4 ms·

I think the correct move here is not to go full-on "merit-based access", but change the affirmative action to be based on socio-economic status. Boom, you just

I think the correct move here is not to go full-on "merit-based access", but change the affirmative action to be based on socio-economic status. Boom, you just solved the issue the race-based AA was claiming to address, but by going directly to the source of the problem (socio-economic inequality). I am not saying this out of some abstract concern about asian kids with perfect scores failing to get admitted to Harvard. While that's definitely a problem, imagine how much more difficult it is for asian kids from poor socio-economic backgrounds to get literally into any decent college. They dont have the socio-economic advantage of upper-middle class asian kids, but have all the disadvantages of coming from a poor family AND then get shafted by race-based affirmative action on top of that. This is just plain disgusting in my eyes. I realize that this approach might fail to address everything perfectly, but it is better than race-based AA on literally every single measurable metric. So we might as well switch to that, while in search of a "perfect" solution.

adastra22 4y ago
That already exists. Universities have quotas for a certain number of poor kids and/or first generation college applicants. Race-based affirmative action is a separate category of discrimination.
r00fus 4y ago
While I mostly agree - can't this be gamed (see what people do to qualify for MediCAL in CA), though?
- filoleg 4y ago
  Maybe some tiny percentage of wealthy can game it, i honestly dont know much about MediCAL to addres it directly. However, I would much rather have a tiny percentage of wealthy game it, than a much larger number of poor people of the "wrong race" getting shafted and another number of wealthy people of the "right race" "gaming" it. Because race is pretty deterministic, you don't need to game anything. Poor people of "wrong races" get hurt by the current AA system heavily. While under AA based on socio-economic status, at least the poor won't get screwed over.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I think the correct move here is not to go full-on "merit-based access", but change the affirmative action to be based on socio-economic status. Boom, you just solved the issue the race-based AA was claiming to address, but by going directly to the source of the problem (socio-economic inequality). Also move the efforts down the prestige ladder. Affirmative action at Harvard does diddly-squat do address anything except allow Harvard to signal its own virtue. Society would be much better served to take a large fraction of Harvard's endowment, and use it to send disadvantaged kids to state land-grant colleges. You could help a lot more of them, and they'd be less likely to flame out to do culture clash and/or relative lack of preparation.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
"socio-economic status" means nothing. This is so often used after race (discrimination) apparently is no longer a good argument "yeah but it's socio-economic". It's not falsifiable and therefore it should be dismissed as an argument. If you mean poor, say poor.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > if you mean poor, say poor I literally said "poor" in my example in the second paragraph. Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-and-asian-based affirmative action", so i dont see why you have an issue with me not calling it "poor-based affirmative action". It is a sliding scale, with all groups within it having different weights attached. So calling it "poor-based affirmative action" makes zero sense to me. The weight is decided based on the socio-economic status, hence why we refer to it this way.
  - AnonCoward42 4y ago
    > Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-and-asian-based affirmative action", so i dont see why you have an issue with me not calling it "poor-based affirmative action". It is a sliding scale, with all groups within it having different weights attached. So calling it "poor-based affirmative action" makes zero sense to me. In total: One can make up the groups ... and the weights. It's completely arbitrary. That's why socio-economic is closer to astrology than a clearly defined term. Sure, you can make up cool calculations (with statistics even!), but it does not mean anything.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      Would that make my definition clearer and less arbitrary, if i said that by "socioeconomic status", in this specific scenario, I am referring to where you fall on the spectrum of "your family's income + savings"?

adastra22 4y ago

That already exists. Universities have quotas for a certain number of poor kids and/or first generation college applicants. Race-based affirmative action is a separate category of discrimination.

r00fus 4y ago

While I mostly agree - can't this be gamed (see what people do to qualify for MediCAL in CA), though?

filoleg 4y ago
Maybe some tiny percentage of wealthy can game it, i honestly dont know much about MediCAL to addres it directly. However, I would much rather have a tiny percentage of wealthy game it, than a much larger number of poor people of the "wrong race" getting shafted and another number of wealthy people of the "right race" "gaming" it. Because race is pretty deterministic, you don't need to game anything. Poor people of "wrong races" get hurt by the current AA system heavily. While under AA based on socio-economic status, at least the poor won't get screwed over.

tablespoon 4y ago

> I think the correct move here is not to go full-on "merit-based access", but change the affirmative action to be based on socio-economic status. Boom, you just solved the issue the race-based AA was claiming to address, but by going directly to the source of the problem (socio-economic inequality). Also move the efforts down the prestige ladder. Affirmative action at Harvard does diddly-squat do address anything except allow Harvard to signal its own virtue. Society would be much better served to take a large fraction of Harvard's endowment, and use it to send disadvantaged kids to state land-grant colleges. You could help a lot more of them, and they'd be less likely to flame out to do culture clash and/or relative lack of preparation.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

"socio-economic status" means nothing. This is so often used after race (discrimination) apparently is no longer a good argument "yeah but it's socio-economic". It's not falsifiable and therefore it should be dismissed as an argument. If you mean poor, say poor.

filoleg 4y ago
> if you mean poor, say poor I literally said "poor" in my example in the second paragraph. Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-and-asian-based affirmative action", so i dont see why you have an issue with me not calling it "poor-based affirmative action". It is a sliding scale, with all groups within it having different weights attached. So calling it "poor-based affirmative action" makes zero sense to me. The weight is decided based on the socio-economic status, hence why we refer to it this way.
- AnonCoward42 4y ago
  > Also, "socio-economic status" is a spectrum between poor and wealthy, including all of them. Just like "race" includes all races. We don't call it "non-white-and-asian-based affirmative action", so i dont see why you have an issue with me not calling it "poor-based affirmative action". It is a sliding scale, with all groups within it having different weights attached. So calling it "poor-based affirmative action" makes zero sense to me. In total: One can make up the groups ... and the weights. It's completely arbitrary. That's why socio-economic is closer to astrology than a clearly defined term. Sure, you can make up cool calculations (with statistics even!), but it does not mean anything.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    Would that make my definition clearer and less arbitrary, if i said that by "socioeconomic status", in this specific scenario, I am referring to where you fall on the spectrum of "your family's income + savings"?