California Colleges Mull Return of Affirmative Action

Minorities deserve more opportunities.

 

Even the Asians? Lol

 

Yes, so they should fight the fight where be fighting in, in the corporate boardroom - not in schools. Asian Americans in general are excelling at getting college degrees, but they are unable to break into board rooms or into upper management. They spend so much time worrying about AA negatively affecting them in an area where they have already empirically shown that they are succeeding while ignoring the fact that they are systematically treated as second class once they get out of that world. As a group, by focusing on schooling they seem to be wasting their intellectual capital and alienating natural allies. Basically the only people who win in the current paradigm are caucasians.

 

What total bs. There are plenty of Asians trying to bring awareness to and break the so-called bamboo ceiling; you just don't hear about because the media is too focused on the minorities who are the right color. For instance, there was a record number of Asians promoted to partner in large law firms this past year (or maybe it was the year before; not entirely sure).

Second, calling attention to/fighting one form of inequality doesn't preclude doing the same for another. As surprising as it may be, people have the capacity to multitask.

Finally, I have difficulty following your logic, particularly given the fact that it also applies to pretty much every minority group in the US. Are you implying that Asians should just ignore AA debates and let the whims of the masses determine the future of their kids? While education doesn't always translate into great success (Borat voice), it certainly doesn't hurt one's chances or opportunities in life. It's hard for me to believe that the high average income of Asian-Americans has nothing to with their high rates of college graduation.

So essentially, you're asking Asians to make a move that has no upside, but a huge potential downside. But they're only Asians right, so who cares?

 

I'd wager that almost everyone on here protesting AA would be totally fine with a holistic approach that didn't include race. So really, they're calling for color blind screening based on whatever criteria a given college wants, whether that means test scores, grades, socioeconomic status, or extracurriculars.

 

which is sily, because you can't redact somebody's resume to remove all signs of race & ethnicity in a holistic assessment - becuase then you're not doing one, by definition. Not to mention that lots of colleges have interviews. How are those to be done? Behind a screen and with a voice modifier?

 

So now you're trying to say that since we cannot 100% remove race from a decision, it automatically must be an explicit criterion.

Do you even logic, bro?

 

Well, California has been doing it or at least a close approximation of it for almost two decades, so it can't be that hard. You clearly just don't like their results.

 

True - I don't think the disparate impact on black students is a good result - the state university system should serve all of its citizens, not just Asian ones. And of course, this camouflages the real issue which I noted last week - Asians aren't getting in because they have some magical Asian math gene, they do so because they're richer than the black students.

But California's policy isn't truly color blind - the closest approximation to that was Texas' 10% rule - which Asians in this thread are whining about.

 

Explain again why you feel race is a stand-in or a component of merit? How is income a proxy for race? As far as I know, income for a person can change far easier than race. Race would only change after several generations of inter-racial mating.

Bringing up this old post because I feel like you've been dancing around your position on this.

 

They don't like their own results.

 

"merit" is whatever you want it to be - relative, absolute - I can pretty much put anything I want in there. You saw somebody earlier saying how being born a great athlete was an example of "merit" - come on.

It's pretty simple to use demographics (income + geography) to proxy for race in the US. hell it's all public data from the census.

And for the record, it's really not that simple to change income; income mobility in the US is lousy compared to other developed countries and the most correlative predictor of income (and education too) is your parents income.

 

So you feel that any minority (that are a majority of the low income families) regardless of income should get the leg up on admittance?

Again we are assuming all applicants meet the required grades and standardized scores.

And are you in favor of a quota system or no limits until income demographics get so skewed in favor of the other races?

This is what I'm getting from your posts about luck. That your advocating of having a favored "race" until it's out of favor and it's all about luck if you happen to be born during a period of favoritism.

 

I'm in favor of diversity being considered as a "plus" factor in certain contexts, as much as income or athletic ability is also considered a plus factor. The UC system seems to be underserving the state's black population - it should probably find ways to rectify this (whether by using race, or race by proxy)

 

I know they aren't. My point apparently went over your head.

I'm saying diversity for the sake of diversity is idiotic.

Admitting stupid people would increase diversity. You would have opinions in class from smart people AND stupid people. More perspective. More diversity.

But colleges don't do that, because accepting stupid people just to increase the "diversity" of perspectives is idiotic.

Just like admitting people based on their skin color is idiotic.

 

I'm talking about the automatic top 10%.

You can be an absolute moron, but if you are in the top 10% of your class, you are automatically admitted to any public university in Texas.

 

No, I'm not. You missed the point.

 

When trying to get into certain colleges, yes, it's a penalty.