6 ms·

No it shouldn't, but as a society we seem to want it to so it does. Sowell has an interesting take on AA and believes it actually does more harm than good beca

by dcow 5y ago

No it shouldn't, but as a society we seem to want it to so it does. Sowell has an interesting take on AA and believes it actually does more harm than good because it pits those subject to it against scenarios they have not been prepared to handle and thus in turn results in over-stress, higher rates of failure, and ultimately disillusionment.

dcow 5y ago
The means at which we arrive upon AA is even suspect: A: We want equality, why are white people successful? B: Clearly because they went to a good college. C: Okay easy, let’s put the underprivileged into good colleges, that should fix ‘er right up. It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates. Maybe it has something to do with, IDK, the fact that they’re under served and underprivileged? Maybe primary education is a more important factor than the name at the top of your college transcript? Maybe good communities produce outstanding colleges and universities, not the other way around? Yet we can’t seem to spend money on primary education or figure out how to help struggling communities. Why is that?
- gjhh244 5y ago
  Exactly. From an European perspective America's obsession with race seems absolutely idiotic. Progressive taxation and major help for poor communities and families regardless of skin colour is obviously the only sensible solution.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Racial groups are used as vote banks by the two major parties - that's all there is to it. It has nothing to with wanting to help the poor or improve social cohesion, rather the opposite. A divided society is great for the most incompetent politicians since it provides them an easy way to whip up their constituents against other groups and fish for more votes.
    - washadjeffmad 5y ago
      So change FPTP to ranked choice and end the age of American extremism.
      - whythre 5y ago
        Unfortunately the two parties that hold the reigns of power only stand to lose from such a system... so it isn’t gonna happen.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    You might not be aware of this, but taxation in the US is much more progressive than it is in Europe.
  - curryst 5y ago
    As an American, I think it's because the treatments for racism are far cheaper and more tolerable than the treatments for poverty. Minorities were kept out of any opportunity to create generational wealth for a long time, due to racism. The problem we need to solve to reverse that is deprivation of generational wealth for decades, not racism from 60 years ago. We don't want to talk about that, though, because most of the solutions end up looking like wealth redistribution. There isn't a way to cheat poverty that I've seen. You either have enough money or you don't, and the only way out is to have enough money. That's not to say that racism isn't a problem; it is, and we should fix it. It's not going to magically solve problems like graduation rates and income gaps, however.
    - dcow 5y ago
      You could start by closing tax loopholes or introducing a corporate community/education support tax. We leak a lot of wealth IMO that could be captured and distributed to those in need but we don’t because we live in a corrupt society that’s lost it’s backbone. The supposition we’re exploring in this sub-thread is that AA is not actually a treatment for racism and more of a signal of virtue collectively by society. Real treatment would be to do the expensive and disruptive thing, yes.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Sociologists or whatever correlate good outcome with education. 90% of rich people went to college, therefore college good. That’s true, but one dimensional. I coach little league, and have been following a group of now ten year olds since 2016 or so. They are all awesome, but the cracks that come from family life and environment are starting to show up. I fear for a few of them.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates. The same people who are seeking equity in college are seeking it in high school and elementary school and preschool. The same opponents and arguments come out against them at all of these phases. I have personal experience with this work in both the elementary school and high school levels. What you are saying here is simply false.
  - username90 5y ago
    So why is affirmative action still needed at college level if they get so much help in all the years before?
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      They don't get "so much help" in all the years before because of the same forces that resist change at later ages. My family got a lot of hatred and resistance for just pushing back on the idea that it was okay that many of the schools (you can guess which ones) in our district simply never sent a single application to the 3rd grade GT system because their principals didn't believe that any application would ever succeed. They were wrong, of course.
      - username90 5y ago
        So why not fix that problem? You can't make up 12 lost years beginning at College, putting them to compete with people who are that far ahead will just make everyone feel those people are stupid even if it isn't true.
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        People are trying but facing resistance from the same people who resist it at higher ages. We can’t “just fix that” because any discussion of social equity in education brings out active resistance and even death threats.
maroonblazer 5y ago
I thought AA meant that, when given two equally qualified applicants, where one is caucasian and the other is a minority, the seat should go to the minority. In light of that, Sowell's take makes no sense.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > given two equally qualified applicants I wonder if that push toward diminishing the impact of measurable, standardized testing isn't an attempts at generating more "equally qualified applicants"
  - dcow 5y ago
    Wonder no more. It very explicitly is. Here’s the “logic”: If we give a standardized test to a random selection of people and then look at the results and add a racial overlay, white people (allegedly) disproportionately succeed. Therefore the test itself is racist. It is an unwanted artifact that encodes the privileged (alleged) majority’s innate biases and confers structural racism upon future generations. These artifacts must be purged. This is the way. Let’s concede for a moment the definition of structural racism and agree it’s worth addressing in the admissions process. The problem then is not the desire to address the perceived oppression, but rather the conclusion that we should just tear down the racist institution without a viable replacement on hand. If we tear down pillars of rational society (or, western liberalism), then what remains is not ideologically consistent.
  - curryst 5y ago
    There are complaints that standardize testing isn't equal. Basically that some portions of the testing reflect white culture, which puts minorities at a disadvantage. I read the article a while back, but one of the examples they gave was the choice of words to test on the SAT. One of the questions was asking for a synonym for "armoire". The article posited that that term was far more likely to be recognized by white students because their family was more likely to actually own one, and further to refer it to as an armoire instead of simply a wardrobe or cabinets. I think there was another question that involved boats that was similar. I think the article also noted that in many cases, the questions really discriminated more against poverty than race. Race gets dragged in because people of color are drastically overrepresented in poverty, so anything impacted by poverty will also show an effect along racial boundaries (at least when aggregated). The underlying question is whether the score boost you get from being born into a high enough social class to have wide exposure to things like that actually makes you more qualified or not. It certainly boosts your test scores, but does knowing what an armoire is actually make you more qualified, or does it just keep poor people out?

by dcow 5y ago

dcow 5y ago

The means at which we arrive upon AA is even suspect: A: We want equality, why are white people successful? B: Clearly because they went to a good college. C: Okay easy, let’s put the underprivileged into good colleges, that should fix ‘er right up. It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates. Maybe it has something to do with, IDK, the fact that they’re under served and underprivileged? Maybe primary education is a more important factor than the name at the top of your college transcript? Maybe good communities produce outstanding colleges and universities, not the other way around? Yet we can’t seem to spend money on primary education or figure out how to help struggling communities. Why is that?

gjhh244 5y ago
Exactly. From an European perspective America's obsession with race seems absolutely idiotic. Progressive taxation and major help for poor communities and families regardless of skin colour is obviously the only sensible solution.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Racial groups are used as vote banks by the two major parties - that's all there is to it. It has nothing to with wanting to help the poor or improve social cohesion, rather the opposite. A divided society is great for the most incompetent politicians since it provides them an easy way to whip up their constituents against other groups and fish for more votes.
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    So change FPTP to ranked choice and end the age of American extremism.
    - whythre 5y ago
      Unfortunately the two parties that hold the reigns of power only stand to lose from such a system... so it isn’t gonna happen.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  You might not be aware of this, but taxation in the US is much more progressive than it is in Europe.
- curryst 5y ago
  As an American, I think it's because the treatments for racism are far cheaper and more tolerable than the treatments for poverty. Minorities were kept out of any opportunity to create generational wealth for a long time, due to racism. The problem we need to solve to reverse that is deprivation of generational wealth for decades, not racism from 60 years ago. We don't want to talk about that, though, because most of the solutions end up looking like wealth redistribution. There isn't a way to cheat poverty that I've seen. You either have enough money or you don't, and the only way out is to have enough money. That's not to say that racism isn't a problem; it is, and we should fix it. It's not going to magically solve problems like graduation rates and income gaps, however.
  - dcow 5y ago
    You could start by closing tax loopholes or introducing a corporate community/education support tax. We leak a lot of wealth IMO that could be captured and distributed to those in need but we don’t because we live in a corrupt society that’s lost it’s backbone. The supposition we’re exploring in this sub-thread is that AA is not actually a treatment for racism and more of a signal of virtue collectively by society. Real treatment would be to do the expensive and disruptive thing, yes.
Spooky23 5y ago
Sociologists or whatever correlate good outcome with education. 90% of rich people went to college, therefore college good. That’s true, but one dimensional. I coach little league, and have been following a group of now ten year olds since 2016 or so. They are all awesome, but the cracks that come from family life and environment are starting to show up. I fear for a few of them.
UncleMeat 5y ago
> It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates. The same people who are seeking equity in college are seeking it in high school and elementary school and preschool. The same opponents and arguments come out against them at all of these phases. I have personal experience with this work in both the elementary school and high school levels. What you are saying here is simply false.
- username90 5y ago
  So why is affirmative action still needed at college level if they get so much help in all the years before?
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    They don't get "so much help" in all the years before because of the same forces that resist change at later ages. My family got a lot of hatred and resistance for just pushing back on the idea that it was okay that many of the schools (you can guess which ones) in our district simply never sent a single application to the 3rd grade GT system because their principals didn't believe that any application would ever succeed. They were wrong, of course.
    - username90 5y ago
      So why not fix that problem? You can't make up 12 lost years beginning at College, putting them to compete with people who are that far ahead will just make everyone feel those people are stupid even if it isn't true.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        People are trying but facing resistance from the same people who resist it at higher ages. We can’t “just fix that” because any discussion of social equity in education brings out active resistance and even death threats.

maroonblazer 5y ago

I thought AA meant that, when given two equally qualified applicants, where one is caucasian and the other is a minority, the seat should go to the minority. In light of that, Sowell's take makes no sense.

908B64B197 5y ago
> given two equally qualified applicants I wonder if that push toward diminishing the impact of measurable, standardized testing isn't an attempts at generating more "equally qualified applicants"
- dcow 5y ago
  Wonder no more. It very explicitly is. Here’s the “logic”: If we give a standardized test to a random selection of people and then look at the results and add a racial overlay, white people (allegedly) disproportionately succeed. Therefore the test itself is racist. It is an unwanted artifact that encodes the privileged (alleged) majority’s innate biases and confers structural racism upon future generations. These artifacts must be purged. This is the way. Let’s concede for a moment the definition of structural racism and agree it’s worth addressing in the admissions process. The problem then is not the desire to address the perceived oppression, but rather the conclusion that we should just tear down the racist institution without a viable replacement on hand. If we tear down pillars of rational society (or, western liberalism), then what remains is not ideologically consistent.
- curryst 5y ago
  There are complaints that standardize testing isn't equal. Basically that some portions of the testing reflect white culture, which puts minorities at a disadvantage. I read the article a while back, but one of the examples they gave was the choice of words to test on the SAT. One of the questions was asking for a synonym for "armoire". The article posited that that term was far more likely to be recognized by white students because their family was more likely to actually own one, and further to refer it to as an armoire instead of simply a wardrobe or cabinets. I think there was another question that involved boats that was similar. I think the article also noted that in many cases, the questions really discriminated more against poverty than race. Race gets dragged in because people of color are drastically overrepresented in poverty, so anything impacted by poverty will also show an effect along racial boundaries (at least when aggregated). The underlying question is whether the score boost you get from being born into a high enough social class to have wide exposure to things like that actually makes you more qualified or not. It certainly boosts your test scores, but does knowing what an armoire is actually make you more qualified, or does it just keep poor people out?