4 ms·

This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either ta

This is a bit of a misconception that I hear a lot. Affirmative action policies generally fall into one of a few categories, but most policies usually either take race or gender into account for 1) equally qualified candidates (scores and qualifications are the same are almost exactly the same) or 2) qualified candidates where one candidate may perform slightly worse than another (say a student that has a few dozen fewer points on an SAT score compared to another). Affirmative action policies in which an unqualified candidate be selected over a qualified candidate are very rare, if not outright illegal in many places. Keep in mind the limitations of calling an individual qualified or not. In some scenarios, the metrics of qualification do not match the goal of the organization looking to hire or admit a candidate, or the metrics fail to measure other factors that are relevant to a given job or a seat for a student. Generally speaking, affirmative action recognizes these shortcomings, esp. as they originate from systemic problems in society that keep certain groups excluded or in minimal participation in such jobs and schools. Further, most of the issues that affect those that do not get additional consideration due to affirmative action come from outside of affirmative action policies: economic inequality, reduced access to funds to attend school, outsourcing and economic downturns, increasing job automation, the loss of some kinds of consuming manufacturing jobs, de-unionization efforts, etc. Suffice it to say affirmative action policies are useful and are not the overriding problem in keeping people out of work or unable to continue their education. Rather, affirmative action policies are a kind of band aid policy that can be ended when larger social inequalities are reduced or fixed entirely.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Your contention about AA policies is simply false. The boost given to minorities is typically quite large, +1.0 on GPA at U-Mich (i.e., black + 3.1 > asian + 4.0). http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/mcatgparaceeth07.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.or... And again, you still have yet to explain why I should give your preferred grouping of humans ({x : x.race == REFERENCE_RACE}) moral weight over my preferred grouping ({x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 || x.isPoor}). Why are you unwilling to help out people in my group, which is also statistically disadvantaged?
- king_jester 14y ago
  I don't know a lot about UMich when it comes to entrance requirements, but what information I could find shows that a GPA of 3.1 would meet the entrance requirements, so in such an example both the higher GPA student and the black student with lower GPA both are qualified (at least by GPA standards) to attend the school. Even if there was no affirmative action policy at UMich, these two hypothetical students would continue to be evaluated with additional metrics beyond GPA. It should be noted that most universities do not have a mission to educate only the best performing students that exist, so a comparison of just GPA alone isn't enough (not too mention the issues with how GPAs are measured in the US, which is heavily intersectional with race and class). When it comes to admissions for universities, class (as indicated by the x.isPoor) is a big deal, not only from a standpoint of acquiring funding to attend a university, but also how classism affects primary and secondary school students in the US. Those folks do deserve help in getting education and attending university of they so desire, just as much as racial groups that have historically and currently excluded from the same things. These things are not mutually exclusive, there are strong links with class status and race that can affect people of color differently than non-minority poor folks. Ultimately both issues should be addressed and attempts made to make up for the societal shortfall in getting these people access to the kinds of education they desire. The existence of a racial affirmative action policy is not a blocking thing for tackling other inequalities in society (in fact, due to the links between classism and racism, affirmative actions policies do take on class and poverty issues). I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit, as social security numbers are strictly meant for the social security program and I find their use outside of such contexts to be inappropriate, but I'd be interested to hear what you mean by it.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit There are many statistically disadvantaged subsets of humanity. For example: Group A = disadvantaged OR ssn % 104 == 7 If you object to SSN, choose A = disadvantaged OR last 4 genes = GATTACA. Group B = black You seem to assign a lot of moral weight to group B but none to group A. Why? This is the question you've been ducking for the entirety of this conversation.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Your contention about AA policies is simply false. The boost given to minorities is typically quite large, +1.0 on GPA at U-Mich (i.e., black + 3.1 > asian + 4.0). http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/mcatgparaceeth07.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.or... And again, you still have yet to explain why I should give your preferred grouping of humans ({x : x.race == REFERENCE_RACE}) moral weight over my preferred grouping ({x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 || x.isPoor}). Why are you unwilling to help out people in my group, which is also statistically disadvantaged?

king_jester 14y ago
I don't know a lot about UMich when it comes to entrance requirements, but what information I could find shows that a GPA of 3.1 would meet the entrance requirements, so in such an example both the higher GPA student and the black student with lower GPA both are qualified (at least by GPA standards) to attend the school. Even if there was no affirmative action policy at UMich, these two hypothetical students would continue to be evaluated with additional metrics beyond GPA. It should be noted that most universities do not have a mission to educate only the best performing students that exist, so a comparison of just GPA alone isn't enough (not too mention the issues with how GPAs are measured in the US, which is heavily intersectional with race and class). When it comes to admissions for universities, class (as indicated by the x.isPoor) is a big deal, not only from a standpoint of acquiring funding to attend a university, but also how classism affects primary and secondary school students in the US. Those folks do deserve help in getting education and attending university of they so desire, just as much as racial groups that have historically and currently excluded from the same things. These things are not mutually exclusive, there are strong links with class status and race that can affect people of color differently than non-minority poor folks. Ultimately both issues should be addressed and attempts made to make up for the societal shortfall in getting these people access to the kinds of education they desire. The existence of a racial affirmative action policy is not a blocking thing for tackling other inequalities in society (in fact, due to the links between classism and racism, affirmative actions policies do take on class and poverty issues). I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit, as social security numbers are strictly meant for the social security program and I find their use outside of such contexts to be inappropriate, but I'd be interested to hear what you mean by it.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit There are many statistically disadvantaged subsets of humanity. For example: Group A = disadvantaged OR ssn % 104 == 7 If you object to SSN, choose A = disadvantaged OR last 4 genes = GATTACA. Group B = black You seem to assign a lot of moral weight to group B but none to group A. Why? This is the question you've been ducking for the entirety of this conversation.