Bush Wary of Race-Based Admissions

It became unfair due to, for lack of a better term, market forces. Nobody came in and "made" it unfair. It became unfair all on its own. Affirmative Action is the government coming in and making it unfair.

All that will ensue is that an entire new group of people who feel aggreived will be created. That isn't goin to solve anything in the long term.

Having a program such as this while leaving the school system the way it is seems a lot like giving somebody a Band-Aid to treat their cancer.

 

Right. There's nothing that says we can't do both. If you cut yourself, you get a band-aid, but you also disinfect the wound as well.

 

You think conservatives blow a fuse about AA. Just wait til you see what they do when this problem gets addressed. I suspect any solution would divert school taxes from affluent districts, which conservatives won't like a bit.

 

And we had all thought your moniker referred to certain delusions regarding physical endowment. Nice to see something informative come out of the thread ( ), I mean in addition to Refman's Ashcroft joke.

 

Not that I disagree with you at all, but playing devil's advocate, could the fact that under AA, U-Texas admitted 453 African-American first-year students (in the year before Hopwood) and admitted 418 first-year students this year show that 10% (and their other outreach efforts) is coming close to duplicating the efforts of Affirmative Action in freshman admissions?

And UT-Austin is doing this without the benefit of a level-playing field in admissions, i.e. schools outside the 5th District can still use race-based admissions policies and may pull students away from Texas, where race-based admissions cannot be used.

Of course, what does it say that only 4% of the first-year admissions at UT-Austin were African-American students even under Affirmative Action in a state where 11.5% of the state's population is African-American?

Again, I'm not saying I support 10% as the solution. I'm just trying to add to the debate.

 

I don't agree with your interpretation at all. Affirmative action recognizes disparities in factors other than intelligence. One of these factors is standardized test score disparity, which is not believed to be caused by intelligence and may be the result of racial bias. To ignore this disparity would be racist because it would effectively discriminate against African Americans and hispanics. Therefore, a small boost is a temporary solution until we figure out the root of the testing disparity.a

BTW, do you know for sure that your African American classmates scored higher on standardized test than you (I'm not talking law school exams)?

 

Not true. Most of the conservative I know...which is more than a few favor a system where the school taxes are given to schools based on the number of students in the school. For instance, assume the state gives out $5,000 per student.

A suburban school with a student population of 2,000 gets $10M.
An inner city school with a student population of 2,000 gets $10M.

Seems pretty fair to me.

then you need to investigate other reasons these schools are failing and fix them as well. Getting better teachers is priority 1.

It is no secret that in the inner city schools there is a subpopulation which is violent in nature. Three strikes and you're out I say. Once you have established yourself as a problem...intimidating students and destroying the educational process and atmosphere...it is off to an alternative school run by retired military officers for you.

Regardless of the location of the school, students who wish to learn should be free to do so free of fear engendered by violent students.

 

True...but the message is still "you can't compete." That isn't the message we want to be giving to young people.

I seriously doubt that the people over at Collegiate Testing Services or whoever administers the SAT sitting back, writing the test...wondering how they can screw over minorities.

He might not (I don't know whether he does or not)...but I do. As a law school first year, LSAT scores are common fodder for lunchroom talk. I can tell you for sure that one of my Hispanic classmates outscored me (I scored in the 94th percentile).

 

It could work the other way, too. My cousin barely passed her classes in high school, but she was valedictorian since she did better than the other person in her class. Top 10%? She was the Top 50% of her class all by herself (in Ola, Arkansas).

Speaking of class rank as an admission standard, I've always wondered about that. I remember my high school (which had roughly 550 people per graduating class). The year I graduated, an 88 overall GPA was good for about 137 rankwise (which is where I was, barely missing the Top 25%). The next year, an 88 overall GPA would crack into that Top 25%. Even within the same school, the class rank for the same GPA can change from year to year.

I guess it doesn't matter since the point is to see how well you do vs. your peers, though I've always thought it was interesting that graduate admissions didn't follow that same route (of course, colleges don't really rank students, by and large).

Granted, I couldn't get into the University of Texas with my 88 overall GPA and 1060 SAT score (yes, I did crappy on the SAT). Had I been a year younger and made the same grades and SAT score, I would've gotten in to UT-Austin (under their admission standards circa 1989-90). And my cousin would've gotten in with her 75 overall GPA without even having to submit an SAT score.

 

Neither is "Well we know you're being screwed over, but we don't care."

I seriously doubt that too, but bias can occur inadvertantly as well. That's why we need to figure out the root of the problem so that we can solve the test score disparity.

Not suprised there at all. I was pretty sure that everyone outscored you . In fact, I outscored you (98% percentile) but then again, I had crap grades during my lone year at law school so that shows what test scores are good for.

BTW, at my law school, talk of LSAT scores was completely taboo.

 

Apparently I outscored 94% of the people who took it...which leads me to wonder who the hell was taking that test.

Just shows how different law schools can be. In my first year scetion, the first few weeks of school "How'd you do on the LSAT" was as common as "Good morning."

 

Right. There's nothing that says we can't do both. If you cut yourself, you get a band-aid, but you also disinfect the wound as well.


Yes, but if you put a band-aid on the wound, you can't get the disinfectant in there.

Not true. Most of the conservative I know...which is more than a few favor a system where the school taxes are given to schools based on the number of students in the school. For instance, assume the state gives out $5,000 per student.

A suburban school with a student population of 2,000 gets $10M.
An inner city school with a student population of 2,000 gets $10M.

Seems pretty fair to me.


Refman -- that's fine from the state side of it. The problem is the local funding. Suburbs have higher property taxes and thus have much much more money available to them compared to the inner-city schools. The challenge is how to deal with that disparity.

You can do the robin-good stuff, but is that really fair to the suburbs? They would just lower their taxes if they aren't keeping the money, and that benefits no one.

You could provide more money to inner-city schools, but that kind of penalizes you for being wealthy.

It's a tough issue, especially in the current environment where we want to privatize failing schools (which hasn't worked anywhere) or pull more money out of those schools when what they need is the opposite (along with better management).

 

Wow. Such an ingrained image will be tough to overcome...

 

I don't agree with your assumptions but nice job clarifying your rationale.

He would have had help getting into college in Michigan—and I would support such policies.

I little ******* hostility there, and some people can’t EVEN FATHOM why people who descended from slaves and people who’s grandparents’ (and maybe even some with parents) hard earned property were systematically taken from them and whose opportunities were severely limited through biased, racist, American institutions are a little sensitive to issues such as these.

Nice editing Freak (not, left out “ignorant’)

COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS

#1 No one else has posted an alternative to the 10%/affirmative access approach that would work for graduate schools.

Also, if the admissions criteria SOLELY INCLUDED the following:

Geography
10 points - Michigan resident
6 points - Underrepresented Michigan county
2 points - Underrepresented state

Essay
1 point - Outstanding essay (since 1999, 3 points)

Personal achievement
1 point - State
3 points - Regional
5 points - National

Leadership and service
1 point - State
3 points - Regional
5 points - National

Miscellaneous
20 points - Socio-economic disadvantage
5 points - Men in nursing

AND STRIKED OUT

Alumni
4 points - "Legacy" (parents, step-parents)
1 point - Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)

Miscellaneous
20 points - Underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education
5 points - Men in nursing

How many of you would still be fundamentally against the policy?

 

I'll do it: white people (and 1/4+1/4 of Timing) are the low lifes of American society. Everybody happy now?

 

I used to argue that affirmative action for higher ed admissions was inherently unfair.

I was discussing this with someone very familiar with Los Angeles schools. She claimed that many minority schools were severely underfunded, to the point that some kids didn't have their own books. I found that hard to believe. I approached our company's charitable foundation, and asked if they would be willing to support a funding activity if I found a need; they said yes.

I had an ad placed in the LA Teachers Union newsletter, explaining that we may have funds available for schools in dire need. I had dozens of responses, including many where elementary schools had NO supplies and teachers were staying late into the night copying chapters in textbooks for class the next day.

That would never happen at Westlake or in River Oaks.

I believe that supermac provided us anecdotes about how people can succeed, even when disadvantaged. Thats great, but it does not address that many more disadvantaged will not 'make it' than those who received sufficient support.

It seems like the issue is beginning to focus on using whether ethnicity should still be used as a proxy for the disadvantaged. Should a child from rich black parents who scores one point more on the SAT be admitted over a black child from a poor family, or over a white child from a poor family?

Interesting. If widespread racism still exists, limiting the family's economic options, I can maybe understand that. But is that still so?

 

I'm happy. But only to boost my life expectancy score a couple of points. While there's some sharing going on, I am 15/16 whitey scum (Irish, Scottish, and, , French).

 

This is what I meant to post, provost and athletes bonus also on the OUT list.

Also, if the admissions criteria SOLELY INCLUDED the following:


Geography
10 points - Michigan resident
6 points - Underrepresented Michigan county
2 points - Underrepresented state

Essay
1 point - Outstanding essay (since 1999, 3 points)

Personal achievement
1 point - State
3 points - Regional
5 points - National

Leadership and service
1 point - State
3 points - Regional
5 points - National

Miscellaneous
20 points - Socio-economic disadvantage
5 points - Men in nursing


AND STRIKED OUT

Alumni
4 points - "Legacy" (parents, step-parents)
1 point - Other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)

Miscellaneous
20 points - Underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education
20 points - Scholarship athlete
20 points - Provost's discretion


How many of you would still be fundamentally against the policy?

 

What in the hell are you babbling about? I assume you're claiming that I said black murder victims are all gang members and white murder victims are school teachers. Why don't you find THAT THREAD. Or, if your emotions coerced you into that libel, I'll accept your apology. Or maybe you just stuck your foot in your mouth again; either way, you need to provide an explanation.