If they predict performance well, why should we ignore them?
How else do we judge individuals we really don’t know?
Tests may suck, but the good old boy network would be way worse.
You have a very narrow understanding of affirmative action. It’s not just differing standards in educational settings, it also involves outreach, awareness campaigns, tutoring, etc. etc…
Second, you make the mistake of assuming the standards we set are effective in measuring competence, rather than just a means to justify rationing. The reality is a school like Harvard can nearly fill their incoming class with valedictorians. They can fill it with rich expats, or Asian-Americans. The reason they don’t is because a commitment to diversity has benefits in and of itself, and because there are diminished returns once an individual exceeds a minimum level of competency. In fact, I would argue that having such an unjustifiable barrier to entry does more harm than good.
Third, even if a woman, or minority gets into an elite institution via affirmative action (instead of someone “more qualified”), they still have to do well once they get there. They don’t get passed up the chain if they can’t perform.
Ahhh…the old diversity is good because everyone is different…yet wait…we arent different…what was the point again? conundrum…
Until they are quota hired by some company or government agency of course.
I echo billfish678’s skepticism above. Also, as a student in an “elite institution,” I can assure you that nobody fails to get passed up the chain, whatever their level of competence. They may not score As, but the minimal level of performance needed to graduate is as low as that in state schools. In addition, studies have shown that non-Asian minorities admitted under preference systems are in fact overrepresented in the bottom deciles of their class, and this appears once again in graduate and professional schools such as law schools. Clearly as a group they do not perform better than their scores indicate, or at any rate not enough to justify giving them a boost of that magnitude. The only reason that such large bonuses are needed are to maintain an soft quota for each race that makes administrative officials look good and protect them against charges of racism.
When did anyone say we were all the same?
Yes, because that happens all the time, and is the most likely outcome. :dubious:
Got any proof of that?
Even if you are right, the real question is, are they worse practitioners once they graduate? Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Do their grades test scores mean they will be inferior doctors, lawyers, etc?
We’ve had this discussion before, and it’s a pretty futile exercise when any difference in outcome is ascribed to “subtle racism that I don’t have to prove exists.” It would probably be more productive to get back to the OP.
What drives me nuts is the meme that SATs and other tests have subtle cultural and racial biases for black people born in the US. Somehow a kid born in a village in India or China, who came to the US when he was little speaking no English, and whose background is based on a completely different set of religious and philosophical thought, is not affected as much.
30 years ago I sat for several years on a medical school admissions committee as a faculty member. We worked very hard to admit underrepresented minorities–particularly blacks. The standards for admitting them were (and still are) hugely lower than whites and asians; this has not changed in the past 25 years, and I’ve posted those score differences elsewhere.
I don’t think whites are “ineffably infuriated” about this except to the extent that the standards are so much lower for blacks–it’s not a small margin–and pretty much nothing but color is the consideration. If you are an underrepresented minority you will get in with far lower qualifications, even if you are from a wealthier background and went to a better school, giving you advantages in both areas in terms of opportunity.
It is that part which grates on folks. It isn’t the idea that a truly disadvantaged individual with lower scores gets in in front of them…
I nevertheless support race-based AA and quotas. I do not find it unreasonable that the concept annoys some people.
If you are in the position of fighting AA, then I’d say that you need to strongly sell it as a “black thing”. There is no question in my mind that this will only help your position.
Well, no.
If, on the basis of AA, under-represented cohorts gain acceptance to college, they continue to be eligible 4 years later for lowered standards for graduate or law or medical school. And if, 4 years later again (in the case of med school) they are looking for a residency, they will find again that the standards are lowered for them.
And should they go out and compete in the market place, they will find once again that (large corporations, at least) make very specific outreach efforts which put them in front of their competitors.
It’s not as if once the playing field has been leveled, the performance standards are equalized from that point on. They are not.
It’s gonna be a lot more difficult to accomplish, but I would recommend the fighters of “national public health care” in America to do the same.
There is nothing that would help their cause more then to say that it is for “the blacks” and the poor.
My theory is that nurture and nature combine to produce outcomes, and where nurture is equivalent, nature is left as the explanation. To date, no amount of nurturing efforts have enabled black/white/asian performances to be equalized, whether the metric is sports or math.
I’m not sure which scientists you are referring to when it comes to comparing large populations.
Is it the case that you would posit that the Inuit, given equal nurture, would compete on par with the Kalenji in the sport of long-distance running? I want to start with a simple example such as that. If I can’t convince you of that, I don’t see much point in trying anything else. I’m basically testing to see how firm your commitment is that two human populations cannot be genetically different.
I would like to stay away from rhetoric such as “defective.” Sure; if I were looking only at running, the Inuit would be “defective” but I’d rather stick with the science of it for now and leave the inflammatory remarks alone.
Hey, sorry I forgot about this request. Here you go. Always happy to fight some ignorance!