Hard data shows affirmative action holding back US progress

That doesn't point to a quota. That points to a company doing something voluntarily.

 

I'm saying this study has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.

STEM schools are not racist against Asians, STEM schools barely even follow or pay attention to AA and are very much merit based and test based anyways.

Schools like Harvard and Yale are not STEM schools and thus have different criteria for their prospective students. We've been through this.

 

I have seen "diversity scholarships" offered by some organizations.

Hmmm...

 

What are you talking about? How do they fall short? Where do you see that????

I mean, this is a disturbing claim you have and you don't have any "hard data" to support that.

 

Lets just cut to the chase - you hate black people OP.

Can you try to merge all your treads about black people into a single thread. Maybe we can even get a sticky at the top of the BBS so everyone can check your newest articles or theories on black people in modern America if they are so inclined.

 

Be fair. His posts seem to indicate that he hates black people AND climate change. He would help mitigate climate change with less black people.

 

The unintended consequences of AA in education have pretty firm grounding to be a net negative to the groups its meant to benefit, due to what they call mismatch, in having students of lower academic ability based on some arbitrary value, they're put into an environment where the pace of education is greater than their ability. As a consequence, AA students see much higher rates of failure across the board, it's particularly noticeable in the STEM fields (could be because those subjects are much harder than say the humanities to bullshit your way through).

The abolishment at Berkeley for example saw a drop in black enrolment of 50%, Latino enrolment by 25%, but the graduation numbers for those classes were the same before (so the rate doubled), the mismatched people were now not driven out of the system, they generally go to an institution where the pace of education matches their ability (so they arent ending up disillusioned at the system with a debt to boot)

This is of course a product of a general trend, where the question for policy makers and activists is far too often "do people perceive this to be helping?" and not 'is it helping?", since the former really only benefits those policy makers and activists, while the latter would benefit the actual people, and we sure as hell can't have that.

 

LOL...

honestly dude I'm just trying to get you to understand that this study isn't about Affirmative Action. You're making a wild assumption about that graph, that assumption being that the numbers represent students that benefitted from AA and not merit. The study doesn't mention if the students in question got into school through AA or through merit.

 

Even though the OPs study has nothing to do with AA and I wanted to mostly ignore this thread... this though seems like an honest attempt at discussion so...

Yes, the mismatch theory that Scalia used to argue against AA...it has since then though studies have challenged it

The problem I have with "Merit" based admissions is that you are strictly judging people by test scores...

It would be like judging incoming class of draft prospects by stats. Neither the NBA, MLB, or NFL does this...because numbers and stats don't tell the whole story. You want to know if the guy did well against good competition, how are his measurables, what is his mentality?

When we last discussed this topic I linked the thoughts of someone who worked at Harvard who knew a thing or two about the admissions. I thought their argument was very strong, to summarize, as long as people are doing admissions they will never be 'merit' based. You'll still have people with all their biases and imperfections judging students...and since that is the case, AA protects people, of all races and encourages diversity which studies have found benefit universities and workplaces.

When people say "Merit" I really want to know what they mean by that? What test or series of tests or collection of tests will be the end all be all to determine if one student is better than another?

Senator here says he doesn't want paper pushers...neither do elite colleges. If your admission to an elite school is just that you aced every test put in front of you...well it just may not be as attractive next to the person that still scored 90% better than everyone else BUT can also play the Violin and has worked for charities in their spare time.

 

People still openly hate and discriminate against people of color and other minorities.

I'm pretty sure it's easier to further that mindset when the work environment looks and acts just the same like everyone else.

Keep dreaming Trump chumps.

 

Slavery labor is estimated to be worth near 6 trillions$.
take away affirmative action,and pay each African American ~150k$

 

So you admit that your data was a goose egg on merit? I'm not sure why you posted it.

 

Can you point to examples of someone who was hired through any kind of affirmative action position that wasn't qualified?

 

I have like a 15% success rate at interviews. I think I've actually only had 2 good interviews: one where I prepped for it like crazy and came off as a better candidate for it than I really was, and one where I didn't even know if I wanted the job anyway and didn't really care how the interview played out.

I've actually had the worst interview of all time. It involved:

• Forgetting to wear anti-perspirant
• Three - THREE! - car wrecks along the way that made me late
• Car AC breaking on a very hot day
• Loosening tie while in car and forgetting to tighten it back before going inside
• Not looking in the mirror at all before I walked in, therefore not realizing I had messed up my hair on the long, sweaty drive
• Got the interviewer's/hiring manager's name wrong almost immediately after he introduced himself
• Taking an aptitude test where I GOT THE YEAR WRONG - and no, it wasn't in January or even February. It dawned on my a few minutes later that I got the year wrong and therefore got the answer wrong on a question. I tried to bring it up later to correct my error but in doing so only came off even worse.
• Set myself up for failure by saying "I know this is a new industry for me but before I took my current job I didn't know anything about O&G operations so I am confident I could become an expert here" because the interviewer predictably followed up with "Interesting. Describe the life cycle of O&G operations to me" to which I replied "uhh well actually I am only involved in completions which is uhh it's where they uhh you know... complete the... well?"*
• It was going so bad that the interviewer asked me "So... do you want to continue with this interview or do you want to leave?" Unfortunately I chose to continue.

It was so, so bad. Hilariously so - though it wasn't until some time had passed that I was able to laugh at it.

The cherry on top was that I actually had the audacity to call them a few days later and say that I had just received a raise at my current employer so I was no longer interested in that job.

* I could explain it better back then but by the time that question came I was so flustered that I panicked when the obvious follow up to my comment was asked.

 

Good job comrade.