4 ms·

Come on guys. Let's imagine a hypothetical situation where blacks are dumber than anyone else. Blacks are ALREADY at the bottom of the socio-economic classes, t

by jeb 16y ago

Come on guys. Let's imagine a hypothetical situation where blacks are dumber than anyone else. Blacks are ALREADY at the bottom of the socio-economic classes, they are already responsible for a majority of crime, what EXACTLY do you think would be the result of a fair admission process? These people who are at the bottom will stay even more firmly entrenched at the bottom, will commit more crime and continue to justify the stereotypes. If you believe that blacks are dumber than anyone else (like the linked article), then you have to support affirmative action, otherwise you are setting up a society segregated by intelligence, which will also directly correspond to skin color. So blacks will always be at the bottom, and people of black skin will automatically fall into that category with very little chance of getting out, even if they are clever, as there will be many people justifying the opposite stereotype. Imagine all colleges had 5% less space for students. That's the only effect of affirmative action. If you want to campaign for something, then campaign that 5% more students should be taken in - one for every student who got in as a result of affirmative action. That's a win-win.

patio11 16y ago
Imagine all colleges had 5% less space for students. That's the only effect of affirmative action. It isn't, for the same reason that having one drinking fountain in twenty marked Whites Only has salience far in excess of a 5% decrease in the supply of drinking fountains.
- jeb 16y ago
  So what you are saying is that discriminating in some way has a strong effect on the perception of society in general? Yes, there is this theoretical moral debate about what is right and what is wrong, but the real effect of doing what you say is right, would result in universities of only asians and whites, and the blacks mostly doing manual labour. Is THAT right?
  - patio11 16y ago
    Affirmative action matters for the most selective colleges in the United States but very little for your average state school, where there is little to no selection pressure. (It is the public policy of the United States that you can get a tertiary degree -- and we will pay for it -- if you have a pulse.) There are many doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc etc, who do not have a degree from Harvard/MIT/etc. The hypothetical, exaggerated dystopian universe in which the most selective ~25 institutions drop to ~2% black doesn't resemble an Orwell novel.
    - jeb 16y ago
      So your solution is that these best colleges in the U.S, which select based on criteria OTHER than scores, should stop selecting based on race, but should select based on other factors? So it's okay to select mid western people, because they are different from new york people, but it's not okay to select black over white? Those picky schools mix and match to have a wide array of people. They don't just use scores. If they did, there would be a lot of chinese immigrants and russians jews in there. The difference between two people because of their geographical distance is as great as the difference because of their race.
    - hga 16y ago
      Affirmative action and the problems discovered by this study don't matter much for MIT. MIT almost certainly wasn't part of the study, doesn't discriminate against Asians, recruits white working class men from the Midwest when they're underrepresented (and takes into account people's lack of opportunities in general). It probably doesn't discriminate against Christians, those who were in JROTC or farming organizations (I may have too little data to be sure about these categories). MIT's big advantages have to stem from it being a less intense version of CalTech WRT math and physics. It simply can't afford to admit anyone who can't do the work (and there's a lot of self-selection in the applicant pool), doesn't do much with legacies (once again, they have to be able to do the work) and doesn't take many students from "fancy prep schools". So it's got lots of room for these students who are heavily discriminated against by the other elite schools in the nation. And for science, at least, CalTech and MIT really have to make a big difference for those students. Everything in those fields depends on professor recommendations (getting into a good grad school and what you do after getting your Ph.D. and postdoc(s)). No matter how good you are, if your recommendations are from professors the targets have never heard of, you're ... not in a good posture.

by jeb 16y ago

patio11 16y ago

Imagine all colleges had 5% less space for students. That's the only effect of affirmative action. It isn't, for the same reason that having one drinking fountain in twenty marked Whites Only has salience far in excess of a 5% decrease in the supply of drinking fountains.

jeb 16y ago
So what you are saying is that discriminating in some way has a strong effect on the perception of society in general? Yes, there is this theoretical moral debate about what is right and what is wrong, but the real effect of doing what you say is right, would result in universities of only asians and whites, and the blacks mostly doing manual labour. Is THAT right?
- patio11 16y ago
  Affirmative action matters for the most selective colleges in the United States but very little for your average state school, where there is little to no selection pressure. (It is the public policy of the United States that you can get a tertiary degree -- and we will pay for it -- if you have a pulse.) There are many doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc etc, who do not have a degree from Harvard/MIT/etc. The hypothetical, exaggerated dystopian universe in which the most selective ~25 institutions drop to ~2% black doesn't resemble an Orwell novel.
  - jeb 16y ago
    So your solution is that these best colleges in the U.S, which select based on criteria OTHER than scores, should stop selecting based on race, but should select based on other factors? So it's okay to select mid western people, because they are different from new york people, but it's not okay to select black over white? Those picky schools mix and match to have a wide array of people. They don't just use scores. If they did, there would be a lot of chinese immigrants and russians jews in there. The difference between two people because of their geographical distance is as great as the difference because of their race.
  - hga 16y ago
    Affirmative action and the problems discovered by this study don't matter much for MIT. MIT almost certainly wasn't part of the study, doesn't discriminate against Asians, recruits white working class men from the Midwest when they're underrepresented (and takes into account people's lack of opportunities in general). It probably doesn't discriminate against Christians, those who were in JROTC or farming organizations (I may have too little data to be sure about these categories). MIT's big advantages have to stem from it being a less intense version of CalTech WRT math and physics. It simply can't afford to admit anyone who can't do the work (and there's a lot of self-selection in the applicant pool), doesn't do much with legacies (once again, they have to be able to do the work) and doesn't take many students from "fancy prep schools". So it's got lots of room for these students who are heavily discriminated against by the other elite schools in the nation. And for science, at least, CalTech and MIT really have to make a big difference for those students. Everything in those fields depends on professor recommendations (getting into a good grad school and what you do after getting your Ph.D. and postdoc(s)). No matter how good you are, if your recommendations are from professors the targets have never heard of, you're ... not in a good posture.