7 ms·
> They just revised it a bit and gave it a new name. Asians are a minority but out-score whites. So, if you were responsible for assigning an adversity score:
by _Nat_ 7y ago
> They just revised it a bit and gave it a new name.
Asians are a minority but out-score whites. So, if you were responsible for assigning an adversity score:
1. Would you say that Asians should get a lower score (since they tend to do better) or a higher score (since they're a minority)?
2. How much of an income difference between an Asian student's family and a white student's family to result in the same score?
If you choose to penalize Asian individuals for their racial group doing better on average, how could you justify this to Asians who feel discriminated against? What would you say when they point out that you're penalizing them compared to white people despite being historically discriminated against?
If you choose to penalize white individuals despite their racial group doing poorer on average, how could you justify this to whites who feel discriminated against? What would you say when they point out that your system increases, rather than decreases, racial gaps in colleges?
To be clear, I agree with you -- this revised system has many of the same problems as the original proposal. But, now some of these tough questions aren't on their shoulders.
- gnopgnip 7y agoIt is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome
- scoobyyabbadoo 7y agoThat's not how diversity success metrics are reported though. It's said to be a travesty if half the number of women as men choose a STEM major
- fromthestart 7y agoWell, no, and here is the Crux of the issue with affirmative action, and possibly one of the strongest base drivers of the cleavage between the American left approach to race and equality, and the American right approach to the same. These policies attempt to achieve equality of outcome based on the implicit presumption that given equality of opportunity outcomes will be equal among various demographics. Thus any systematic inequalities are, without much in the way of hard evidence (a limitation of the related fields of psychology, economics, and the like) immediately explained by uncompetitive social norms of successful groups, i.e. racism/discrimination - unlocking the justification for penalizing those on top to equalize outcomes for those on the bottom. The result of this implicit and fundamentally unproven assumption is the conflation of equality of outcome with equality of opportunity by the modern American left. This is a point of consternation for those near the center and leaning right primarily because it punishes success without allowing for the possibility of personal/internal explanations for discrepancies, i.e. cultural factors independent of poverty which limit economic success, and/or things like proven heritability of intelligence. Further, one could argue that such a conflation optimizes economic equality over merit, which is probably worse for society overall.
- Excel_Wizard 7y agoWhen you allow the most competent people to rise to positions fitting their competence, they can create wealth for everyone.
- awakeasleep 7y agoThey can do whatever they want to do and can get away with.
- ralusek 7y agoI have said this for years. Asians, particularly Asian males, are the only racial group in America subject to overt policies meant to disadvantage them on the basis of their race, and nobody cares. Asian immigrants to the US tend to embody more than any ethnic group precisely the characteristics that are supposed to constitute America. Meanwhile we're playing games of trying to tease out how implicit bias might be impacting XYZ, or taking population outcomes as evidence of systemic bias impacting other groups, when disadvantages put on Asian individuals are explicitly laid out as systemic and on the basis of their race.
- jimbob45 7y agoMeh. Happens to us white males too. Adversity makes us stronger or something.
- usrlocaletc 7y agoI recall the pleasure of riding a slow, long school bus meandering around the city for 3 hours a day for 4 school years because there were "too many whites/Asians" at a school on the same block where I lived. Gotta love bureaucratically-proscribed "equality of outcome" policies foisting inequity of treatment externalities onto individuals based on their race. Definitely not racism, because racism can't happen to white males due to the celebration of the hierarchy of victimhood, right?
- cheriot 7y ago> Asian males, are the only racial group in America subject to overt policies meant to disadvantage them on the basis of their race I'd recommend reading The Color of Law, https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten...
- ralusek 7y agoRedlining has been illegal for 50 years. I'm aware of historical policies.
- hanniabu 7y agoWhy do we need to penalize or give special treatment based on race? Why is race even a metric?
- beering 7y agoBecause they understand that many students are disadvantaged or advantaged based on race. Affirmative action is meant to counter that.
- pkaye 7y agoWouldn't parents income be a good proxy for a disadvantaged background for college education purposes?
- defertoreptar 7y agoThis unfairly penalizes students whose parents recently came into money. Early education is important, and it is unfortunately often the case that parents who work hard to become successful financially don't have as much time and energy to put into their children. Such children may be disadvantaged during critical years and now have the additional challenge of being penalized for their parents now being wealthy.
- pkaye 7y agoSo the parents could provide N years of tax records showing they recently got money.
- ivnubinas 7y agoWhat about measuring wealth and education quality instead of race? If I'm a rich black/latino I have more advantages than a poor Asian/White/Jew student. By the way, I know it shouldn't matter but I'm latino (Dominican). Looks like nowadays you have to have an specific race to have an opinion.
- 7y ago
- nradov 7y agoSince race is merely a social construct with no consistent objective basis, smart applicants should check whichever box gives them the most bonus points at that particular school. It's not lying. Or if they're uncomfortable with that, just leave it blank.
- tdb7893 7y agoInterestingly I've seen the question often as "which do you identify as", which you can definitely lie on. If I said something like "Asian" instead of "Caucasian" it would definitely be lying because I don't actually identify as Asian.
- noarchy 7y ago> If I said something like "Asian" instead of "Caucasian" it would definitely be lying because I don't actually identify as Asian. What if you did that day? Is there a need for a long term self-identification to qualify as the minority of your choosing?
- prewett 7y agoThe question as commonly understood is asking about your family geographical/cultural heritage. Your family heritage is constant. So unless new information has come to light recently or you're really confused about your heritage, I don't think it makes sense to be changing your ethnicity/race on a daily basis. One could feel Asian because you're in a Chinese immersion program speaking Chinese 24/7, but if you don't have any ancestors from Asia more recent than Ghengis Khan, you can't really self-identify as Asian for the purposes of the question as commonly understood. It's not like one's family heritage changes if one's circumstances change.
- nradov 7y agoThere is no such common understanding. Everyone has their own subjective understanding of such questions. Who are we to judge whether they're right or wrong. Please justify your assertion that self identification of being Asian should be cut off based on ancestry at 1227. It seems awfully arbitrary. Do you actually have a logical reason for picking that year, or are you just making things up to suit your own preferences?
- BubRoss 7y agoIt was an adversity score, not a diversity score.