3 ms·

>But I don't understand how "does not use quotas" translates into equal treatment. You don't understand it because it doesn't translate into equal treatment.

by tsotha 14y ago

>But I don't understand how "does not use quotas" translates into equal treatment. You don't understand it because it doesn't translate into equal treatment. "Diversity" is a legal dodge they use to keep out Asians and whites and accept less qualified people of other races. It's a de facto quota system that would never survive a court challenge if you rearranged the races a bit.

wfunction 14y ago
I think you just confirmed my point.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
>"Diversity" is a legal dodge they use to keep out Asians and whites and accept less qualified people of other races. The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs. If you are a part of a group that all has perfect GPA/SATs, then that simply isn't enough anymore. Cluster analysis is a valid technique to identify outliers.
- wfunction 14y ago
  > The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. So let me get this straight: GPA + test scores don't show merit, but race does? > These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs. So let's accept less qualified people just because they're doing better than even the lesser-qualfied people of the same race, even though there are perfect candidates we could be choosing instead? I think you (like many Americans) are completely misunderstanding the point of affirmative action. It has nothing to do with "encouraging diversity" or anything like that. It's trying to right a historical wrong, discrimination against certain groups based on race. "Diversity" is just a nice word to use to appeal to emotion so they just use that, but it's irrelevant to the purpose of affirmative action.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Race is a proxy for all sorts of cultural differences, hardships, experiences, etc. Being an outlier of your group with similar cultural disadvantages is an indication of leadership. I read an article recently about the origin of extracurriculars in the college admissions process. Basically they turned from defining the system on a GPA/SAT basis to one that tried to predict future leaders. The college that lead in this change, Harvard, is now the most prestigious university in the world. It was precisely because they stopped defining "merit" based on just test scores that it is what it is today. The point is, it has been a long time since merit was GPA/SAT scores for top-tier college admissions. The criteria changes frequently as kids pattern their lives after what they assume the current criteria is. If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense.
    - wfunction 14y ago
      > If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense. You're owed exactly as much of a spot as anyone with the same qualifications as you, which is exactly equal to that of a Black or White kid with the same qualifications.
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.
        wfunction 14y ago
        You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.

by tsotha 14y ago

wfunction 14y ago

I think you just confirmed my point.

hackinthebochs 14y ago

>"Diversity" is a legal dodge they use to keep out Asians and whites and accept less qualified people of other races. The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs. If you are a part of a group that all has perfect GPA/SATs, then that simply isn't enough anymore. Cluster analysis is a valid technique to identify outliers.

wfunction 14y ago
> The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that GPA + test scores is the definition of merit. So let me get this straight: GPA + test scores don't show merit, but race does? > These schools say this isn't the case. They want the stand-outs. So let's accept less qualified people just because they're doing better than even the lesser-qualfied people of the same race, even though there are perfect candidates we could be choosing instead? I think you (like many Americans) are completely misunderstanding the point of affirmative action. It has nothing to do with "encouraging diversity" or anything like that. It's trying to right a historical wrong, discrimination against certain groups based on race. "Diversity" is just a nice word to use to appeal to emotion so they just use that, but it's irrelevant to the purpose of affirmative action.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Race is a proxy for all sorts of cultural differences, hardships, experiences, etc. Being an outlier of your group with similar cultural disadvantages is an indication of leadership. I read an article recently about the origin of extracurriculars in the college admissions process. Basically they turned from defining the system on a GPA/SAT basis to one that tried to predict future leaders. The college that lead in this change, Harvard, is now the most prestigious university in the world. It was precisely because they stopped defining "merit" based on just test scores that it is what it is today. The point is, it has been a long time since merit was GPA/SAT scores for top-tier college admissions. The criteria changes frequently as kids pattern their lives after what they assume the current criteria is. If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense.
  - wfunction 14y ago
    > If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense. You're owed exactly as much of a spot as anyone with the same qualifications as you, which is exactly equal to that of a Black or White kid with the same qualifications.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.
      - wfunction 14y ago
        You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.