order to be ready for college. It's very easy to get into a reasonable state school if you are at all prepared for school, but that 'at all prepared' is where people are tripped up. Fix schools at the primary and secondary level first. That means likely removing the property tax linkage to school funding, or spending more in total on school funding - and people accepting that they really do need to fund schools for kids of different races and socioeconomic statuses than their own in order for society to get the maximum benefit. I'm afraid that's where the real racism lies, not in admissions, and that's going to be much, much harder to solve.

[Guynemer]

That's great but why give a middle class black kid an upper hand over a poor white kid? Taking socioeconomic status into account is a much better way to help disadvantaged people get into college than race-based affirmative action.

A middle-class black kid will still face a number of challenges completely alien to a poor white kid. Vice versa, of course, is also true. I have no idea which one will have fewer opportunities.

[PLATO]

One of the things I think you miss out on in arguing a strict socioeconomic guideline, other than diversity (which works both ways), is that colleges are, while not for-profit (generally), at least somewhat driven to ensure they get enough tuition money from their students as to not go bankrupt or lessen the quality of education. It's all well and good to say 'let in more poor people', but if you let in more poor people explicitly you are explicitly lowering your revenue (as those students must get full scholarships to actually attend, or your program was useless) and either lowering the aid you give to lower middle class students (who also are dependent on significant aid) or lowering the quality of education. Making the argument that you should do that explicitly on the government's behalf is a poor idea, in my opinion, unless the government is going to kick in some cash to cover the difference.

I'd also add that a lot of schools DO select at least in part for socioeconomic diversity, and do offer full rides to poorer students. UChicago for example offers full rides nowadays to a large number of its undergraduates - anybody who falls into the lower middle class or poor categories - and aggressively selects for diversity in all forms, without specifically affirmative action. But it also has a massive endowment; while it's probably the most aggressively diverse school in the Ivy/equivalent group, it certainly has a far easier time doing so than a smaller school or a state school that has 20k+ undergrads. Of course, many state schools _do_ offer full rides to in-state kids; New Mexico for example has the Rainbow (lottery) scholarship for anyone graduating high school in state going to a 4 year college, full tuition and IIRC room+Board+books, as long as you meet certain fairly easy to meet criteria on SATs and GPA.

At the end of the day, though, both of these programs - socioeconomic AA and racial AA - have the same root problem: they don't help people get a better education in order to be ready for college. It's very easy to get into a reasonable state school if you are at all prepared for school, but that 'at all prepared' is where people are tripped up. Fix schools at the primary and secondary level first. That means likely removing the property tax linkage to school funding, or spending more in total on school funding - and people accepting that they really do need to fund schools for kids of different races and socioeconomic statuses than their own in order for society to get the maximum benefit. I'm afraid that's where the real racism lies, not in admissions, and that's going to be much, much harder to solve.

I sincerely regret that I do not have a "Thanks" to give to this post.

Well done.

[Sava]

That's great but why give a middle class black kid an upper hand over a poor white kid? Taking socioeconomic status into account is a much better way to help disadvantaged people get into college than race-based affirmative action.

I've already agreed class is way to go about this than race.

You actually quoted the post where I said "I agree" to that notion (specifically that it is a poor solution).

We should change AA because it's not the best way to go about doing this... but not because AA is some sort of horrible form of "reverse racism".

[Sava]

There's affirmative action for asians too.

Please don't quote his posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

At the end of the day, though, both of these programs - socioeconomic AA and racial AA - have the same root problem: they don't help people get a better education in order to be ready for college. It's very easy to get into a reasonable state school if you are at all prepared for school, but that 'at all prepared' is where people are tripped up. Fix schools at the primary and secondary level first. That means likely removing the property tax linkage to school funding, or spending more in total on school funding - and people accepting that they really do need to fund schools for kids of different races and socioeconomic statuses than their own in order for society to get the maximum benefit. I'm afraid that's where the real racism lies, not in admissions, and that's going to be much, much harder to solve.

You can achieve this goal by instituting school choice. We let people choose the college they want to go to, why don't we let people choose their elementary and secondary school?

If the answer then is that 'underperfoming schools would be forced to close, while excellent schools would expand', isn't that precisely what you want to happen?

You have the right goal but the wrong methods of getting there.

Also there's the taxation and representation. If property tax owners are paying taxes into the schools, then they will have a say as to how the schools are run. You can't really do an end run around this. Collecting the taxes and then removing the people's chance to have a say via the school board is just going to piss everyone off. People live where they do for a reason.

[Sava]

Ben is a proven racist ****face.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't quote his posts.

Sava has spoken you *must* obey!

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is a proven racist ****face.

Adults are trying to have a discussion here.

[Sava]

I didn't read what you said but I'm pretty sure nobody cares.

I'm also sure there's a deaf kid somewhere that needs molesting.

Go away.