Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: Beauchamp on December 06, 2006, 07:31:27 PM

Title: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Beauchamp on December 06, 2006, 07:31:27 PM
It seems like the obvious solution.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: JTG on December 06, 2006, 07:34:53 PM
Good question. What incentive do some of them have to do so though when they have AA?

It's clearly not a question of genetics because there are plenty of brilliant African-Americans out there who worked their ass off to get where they are. Everyone wants a handout.

And it's not a question of poverty because Asian-American students in poverty do better on math tests than some of their richer white counterparts. It's a question of effort, and decades of affirmative action have ruined the drive to succeed in African-American communities.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: JTG on December 06, 2006, 07:40:14 PM
And yet "obvious" never seems to work out...

Without referencing any stats, I'd be willing to be that it's not that blacks aren't working hard enough in UG, but rather much like the "girls and science & math" campaigns that were big in the 90's, that there's not a big enough push, presence, whatever, to encourage all minority kids to work hard towards a professional degree, starting by pushing them and motivating them in middle school & high school to go to UG in the first place.

I would bet that you're wrong. How else can you explain the fact that the average black GPA is so much lower than the average white/asian gpa? Even at the same universities.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Beauchamp on December 06, 2006, 07:49:51 PM
I would bet that you're wrong. How else can you explain the fact that the average black GPA is so much lower than the average white/asian gpa? Even at the same universities.

This is what I'm talking about.  If somebody can't get into college at all, that's a problem, but it's a topic for a different discussion.

In my experience, getting a high GPA in college is mostly about hard work.  If someone has a low GPA, I don't assume they're dumb--I assume they didn't work very hard.  The LSAT is not much different.  My initial scores were pretty bad, but I spent months working on the test and managed a decent score.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: JTG on December 06, 2006, 07:58:01 PM
Hmm, Beauchamp, I wonder what their[race-based AA supporters] proposed solution is for the low GPA and inability to find jobs with the 2.2's, etc. OH, wait, I know. Affirmative action in the workplace. We already have that and it's a resounding success.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: 2Lacoste on December 06, 2006, 10:24:27 PM
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/stfu_dog.jpg)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: JTG on December 06, 2006, 11:45:46 PM
good argument.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on December 07, 2006, 09:22:53 AM
I'm scratching my head at this thread on so many levels...

is this to imply that blacks (and not white women) are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action?

is this to imply that blacks choose not to earn high GPA's and LSAT scores when its simply within their ability all along?

is this to imply that latino's don't factor into the equation?

is this a discussion of affirmative action or of black high school student performance?

is this simply just a flame?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: JTG on December 07, 2006, 09:52:42 AM


is this to imply that blacks choose not to earn high GPA's and LSAT scores when its simply within their ability all along?



If you don't believe that then do you believe that they're just inherently dumber? I doubt it. It's clearly an environmental and effort issue, specifically.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: cui bono? on December 07, 2006, 10:27:42 AM
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/stfu_dog.jpg)

I was kind of hoping to see the "O Really" pic .  I'm a little disappointed,lacoste  :D ;) :) 


I'm scratching my head at this thread on so many levels...

is this simply just a flame?

well it does seem odd to be placed here rather than on the AA board
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: pikey on December 07, 2006, 10:37:50 AM
Flame.  Don't feed the trolls.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Beauchamp on December 07, 2006, 10:40:13 AM
I'm scratching my head at this thread on so many levels...

is this to imply that blacks (and not white women) are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action?

is this to imply that blacks choose not to earn high GPA's and LSAT scores when its simply within their ability all along?


As I thought would be clear from my mention of the LSAT, I'm talking about law school admissions.  White women don't receive AA for law school admissions.

Earning a high UG GPA and LSAT score is largely just about working hard, so yes, it is within most everyone's ability.  It requires spending many nights with text books instead of friends, but most anyone can do it.

I don't understand why anyone, once admitted to a good undergraduate school, can't work hard and get good grades.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: guyminuslife on December 07, 2006, 02:00:26 PM
is this to imply that blacks (and not white women) are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action?

It's a flame, but aren't white women an ORM, at least as far as education is concerned?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Reesespbcup on December 07, 2006, 02:30:48 PM
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/stfu_dog.jpg)


This is quite possibly the FUNNIEST picture I have ever seen. The look in that poor little dog's eyes...:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D For the last 10 minutes I've been walking around my office laughing.

Seriously tho, what does "STFU" mean?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: queencruella on December 07, 2006, 02:49:24 PM
I'm scratching my head at this thread on so many levels...

is this to imply that blacks (and not white women) are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action?

is this to imply that blacks choose not to earn high GPA's and LSAT scores when its simply within their ability all along?


As I thought would be clear from my mention of the LSAT, I'm talking about law school admissions.  White women don't receive AA for law school admissions.

Earning a high UG GPA and LSAT score is largely just about working hard, so yes, it is within most everyone's ability.  It requires spending many nights with text books instead of friends, but most anyone can do it.

I don't understand why anyone, once admitted to a good undergraduate school, can't work hard and get good grades.



The problem isn't just about working hard, it's about preparation before college as well. No matter how brilliant a student is, without the preparation, it's going to be hard for a kid who has had no access to AP or other college-prep/college-level classes in high school to catch up with a kid who has spent his whole lifetime in prep school and has been preparing for college since birth, almost.

I don't know why I'm feeding this troll- the urge to procrastinate is too strong.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Beauchamp on December 08, 2006, 08:43:58 AM

The problem isn't just about working hard, it's about preparation before college as well. No matter how brilliant a student is, without the preparation, it's going to be hard for a kid who has had no access to AP or other college-prep/college-level classes in high school to catch up with a kid who has spent his whole lifetime in prep school and has been preparing for college since birth, almost.

I don't know why I'm feeding this troll- the urge to procrastinate is too strong.

The may be true at a handful of top schools, but lots of kids don't take any AP or college-prep classes in high school.  I didn't, and I graduated magna with two relatively difficult majors. 

I simply believe that the vast majority of people can do well in college if they actually spend a decent amount of time studying (and I don't mean cramming right before exams).  I'm deeply skeptical that many people who do poorly in college cared about doing well all that much or really put the time in.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 11:55:00 AM
Good question. What incentive do some of them have to do so though when they have AA?

It's clearly not a question of genetics because there are plenty of brilliant African-Americans out there who worked their ass off to get where they are. Everyone wants a handout.

And it's not a question of poverty because Asian-American students in poverty do better on math tests than some of their richer white counterparts. It's a question of effort, and decades of affirmative action have ruined the drive to succeed in African-American communities.


I am referencing this post for all future threads in which you try to weasel your way out of admitting you're a raging ignoramus (at best -- at worst, you're a raging racist).

[JTG]
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: LickandStick on December 08, 2006, 01:12:49 PM
It seems like the obvious solution.

Why don't whites work harder in UG and on the LSAT so they don't need to female dog and moan about the coloreds stealing their spots?

Here's a thought: if you're white, and you want to go to Harvard, get a 3.8/175.  FFS, all you need for Cornell or Duke is a solid GPA and a 167, maybe even less.

I'll cry a river for rich white fratboys who goof their way through college when they stop being privileged slackers.

And I'm white, male, slacked my way through college, didn't adequately prepare for the LSAT, and paid the price wrt where I was offered admission.  I don't have much sympathy for the cause.

Some of us had to pay our way through school too, I can't speak for rich white frat boys as I had no money and no time for ECs, but I did the best with what I had.  If they're handing out admission letters to people with my numbers, I want one too.  That's all.

Also, I don't think it's accepted to refer to Native Americans, African-Americans and Latinos as "coloreds"
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Beauchamp on December 08, 2006, 03:27:36 PM

Why don't whites work harder in UG and on the LSAT so they don't need to female dog and moan about the coloreds stealing their spots?

Here's a thought: if you're white, and you want to go to Harvard, get a 3.8/175.  FFS, all you need for Cornell or Duke is a solid GPA and a 167, maybe even less.

I'll cry a river for rich white fratboys who goof their way through college when they stop being privileged slackers.

And I'm white, male, slacked my way through college, didn't adequately prepare for the LSAT, and paid the price wrt where I was offered admission.  I don't have much sympathy for the cause.

I don't think anyone wants white, privileged slackers to get preferential treatment in admission to law school, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. 

I agree that white people who want to go to Harvard law should work hard and get a 3.8/175.  In fact, I think everyone who wants to go to Harvard law should work hard and get a 3.8/175.  I don't think Harvard should admit any slackers at all!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: guyminuslife on December 08, 2006, 03:30:38 PM
I don't think anyone wants white, privileged slackers to get preferential treatment in admission to law school, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. 

I agree that white people who want to go to Harvard law should work hard and get a 3.8/175.  In fact, I think everyone who wants to go to Harvard law should work hard and get a 3.8/175.  I don't think Harvard should admit any slackers at all!

As a white, privileged slacker, I demand preferential treatment! Or else I'll, you know, whatever.

Also, could we get a moderator to chill this flaming thread?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Groundhog on December 08, 2006, 05:52:54 PM
I was inclined to let the thread stay as long as it doesn't completely devolve into personal attacks.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: guyminuslife on December 08, 2006, 05:56:49 PM
Alright, your discretion.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 07:45:10 PM
I think that is a pretty good policy.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: parsley on December 09, 2006, 12:32:16 PM
Quote
is this to imply that blacks (and not white women) are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action?

You know, I hear this used to support AA frequently.  (BUT THE WHITE WOMEN BENEFITED THE MOST FROM IT!)

It's not really a justification of AA for African Americans.  But more importantly, it's most often used to justify AA for African Americans in scenarios where women don't actually receive any preferential treatment.  And haven't for years.  And even if white women "benefited" from it (causal relationship?), do they continue to? Why haven't African Americans? Does some white women doing well after AA clearly demonstrate that race-based AA works? Or that AA works at all?

In other words, I'm not getting it.  Can you explain the point a little please? 

Also, this isn't really a flame thread. (Unless I missed out on some now-edited nasty posts.)  It does buy into the "black people are just lazy" stereotype, but it credits African Americans with equal ability.  [And does affirmative action - as practiced now - truly credit African Americans with equal ability?  You can't tell me that there aren't a whole heck of a lot of "white guilt" folks feeling pretty paternalistically pleased with themselves about helping out poor African Americans.]

And while I certainly wouldn't jump on the bandwagon for the OP, I do think there is something to be said about cultural values on education, peer influence on educational values, family involvement in education and connections to performance.

(Also, to the poster who thinks the "women in science" movement was somehow bigger than the "get minorities to college" movement just ain't paying attention...)

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: 2Lacoste on December 10, 2006, 01:32:47 PM
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/stfu_dog.jpg)


This is quite possibly the FUNNIEST picture I have ever seen. The look in that poor little dog's eyes...:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D For the last 10 minutes I've been walking around my office laughing.

Seriously tho, what does "STFU" mean?


LOL, it means Shut The @#!* Up.

I thought it fitting.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: cui bono? on December 10, 2006, 04:54:42 PM
Honestly, parsley, I do think this is a flame thread.  Why originally place it on BLSD?  Why not just place it  on the AA board or "drinking the haterade".  It's moreso the original placement of it that I question rather than anything else.   
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: parsley on December 10, 2006, 05:12:18 PM
Eh, I think you overestimate the coherent placement of threads in general. 

I nearly started a Pat Benatar thread in "Deciding Where to Go" without paying attention.

Although I agree AA or Haterade are more appropriate places for it, given the topic heading... (Maybe they were just trying to get people to look at *yet another* AA thread with the inflammatory subject line.   Worked didn't it?)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: rainmaker10 on December 10, 2006, 07:17:07 PM
Who is to say that there aren't exceptional black students who set the standard?

Surely black students LACK of "academic luster" is not your reasoning behind why AA is being fueled?

Surely...
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: cui bono? on December 11, 2006, 12:36:01 PM
Eh, I think you overestimate the coherent placement of threads in general. 

I nearly started a Pat Benatar thread in "Deciding Where to Go" without paying attention.

Although I agree AA or Haterade are more appropriate places for it, given the topic heading... (Maybe they were just trying to get people to look at *yet another* AA thread with the inflammatory subject line.   Worked didn't it?)

I guess it did
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: orangebanana on April 17, 2007, 09:35:48 PM
"It's not a question of poverty because Asian American students do better than their richer white counterparts."
There are lots of other factors besides poverty confounding the situation-cultural, social, etc. A student from a poor family with encouragement from family/teachers has a better chance of succeeding than someone with none. I also think the self-fulfilling prophecy can play a big role in any group's low performance.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Sparkz1920 on April 22, 2007, 10:43:42 AM
In my opinion, there are many blacks who do well and succeed in undergrad and graduate school. But the key with AA is that you have to be QUALIFIED. So the minorities and women who are getting hired are indeed qualified

If AA wasnt in place, then i think many qualified minorities and women wouldnt get a fair shot in grad schools, jobs, etc

I wish people would stop thinking that schools and companies have to hire minorities with mediocre GPA's and qualifications. You do have to be Qualified
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dontknowwheretogo on August 08, 2007, 08:02:11 AM
How can you asssert that they have to be qualified?  The bar is essentially "lowered" for URMs so that they can be considered qualified.  Does AA really hurt or help minorities?  In Undergrad, URMs are admitted with far lower SAT/class rank...this possibly leads to lower College performance relative to peers (assuming that SAT class rank is a predictor of college performance)...and the cycle continues into Grad School. 

I think if the Bar wasn't lowered, I think URMs may naturally get admitted to elite schools anyways, because they would adapt and raise their qualifications - after all, there are plenty of brilliant URMs out there, but why study harder for a standardized test when you reach a point where 170 basically = 180 for you?  I know I wouldn't!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Slim on August 09, 2007, 12:33:46 PM
It seems like the obvious solution.
This is a flame... OP's a flamer...
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 15, 2007, 02:22:42 PM
How can you asssert that they have to be qualified?  The bar is essentially "lowered" for URMs so that they can be considered qualified.  Does AA really hurt or help minorities?  In Undergrad, URMs are admitted with far lower SAT/class rank...this possibly leads to lower College performance relative to peers (assuming that SAT class rank is a predictor of college performance)...and the cycle continues into Grad School. 

I think if the Bar wasn't lowered, I think URMs may naturally get admitted to elite schools anyways, because they would adapt and raise their qualifications - after all, there are plenty of brilliant URMs out there, but why study harder for a standardized test when you reach a point where 170 basically = 180 for you?  I know I wouldn't!

I am black and will ride my URM status with PRIDE AND HONOR to the very end! Those of you who have a problem with AA need to GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE A FEW THINGS. Do that and perhaps I'll entertain your narcissism and endless cant.

I did fairly OK on my SATs (1300 and sumthin), but I met several ppl freshman year in undergrad who scored 1500+. It didn't phase me, because I knew standardized tests were JUST standardized tests. Besides, I outperformed them in ALL the classes we took together!   You know why? I was QUALIFIED, and the adcomms knew it.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks standardized tests are accurate AND absolute indicators of academic ability is severely misguided.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: cui bono? on August 15, 2007, 02:37:19 PM
FLAME

Come on guys, leave it alone...it's a flame
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: ColdBlue on August 19, 2007, 08:07:35 PM
Working hard and doing well on the LSAT would require actual work, that's why. In a society of handouts, hard work is not required.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 19, 2007, 10:19:53 PM
Working hard and doing well on the LSAT would require actual work, that's why. In a society of handouts, hard work is not required.

In a society of soundbites, talking points, and canned rhetoric, thinking is not required. htfh
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: blondngreen on August 20, 2007, 05:07:03 PM
How can you asssert that they have to be qualified?  The bar is essentially "lowered" for URMs so that they can be considered qualified.  Does AA really hurt or help minorities?  In Undergrad, URMs are admitted with far lower SAT/class rank...this possibly leads to lower College performance relative to peers (assuming that SAT class rank is a predictor of college performance)...and the cycle continues into Grad School. 

I think if the Bar wasn't lowered, I think URMs may naturally get admitted to elite schools anyways, because they would adapt and raise their qualifications - after all, there are plenty of brilliant URMs out there, but why study harder for a standardized test when you reach a point where 170 basically = 180 for you?  I know I wouldn't!

I am black and will ride my URM status with PRIDE AND HONOR to the very end! Those of you who have a problem with AA need to GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE A FEW THINGS. Do that and perhaps I'll entertain your narcissism and endless cant.

I did fairly OK on my SATs (1300 and sumthin), but I met several ppl freshman year in undergrad who scored 1500+. It didn't phase me, because I knew standardized tests were JUST standardized tests. Besides, I outperformed them in ALL the classes we took together!   You know why? I was QUALIFIED, and the adcomms knew it.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks standardized tests are accurate AND absolute indicators of academic ability is severely misguided.

You're a great example of why I personally despise AA.  You think it's fair that you be judged by different standards.  Most law schools see the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  Adcomms aren't looking at your application and saying he's QUALIFIED, they're looking at your application and saying, he's black, let him in. 
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 20, 2007, 06:27:20 PM
How can you asssert that they have to be qualified?  The bar is essentially "lowered" for URMs so that they can be considered qualified.  Does AA really hurt or help minorities?  In Undergrad, URMs are admitted with far lower SAT/class rank...this possibly leads to lower College performance relative to peers (assuming that SAT class rank is a predictor of college performance)...and the cycle continues into Grad School. 

I think if the Bar wasn't lowered, I think URMs may naturally get admitted to elite schools anyways, because they would adapt and raise their qualifications - after all, there are plenty of brilliant URMs out there, but why study harder for a standardized test when you reach a point where 170 basically = 180 for you?  I know I wouldn't!

I am black and will ride my URM status with PRIDE AND HONOR to the very end! Those of you who have a problem with AA need to GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE A FEW THINGS. Do that and perhaps I'll entertain your narcissism and endless cant.

I did fairly OK on my SATs (1300 and sumthin), but I met several ppl freshman year in undergrad who scored 1500+. It didn't phase me, because I knew standardized tests were JUST standardized tests. Besides, I outperformed them in ALL the classes we took together!   You know why? I was QUALIFIED, and the adcomms knew it.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks standardized tests are accurate AND absolute indicators of academic ability is severely misguided.

You're a great example of why I personally despise AA.  You think it's fair that you be judged by different standards.  Most law schools see the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  Adcomms aren't looking at your application and saying he's QUALIFIED, they're looking at your application and saying, he's black, let him in. 

Your PREJUDICED opinion means NOTHING to me. Hopeless bigots like you AMUSE me  ::).

I was one of only 4 students to obtain a perfect score on a research paper for a poli sci class of 80 students, with only 5 blk students.  So when I say I am QUALIFIED to attend the best of law schools, please realize I do not speak idly. I've got the smarts--AND THE SKIN--to back it up!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: ColdBlue on August 20, 2007, 07:24:40 PM
Your PREJUDICED opinion means NOTHING to me. Hopeless bigots like you AMUSE me  ::).

I was one of only 4 students to obtain a perfect score on a research paper for a poli sci class of 80 students, with only 5 blk students.  So when I say I am QUALIFIED to attend the best of law schools, please realize I do not speak idly. I've got the smarts--AND THE SKIN--to back it up!

Wow, if you could get a perfect score in some chump poli sci class then maybe you could of done that on the LSAT. Oh wait, why bother with affirmative action. 
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 20, 2007, 08:26:54 PM
Your PREJUDICED opinion means NOTHING to me. Hopeless bigots like you AMUSE me  ::).

I was one of only 4 students to obtain a perfect score on a research paper for a poli sci class of 80 students, with only 5 blk students.  So when I say I am QUALIFIED to attend the best of law schools, please realize I do not speak idly. I've got the smarts--AND THE SKIN--to back it up!

Wow, if you could get a perfect score in some chump poli sci class then maybe you could of done that on the LSAT. Oh wait, why bother with affirmative action. 

How profound...  ::)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: stareindecisis on August 20, 2007, 08:38:30 PM
Is this discussion actually happening?  Why don't you racist, short-sighted, under-performing white folks google your local klan chapter and join already?  Save this crap for their meetings. 

I'm white, by the way.  And I don't need to blame affirmative action for not getting into Yale. 
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 20, 2007, 08:43:03 PM
Yeah, it's just tough getting through the day being white.

All the *&^% we have to deal with, and all. And then affirmative action comes along and makes things just that much tougher for us.

Pity me?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 20, 2007, 08:53:29 PM
I've plateaued.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: ColdBlue on August 20, 2007, 09:36:42 PM
I'm white, by the way.  And I don't need to blame affirmative action for not getting into Yale. 

You're a self-hating white liberal filled with guilt. How can anyone respect you if you don't even respect yourself? Go apologize for slavery and hang yourself.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 20, 2007, 09:52:25 PM
I'm white, by the way.  And I don't need to blame affirmative action for not getting into Yale. 

You're a self-hating white liberal filled with guilt. How can anyone respect you if you don't even respect yourself? Go apologize for slavery and hang yourself.

Dang! You used the H word?? You're just itching to hang someone, aren't you, Mr. Lynch? LOL
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 20, 2007, 09:52:52 PM
I'm white, by the way.  And I don't need to blame affirmative action for not getting into Yale. 

You're a self-hating white liberal filled with guilt. How can anyone respect you if you don't even respect yourself? Go apologize for slavery and hang yourself.

I bet your frat brothers think you're smart.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: ColdBlue on August 20, 2007, 10:21:49 PM
I bet your frat brothers think you're smart.

You need to work harder.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 20, 2007, 10:34:38 PM
Seriously, where does this anger come from?  People don't get like this unless they're butt hurt about something.  So either you're not people or you're butt hurt about something.  Which is it?

A+.  Seriously, "you're not people" is golden.  I'm totally stealing this.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: blondngreen on August 21, 2007, 05:11:18 AM
How can you asssert that they have to be qualified?  The bar is essentially "lowered" for URMs so that they can be considered qualified.  Does AA really hurt or help minorities?  In Undergrad, URMs are admitted with far lower SAT/class rank...this possibly leads to lower College performance relative to peers (assuming that SAT class rank is a predictor of college performance)...and the cycle continues into Grad School. 

I think if the Bar wasn't lowered, I think URMs may naturally get admitted to elite schools anyways, because they would adapt and raise their qualifications - after all, there are plenty of brilliant URMs out there, but why study harder for a standardized test when you reach a point where 170 basically = 180 for you?  I know I wouldn't!

I am black and will ride my URM status with PRIDE AND HONOR to the very end! Those of you who have a problem with AA need to GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE A FEW THINGS. Do that and perhaps I'll entertain your narcissism and endless cant.

I did fairly OK on my SATs (1300 and sumthin), but I met several ppl freshman year in undergrad who scored 1500+. It didn't phase me, because I knew standardized tests were JUST standardized tests. Besides, I outperformed them in ALL the classes we took together!   You know why? I was QUALIFIED, and the adcomms knew it.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks standardized tests are accurate AND absolute indicators of academic ability is severely misguided.

You're a great example of why I personally despise AA.  You think it's fair that you be judged by different standards.  Most law schools see the LSAT as the main predictor of how well you will do.  Adcomms aren't looking at your application and saying he's QUALIFIED, they're looking at your application and saying, he's black, let him in. 

Your PREJUDICED opinion means NOTHING to me. Hopeless bigots like you AMUSE me  ::).

I was one of only 4 students to obtain a perfect score on a research paper for a poli sci class of 80 students, with only 5 blk students.  So when I say I am QUALIFIED to attend the best of law schools, please realize I do not speak idly. I've got the smarts--AND THE SKIN--to back it up!

Opposing AA doesn't mean I'm a bigot.  I believe AA to be unconstitutional, plain and simple.  I think it feeds into a sense of entitlement.  I can tell that you're reasonably intelligent, obviously not super smart, but you work hard, good for you.   
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Midnight on August 21, 2007, 05:20:30 AM
sense of entitlement? Like UM Manifest DESTINY??? ??? ??? ??? 

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: blondngreen on August 21, 2007, 05:54:35 AM
I believe AA to be unconstitutional, plain and simple. 

substantiate.

It's called the 14th Amendment, honey.  I'm bored with this. 
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: blondngreen on August 21, 2007, 06:07:41 AM
I believe AA to be unconstitutional, plain and simple. 

substantiate.

It's called the 14th Amendment, honey.  I'm bored with this. 

and the fourteenth amendment applies to private institutions as well?

You're joking, right?   
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 21, 2007, 06:08:32 AM


Oh gracious one, many thanks for the IQ assessment.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:23:08 AM
The sad thing is that Affirmative Action is equally politically polarizing in other countries, and yields similar backlash against the favored groups, yet because the politically favored groups and the people instituting these policies have vested interests in their continuance, the backlash will not end unless some other political group dissolves these policies.

Polarization is what happens when government becomes primarily a spoils system for allocating resources to its supporters.

http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8930087-1396738?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187701344&sr=8-1
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:24:46 AM
I believe AA to be unconstitutional, plain and simple. 

substantiate.

It's called the 14th Amendment, honey.  I'm bored with this. 

and the fourteenth amendment applies to private institutions as well?

You're joking, right?   

answer the question.  does the fourteenth amendment apply to private actors?

Are universities that receive public funds private actors?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 06:27:12 AM
Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA?  The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors?  Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume?  Bam, we get threads like this.  Think of the efficiency gains, people.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:40:05 AM
Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA?  The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors?  Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume?  Bam, we get threads like this.  Think of the efficiency gains, people.

I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 06:42:38 AM
I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.

There's a position in this thread?  I looked again and all I saw were a bunch of assholes.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 06:44:08 AM
Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA?  The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors?  Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume?  Bam, we get threads like this.  Think of the efficiency gains, people.

I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.

If those opposing AA in this thread aren't intellectually defective, then they are purposely intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:51:18 AM
Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA?  The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors?  Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume?  Bam, we get threads like this.  Think of the efficiency gains, people.

I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.

If those opposing AA in this thread aren't intellectually defective, then they are purposely intellectually dishonest.

An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:53:37 AM
Are universities that receive public funds private actors?

yup.

So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 06:54:04 AM
An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.

Wow, you must be the only white person who opposes AA, thinks he/she is unique for it, and gets all snippy when someone dares challenge your intelligence.  You should write about this for your personal statement.  Beautiful snowflake and all.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:59:31 AM
An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.

Wow, you must be the only white person who opposes AA, thinks he/she is unique for it, and gets all snippy when someone dares challenge your intelligence.  You should write about this for your personal statement.  Beautiful snowflake and all.

Actually, I'm Chinese. And my opposition to AA stems from reading arguments put forth by Tom Sowell, who is black.

Are you sure you're cut out to be a lawyer? Your characterization of me is based on no facts that you can prove. Maybe you should run for Congress. That's where most liars and spin-doctors end up. I think you'd feel right at home.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:04:31 AM
Are universities that receive public funds private actors?

yup.

So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?

those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds.  the courts draw a distinction.  (i'm not sure why, but they do.)

Okay, NOW we're getting into a juicy argument :)

Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:13:11 AM

well if a black person opposes AA, it MUST be wrong. 


I never drew that conclusion. The content of his argument against these types of policies was what persuaded me, as alluded to in the post I put up.

wait, so you're calling him a liar and a spin-doctor and then questioning his qualifications to be a lawyer?  does that make any sense to you?

Well, if the guy immediately jumps to the conclusion that I'm white and I feel special for voicing my opposition to AA, when I'm none of the above, then it seems to me that he's willing to play hard and fast with the facts when he wants to pander to stereotype.

A lawyer who can't get the facts straight won't be much of a lawyer.

But mastering misleading rhetoric will serve a politician well.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 07:15:48 AM
Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.

well let's be honest for a second: the whole public/private distinction is a bit of a sham that the courts put in place to have some limit on the scope of the 14th amendment.  public universities are just more obviously "public institutions" than private ones, and so it's convenient to put them on one side of the line.

and the government can condition funds on whatever they want.  but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional.  the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).

and like i said, public-private line is a sham.

I disagree, private-public line is a pretty clear one. Public Universities are state entities. They are funded by the states, the employees are hired by the state, their policies are a reflection of state standards. There is a great deal of autonomy in public universities, but they are basically a state sponsored institution. Private institutions by contrast are run by private entities. Since States have to follow the Constitution (as we know from 3rd grade Civics), it follows pretty clearly that they have to follow whatever the high court or their state court says.

I don't know that I disagree with your overall position on the thread, but the public-private distinction isn't a sham.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 07:16:51 AM
Are universities that receive public funds private actors?

yup.

So UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and UVA are private actors?

those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds.  the courts draw a distinction.  (i'm not sure why, but they do.)

Okay, NOW we're getting into a juicy argument :)

Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.

What arguments? You've given none. What has sowell said to persuade you?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 07:24:47 AM

A lawyer who can't get the facts straight won't be much of a lawyer.


I strongly suspect you won't be a lawyer at all the way you think.  I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out.  The fact that you consider yourself so brilliant that you insist that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove you still makes me laugh.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:34:00 AM

and the government can condition funds on whatever they want.  but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional.  the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).


That seems like a pretty fair critique. I'm pretty ignorant of the case law applicable to these situations, but based on a cursory glance I'm not sure how affirmative action in public universities violate the "equal protection" clause, since, at least to me, AA seems like a politically-enforced privilege, not a protection of the law.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 07:36:19 AM
I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out. 

this impedes becoming a lawyer how?

Are your classmates really this stupid?  I mean, I had always assumed they shared this guy's political leanings, but I guess I overestimated their intellect.  Sounds like he might fit right in.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:37:23 AM

What arguments? You've given none. What has sowell said to persuade you?

Well, I never said I'd provide them. I stated that my opposition to AA is based on Sowell's arguments to counter H4CS's assertion that I was opposing AA because I was, to paraphrase, "a white guy who wanted to feel special."
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:42:21 AM

A lawyer who can't get the facts straight won't be much of a lawyer.


I strongly suspect you won't be a lawyer at all the way you think.  I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out.  The fact that you consider yourself so brilliant that you insist that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove you still makes me laugh.

Well, no, I didn't bluster. I had called my credit card company to cancel my credit protection plan and was waiting thru 30 minutes of elevator music when I found a link to this thread. I thought I could contribute somewhat to a coherent discussion, which is why I'm posting.

I never claimed I was brilliant. You're the one who accused people opposing AA of lacking in intellect. The accuser should bear the burden of proof, because otherwise there is no cost to accusing someone, inviting baseless accusations.

Nor did I ask everyone to prove anything - I asked you, specifically, to prove that opponents of AA are lacking in intellect.

Are you sure you want to be a lawyer? You can laugh at people disagreeing you all you want, but if you can't get the facts straight you're going to get demolished in a courtroom.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 07:45:48 AM
::)  first of all, stop bashing my school.  second, seriously there are plenty of lawyers out there who bluster and don't realize people are calling them out.  i mean you've seen what this board is like.

Whiny 0Ls who think that anything that pops into their head must be new and interesting != lawyers.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:48:10 AM
::)  first of all, stop bashing my school.  second, seriously there are plenty of lawyers out there who bluster and don't realize people are calling them out.  i mean you've seen what this board is like.

Whiny 0Ls who think that anything that pops into their head must be new and interesting != lawyers.

I wasn't aware that this thread was titled "say something new and interesting to appease H4CS."
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 07:50:16 AM
I wasn't aware that this thread was titled "say something new and interesting to appease H4CS."

That's actually the subtitle of the entire board.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 21, 2007, 07:53:24 AM
I wasn't aware that this thread was titled "say something new and interesting to appease H4CS."

That's actually the subtitle of the entire board.

True that.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:01:45 AM

What arguments? You've given none. What has sowell said to persuade you?

I won't go into details (because it's late, I want to get to bed, and any paraphrasing of Sowell's work that I do will necessarily be very brief because of the sheer scope it covers), but the gist of why I, based on what Sowell has argued, oppose AA in academic admissions and government appointments because it:

1) Inevitably leads to ethnic polarization and backlash against the favored groups, as non-favored groups understandably resent the double-standards being applied.
2) Draws doubts on the developed academic/leadership/other abilities of people in the favored group (Is that black surgeon really qualified to operate on my son, or did he graduate only because he was black? Can that Malay economist's financial forecasts be trusted, or did he get to where he is because he is Malay, not because he's qualified to provide such forecasts?)
3) Invites an expansion of centralized power to enforce the AA policies, which, in turn, increases incentives for corruption
4) Can lead to a lowering of educational or performance standards if those admitted under AA policies are unable to meet standards normal for the institutions to which they have been admitted.

There are probably other reasons, but these are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 08:23:54 AM

What arguments? You've given none. What has sowell said to persuade you?

I won't go into details (because it's late, I want to get to bed, and any paraphrasing of Sowell's work that I do will necessarily be very brief because of the sheer scope it covers), but the gist of why I, based on what Sowell has argued, oppose AA in academic admissions and government appointments because it:

1) Inevitably leads to ethnic polarization and backlash against the favored groups, as non-favored groups understandably resent the double-standards being applied.
2) Draws doubts on the developed academic/leadership/other abilities of people in the favored group (Is that black surgeon really qualified to operate on my son, or did he graduate only because he was black? Can that Malay economist's financial forecasts be trusted, or did he get to where he is because he is Malay, not because he's qualified to provide such forecasts?)
3) Invites an expansion of centralized power to enforce the AA policies, which, in turn, increases incentives for corruption
4) Can lead to a lowering of educational or performance standards if those admitted under AA policies are unable to meet standards normal for the institutions to which they have been admitted.

There are probably other reasons, but these are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.

Number 1 ignores the fact that Affirmative Action in the United States was a response to the backlash by the majority against minority without any provocation. At least now we'll give you a reason to hate us. If affirmative action were eliminated, there would still be backlash against minorities for any number of reasons. I could be more eloquent in this argument, but since we're just outlining, that's sufficient to detail why the argument is unpersuasive.

Number 2 is regurgitation of number 1 but even weaker. You can't graduate from Med School or Law School if you're not qualified. Even if admissions were putting unqualified people in the slots, the students still have to perform at a competent level in order to graduate and/or pass the professional qualification tests. Even so, why is this impression only limited to African Americans and other ethnic minorities? Why not apply this perception automatically to women (affirmative action) and white men who are often (but not always) admitted under special admission circumstances such as legacy? Could it be that the there is an implicit negative impression ex ante in people's minds about minorities in general that banning AA would not cure?

Number 3 is so ridiculous that it would only apply to foreign AA and is out of the scope of this discussion on American AA.

Number 4 is also weak. You can rectify this danger in many ways without abolishing AA, including blind grading or a strong sink or swim policy. Either way, it isn't even clear to me that giving promising students individualized consideration on their applications is a "lowering of standards." Are African Americans evaluated differently in admissions? Yes. But every single individual applicant is treated differently. And even other groups are evaluated differently. Women are evaluated differently from men. People who apply later in the cycle have different standards than people who apply early. Asians are evaluated differently from others. Older students are evaluated differently than younger students. People who work at McDonald's are evaluated differently than people who worked at Goldman. Legacies are evaluated differently from noobs, etc. I don't see why taking non-academic qualities into account necessarily equates to lower standards. It could be that everyone is evaluated differently for a reason, but that each individual admitted is qualified if looking holistically at their candidacy.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:33:13 AM

1) Inevitably leads to ethnic polarization and backlash against the favored groups, as non-favored groups understandably resent the double-standards being applied. color of their skin.
2) Draws doubts on the developed academic/leadership/other abilities of people in the favored group (Is that black surgeon really qualified to operate on my son, or did he graduate only because he was black? Can that Malay economist's financial forecasts be trusted, or did he get to where he is because he is Malay, not because he's qualified to provide such forecasts?) because the general population doesn't understand things like accreditation and peer review.
3) Invites an expansion of centralized power to enforce the AA policies, which, in turn, increases incentives for corruption is only bad to Hank and other Randy Randites.
4) Can lead to a lowering of educational or performance standards if those admitted under AA policies are unable to meet standards normal for the institutions to which they have been admitted. blah blah blah


1) The Malays and the Chinese have similar skin tone. As do the Tamils and the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka. As do the various ethnic groups in India. Skin tone doesn't have as much of an effect as double-standards being applied.

2) Accreditation and peer review are exactly the procedures that will be compromised by the political considerations which are AA policies. In one of his autobiographical works, Sowell mentioned a Harvard-med-educated black surgeon completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 08:37:08 AM

1) Inevitably leads to ethnic polarization and backlash against the favored groups, as non-favored groups understandably resent the double-standards being applied. color of their skin.
2) Draws doubts on the developed academic/leadership/other abilities of people in the favored group (Is that black surgeon really qualified to operate on my son, or did he graduate only because he was black? Can that Malay economist's financial forecasts be trusted, or did he get to where he is because he is Malay, not because he's qualified to provide such forecasts?) because the general population doesn't understand things like accreditation and peer review.
3) Invites an expansion of centralized power to enforce the AA policies, which, in turn, increases incentives for corruption is only bad to Hank and other Randy Randites.
4) Can lead to a lowering of educational or performance standards if those admitted under AA policies are unable to meet standards normal for the institutions to which they have been admitted. blah blah blah


1) The Malays and the Chinese have similar skin tone. As do the Tamils and the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka. As do the various ethnic groups in India. Skin tone doesn't have as much of an effect as double-standards being applied.

2) Accreditation and peer review are exactly the procedures that will be compromised by the political considerations which are AA policies. In one of his autobiographical works, Sowell mentioned a Harvard-med-educated black surgeon completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments.

i'm sure #2 had everything to do with Affirmative action as if White doctors from elite med schools never mess up on some kindergarten concepts.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 21, 2007, 09:11:20 AM
...completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments.

Actually, doctors eff up all the time.  White ones too.  Really.   ;)

True dat. As a matter of fact, the incompetent Los Angeles Deputy Medical Examiner who mishandled some of the evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial was a white Jew! That Sowell guy is a self-loathing idiot!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: The F-cktard Express on August 21, 2007, 10:20:40 AM
Look twinkle toes, this isn't that difficult.

As a "race" black people are only a few hundred years behind in assimilating to the (typically) white mainstream culture, including education, by the way. And, I mean, what’s a few hundred years when it comes to education, culture, and identity, right?

But why the entire race, you may ask? After all, certainly there are middle and upper class blacks that are “unfairly” taking advantage of AA. Why not just look at socioeconomic status for affirmative action?

Well, easy. Because the entire race (or more properly, almost anyyone with a darker skin color) was subjected to slavery and oppression, by the white man and because of white men. This cultural/educational disparity is not something that can be "made up" in a few generations either, despite the impressive efforts of many that are closing that gap. It’ll take some time, and to help close that gap more effectively and expediently, we have affirmative action.

Furthermore, education begets education, privilege begets privilege. Blacks have been on the wrong side of this equation for far too long. It's not like blacks are swarming into top schools like a plague, stealing all the spots from otherwise talented whites. Look at the data - there is a glaring dearth of black students at just about every law school. Worry not - your place in the law is certainly not in jeopardy.

This thread is a joke anyway. Surely there are those blacks that have been able to gain admission to schools on their own merits, without the assistance of affirmative action – I know several of them. Yet you call out an entire race as if no blacks are capable of succeeding without “help.” So from the outset you’re engaging trollish, racist views. And you wonder why H4CS hasn’t taken you seriously?

 ::)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 21, 2007, 11:45:32 AM
Look twinkle toes, this isn't that difficult.

As a "race" black people are only a few hundred years behind in assimilating to the (typically) white mainstream culture, including education, by the way. And, I mean, what’s a few hundred years when it comes to education, culture, and identity, right?

But why the entire race, you may ask? After all, certainly there are middle and upper class blacks that are “unfairly” taking advantage of AA. Why not just look at socioeconomic status for affirmative action?

Well, easy. Because the entire race (or more properly, almost anyyone with a darker skin color) was subjected to slavery and oppression, by the white man and because of white men. This cultural/educational disparity is not something that can be "made up" in a few generations either, despite the impressive efforts of many that are closing that gap. It’ll take some time, and to help close that gap more effectively and expediently, we have affirmative action.

Furthermore, education begets education, privilege begets privilege. Blacks have been on the wrong side of this equation for far too long. It's not like blacks are swarming into top schools like a plague, stealing all the spots from otherwise talented whites. Look at the data - there is a glaring dearth of black students at just about every law school. Worry not - your place in the law is certainly not in jeopardy.

This thread is a joke anyway. Surely there are those blacks that have been able to gain admission to schools on their own merits, without the assistance of affirmative action – I know several of them. Yet you call out an entire race as if no blacks are capable of succeeding without “help.” So from the outset you’re engaging trollish, racist views. And you wonder why H4CS hasn’t taken you seriously?

 ::)


Masterful conspectus. Please bookmark this I am sure we will have to cut & paste it no less than a dozen times in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 05:52:46 PM
...completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments.

Actually, doctors eff up all the time.  White ones too.  Really.   ;)

Yeah, I know :)

However, I remember that the book characterized this case as especially egregious - I remember thinking that the doctor must have screwed up some very basic surgical procedure that any competent surgeon should be able to perform.

I don't remember details right now, and since I'm at work, I can't dig up the book, but based on what I remember was in the book I had a strong impression that HMS's admission of a substandard student had a lot to do with this publicized scandal.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 06:01:49 PM
...completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments.

Actually, doctors eff up all the time.  White ones too.  Really.   ;)

Yeah, I know :)

However, I remember that the book characterized this case as especially egregious - I remember thinking that the doctor must have screwed up some very basic surgical procedure that any competent surgeon should be able to perform.

I don't remember details right now, and since I'm at work, I can't dig up the book, but based on what I remember was in the book I had a strong impression that HMS's admission of a substandard student had a lot to do with this publicized scandal.

Or perhaps that was how the story was politicized, hmm?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:09:58 PM

Number 1 ignores the fact that Affirmative Action in the United States was a response to the backlash by the majority against minority without any provocation. At least now we'll give you a reason to hate us. If affirmative action were eliminated, there would still be backlash against minorities for any number of reasons. I could be more eloquent in this argument, but since we're just outlining, that's sufficient to detail why the argument is unpersuasive.

Number 2 is regurgitation of number 1 but even weaker. You can't graduate from Med School or Law School if you're not qualified. Even if admissions were putting unqualified people in the slots, the students still have to perform at a competent level in order to graduate and/or pass the professional qualification tests. Even so, why is this impression only limited to African Americans and other ethnic minorities? Why not apply this perception automatically to women (affirmative action) and white men who are often (but not always) admitted under special admission circumstances such as legacy? Could it be that the there is an implicit negative impression ex ante in people's minds about minorities in general that banning AA would not cure?

Number 3 is so ridiculous that it would only apply to foreign AA and is out of the scope of this discussion on American AA.

Number 4 is also weak. You can rectify this danger in many ways without abolishing AA, including blind grading or a strong sink or swim policy. Either way, it isn't even clear to me that giving promising students individualized consideration on their applications is a "lowering of standards." Are African Americans evaluated differently in admissions? Yes. But every single individual applicant is treated differently. And even other groups are evaluated differently. Women are evaluated differently from men. People who apply later in the cycle have different standards than people who apply early. Asians are evaluated differently from others. Older students are evaluated differently than younger students. People who work at McDonald's are evaluated differently than people who worked at Goldman. Legacies are evaluated differently from noobs, etc. I don't see why taking non-academic qualities into account necessarily equates to lower standards. It could be that everyone is evaluated differently for a reason, but that each individual admitted is qualified if looking holistically at their candidacy.

Your objection to point 1 conflates moral responsibility for historical wrongdoings with present-day consequences. You can argue that the need to address historical wrongdoings overrides the negative present-day consequences that I've described, but you haven't really rebutted that these consequences will not occur.

And despite what you have insinuated with the statement "At least now we'll give you a reason to hate us," I don't hate the recipients of affirmative action, but rather I think the policy is flawed and its net costs outweight its benefits. You could say that one of its costs is that its recipients become paranoid about any perceived slights or arguments against the policy.

I addressed the first part of your objection to point 2 in a prior post:

"2) Accreditation and peer review are exactly the procedures that will be compromised by the political considerations which are AA policies. In one of his autobiographical works, Sowell mentioned a Harvard-med-educated black surgeon completely botching an operation due to not understanding something very basic. And accreditation and peer review only covers some types of evaluations, missing areas such as law school admissions and governmental appointments."

The second part of your objection to point 2 focuses on the fact that race-based admissions are only one type of preferential admissions and evaluation policies, and since other types of preferential admissions and evaluation policies exist, so should race-based ones. Well, another way of reacting to the existance of non-race based preferential admission and evaluation policies is to abolishing all preferential admissions and evaluation policies, which is something I'm in favor of.

Your objection to point 3 is groundless. Giving a budget to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and asking them to administer things like AA programs is just asking for money to be spent in all sorts of funny ways.

Take a look at:
http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/il02_jackson/050119DaleyAffirmativeAction.html

Although I disagree with the author's stance on AA, his press release does give evidence that some AA programs in the United States have been diverted to non-intended parties.

Your objection to point 4 overlooks the fact that underqualified people who sink when placed in a "sink-or-swim" situation may result to political activities to change the standards of the institution they are sinking in. The Cornell black studies department, for example, was founded after a group of black militants held a university building hostage and demanded that such a department be established. But would you consider a black studies major to be academically on par with someone with a degree in engineering physics? Or history? Or neurobiology?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 21, 2007, 06:24:22 PM
I dunno . . . how do you feel about Women's Studies?  Asian Studies?  Are those people taking cake majors too?  You know, 'cause you're a waste of carbon if you didn't major in chemistry!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 06:32:03 PM
I dunno . . . how do you feel about Women's Studies?  Asian Studies?  Are those people taking cake majors too?  You know, 'cause you're a waste of carbon if you didn't major in chemistry!

Your cake major is the only reason you got into "Ohio State."

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 21, 2007, 06:33:16 PM
I dunno . . . how do you feel about Women's Studies?  Asian Studies?  Are those people taking cake majors too?  You know, 'cause you're a waste of carbon if you didn't major in chemistry!

Your cake major is the only reason you got into "Ohio State."



It's true - Underwater Basketweaving of Indigenous Peoples Studies totally saved my application.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 06:35:18 PM
Let's just hope that when you are called to represent someone you don't botch it and get them sentenced to the chair for a misdemeanor.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:38:33 PM
Look twinkle toes, this isn't that difficult.

As a "race" black people are only a few hundred years behind in assimilating to the (typically) white mainstream culture, including education, by the way. And, I mean, what’s a few hundred years when it comes to education, culture, and identity, right?

But why the entire race, you may ask? After all, certainly there are middle and upper class blacks that are “unfairly” taking advantage of AA. Why not just look at socioeconomic status for affirmative action?

Well, easy. Because the entire race (or more properly, almost anyyone with a darker skin color) was subjected to slavery and oppression, by the white man and because of white men. This cultural/educational disparity is not something that can be "made up" in a few generations either, despite the impressive efforts of many that are closing that gap. It’ll take some time, and to help close that gap more effectively and expediently, we have affirmative action.


Black people were primarily oppressed and enslaved by other black people. More blacks were enslaved in Africa than were sent to the new world (this claim can be backed by Sowell's research for the essay "The Real History of Slavery.").

Furthermore, it simply wasn't possible for the Europeans to have enslaved sub-Saharan Africans. In order to forcibly capture and detain captives, slavers would need to be able to field an armed force of sufficient size to deter armed resistance. However, because most of the trans-Atlantic slave trade took place before 1820 (when the British navy began to board slave ships), and European medical technology prior to that point in time was not advanced enough to keep Europeans alive for lengthy periods of time when exposed to the microbial fauna of sub-Saharan Africa, it wasn't possible for the Europeans to field armed forces in Africa for the purpose of enslaving.

Therefore, most of the sub-Saharan Africans slaves sent to America were enslaved by other sub-Saharan Africans, and then sold to European traders. Which doesn't seem very surprising (although unfortunate), given the tribal and political fragmentation of Africa, even today.

Furthermore, sub-Saharan Africans were enslaved not because they were dark-skinned, but because they were easy targets because they were so politically fragmented due to the geography of Africa. Tribes and groups with military power were in a position to take advantage of less-militant groups. FWIW, the Arabs enslaved many more sub-Saharan Africans than the Europeans ever did (in fact, more caucasian europeans were enslaved by the Arabs and north Africans than blacks were sent to the Americas. At that juncture in history, the Arabian civilizations were more advanced than the european ones, making the europeans easy targets).

FWIW, there's no real "white culture," either. As many people who have lived abroad can attest, white people are very different; Germans, Russians, Britons, Irish, Scots, Scandanavians, French, Spanish, Italians, Poles, and people from other ethnic groups behave very differently, even more so if they are from America.


Furthermore, education begets education, privilege begets privilege. Blacks have been on the wrong side of this equation for far too long. It's not like blacks are swarming into top schools like a plague, stealing all the spots from otherwise talented whites. Look at the data - there is a glaring dearth of black students at just about every law school. Worry not - your place in the law is certainly not in jeopardy.

 ::)


Well, if you try to obtain privilege thru political means, don't be surprised when other groups begin to compete for access to the same privileges. Or begin to envy and clamor against the politically-privileged should these competitors fail to secure the same privileges. This latter consequence is why I think AA is a flawed policy.


This thread is a joke anyway. Surely there are those blacks that have been able to gain admission to schools on their own merits, without the assistance of affirmative action – I know several of them. Yet you call out an entire race as if no blacks are capable of succeeding without “help.” So from the outset you’re engaging trollish, racist views. And you wonder why H4CS hasn’t taken you seriously?


Of course there are blacks able to succeed on their own merits! The first black graduate of Harvard graduated sometime in the 1920s, back when openly espousing racist views was still socially acceptible. I've never claimed that blacks were incapable of succeeding without help - if you peruse my posts, you'll struggle to find any evidence to support that insinuation. I oppose AA because it's flawed policy with bad consequences, not because I hold any doubts about the intrinsic abilities of black people (a point that doesn't make sense given my stated admiration of Tom Sowell).

And I respond to H4CS not because I want his approval (heavens no) but because I want to show how intellectually bankrupt he is by resorting to banal pandering to stereotypes rather than addressing the substance of my arguments.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 21, 2007, 06:41:44 PM
Let's just hope that when you are called to represent someone you don't botch it and get them sentenced to the chair for a misdemeanor.



Your honor, you shouldn't hold me in contempt - I'm an excellent coiler!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 06:45:24 PM
Let's just hope that when you are called to represent someone you don't botch it and get them sentenced to the chair for a misdemeanor.



If the doctor had graduated from Harvard Med (HMS) without AA and screwed up, people would think that he made an honest mistake, since the HMS enrollment and graduation standards hadn't been compromised.

But since he graduated from HMS under AA and screwed up, people will begin to doubt whether or not graduates who benefitted from AA are actually qualified, since AA policies do compromise HMS enrollment and graduation standards.

I guess from this perspective, it doesn't matter whether or not the doctor erred due to being underqualified; the presence of AA policies causes people to doubt the professional standings of everyone previously favored by AA should one person in the favored group screw up.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 06:52:42 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 21, 2007, 07:01:18 PM
You can't.

Welcome to the new world order.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:03:43 PM
But since he graduated from HMS under AA and screwed up, people will begin to doubt whether or not graduates who benefitted from AA are actually qualified, since AA policies do compromise HMS enrollment and graduation standards.

Wait.

I could name a dozen or more white business leaders with prestigious degrees who effed up.

Does that mean I shouldn't trust any business leaders?  I mean if these guys with their prestigious degrees can be so dumb, how can I believe any business leader is qualified?

Well, I would understand if you began to wonder whether or not the prestigious degree was a genuine certification of value, rather than a worthless piece of paper. And that's the real point I'm trying to make - this incident drew the value of the HMS degree into doubt, especially so since AA does lower standards for the people in the favored groups. This doubt is unfair to anyone from those favored groups who would have done fine without AA, and only serves to polarize people's attitudes against people from the favored groups.

Besides, if a business leader with a prestigious degree couldn't do basic algebra or hold a meeting, wouldn't you start to wonder what's up? That's not to say that the doctor in this anecdote was that grossly underqualified, but the point of my providing the anecdote was to show one instance where an AA recipient messed up something that any HMS grad should have learned.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 07:07:25 PM
Black people were primarily oppressed and enslaved by other black people.

::coughs, hacks up lung, dies::

Black-lung?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 21, 2007, 07:10:30 PM
Black people were primarily oppressed and enslaved by other black people.

::coughs, hacks up lung, dies::

I love that PN is conflating enslaved and oppressed.  Awesome.

Black people were primarily oppressed and enslaved by other black people.

::coughs, hacks up lung, dies::

Black-lung?

OH NOES!!!!!11!1!!1!!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:11:46 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 07:13:36 PM
So underqualified for Harvard = dead patients. Thanks.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:14:21 PM

pls review the tj's and my comments in the last few posts, then respond.  ty.

I addressed tj's concerns in a more recent post.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 07:15:18 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

Are you really going to stand by this rationalization...? Really...!?!

:D :D :D
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 21, 2007, 07:24:43 PM
So underqualified for Harvard = dead patients. Thanks.



I've been on this board for over 3 years now. This is a top 10 post of all time. Immediate classic.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:28:06 PM

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.

I know for a fact that at least one medical school other than Harvard has a policy of not failing students if at all possible, regardless of their race.  My understanding is that such policies are quite common.

keep trying.

Well, then that policy is flawed as well. A medical school that passes underqualified doctors doesn't do much to safeguard the safety of the patients who will later be seeing those doctors. \

Your objection doesn't really address why I think AA is flawed, unless you argue that flawed policies in other institutions justifies the flawed policy that is AA, which would be conceding that AA is flawed.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:30:18 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

Are you really going to stand by this rationalization...? Really...!?!

:D :D :D

Are you going to address why my argument is flawed rather than glibly insinuate that it is without explaining why? Or do you presume that your insinuation is sufficient to address why the argument is flawed? If so, why should anyone trust your insinuation?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:31:31 PM

Well, then that policy is flawed as well. A medical school that passes underqualified doctors doesn't do much to safeguard the safety of the patients who will later be seeing those doctors. \

Your objection doesn't really address why I think AA is flawed, unless you argue that flawed policies in other institutions justifies the flawed policy that is AA, which would be conceding that AA is flawed.

Put down the LSAT books and think.   ;)



Well, I don't see the argument. Can you explain it?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 07:33:15 PM

Are you going to address why my argument is flawed rather than glibly insinuate that it is without explaining why? Or do you presume that your insinuation is sufficient to address why the argument is flawed? If so, why should anyone trust your insinuation?

I'm just confident enough to assume that everyone else but you sees why your rationalization is flawed, and that it would be beneficial for you to figure it out on your own.

Though that might be too much work for you to figure it out on your own at this level. I can help you if you really, really need me to. I wouldn't want any dead patients because of the rigor and all.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 07:41:00 PM

Are you going to address why my argument is flawed rather than glibly insinuate that it is without explaining why? Or do you presume that your insinuation is sufficient to address why the argument is flawed? If so, why should anyone trust your insinuation?

I'm just confident enough to assume that everyone else but you sees why your rationalization is flawed, and that it would be beneficial for you to figure it out on your own.

Though that might be too much work for you to figure it out on your own at this level. I can help you if you really, really need me to. I wouldn't want any dead patients because of the rigor and all.

Go for it. Explain. FWIW, I don't want to see any dead patients, either.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 08:06:30 PM
To begin with, examine the number of assumptions you've made, and then work through them.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:36:36 PM
To begin with, examine the number of assumptions you've made, and then work through them.



That's not really an explanation. What assumptions have I made? If you identify them, I can perhaps justify my assumptions with evidence.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 21, 2007, 08:38:10 PM
Quote
I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.

BULL!!! Does Sowell have concrete proof? What fool would believe this s**t?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 21, 2007, 08:45:40 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:48:31 PM
To begin with, examine the number of assumptions you've made, and then work through them.



That's not really an explanation. What assumptions have I made? If you identify them, I can perhaps justify my assumptions with evidence.

This exercise is for your own benefit.  Do the work. 

TJ accused me of making assumptions that don't make sense. I'm not going to list every single assumption that could be applicable to this argument, especially since this I have few stakes in the outcome of this discussion, but if there are specific assumptions that TJ would like me to address, then should he list them out, I'll do my best to provide an explanation.

Otherwise, I'm going to assume that all the assumptions I've made make sense to TJ, and he's characterizing them as erroneous so he can avoid addressing my argument.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 08:54:00 PM
Hey, you're the one doing the talking. I'm just sitting back and laughing at both your rhetoric AND your rhetorical maneuvers.

Ten bucks on what you say next.


Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:55:32 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.

Well, if anesthesiology is indeed more difficult than surgery, then I've made a flawed assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that if the doctor in this case had gone into a different field, one which was simpler than surgery, he might not have botched the procedure. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, you could swap it with a field that is easier than surgery and my argument would still apply.

In addition, I highly doubt all practicioners of Internal Medicine become surgeons, so there's room in that field for non-surgeons as well.

I'm here to discuss the issue. If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would stop posting. I'm assuming that you're here to discuss AA as well. If that is so, what would insinuating that "I have a lot of time on my hands" serve to forward the discussion of AA?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 08:58:35 PM
Hey, you're the one doing the talking. I'm just sitting back and laughing at both your rhetoric AND your rhetorical maneuvers.

Ten bucks on what you say next.


If you're not here to address any arguments, then I can safely discount that you didn't find any unwarranted assumptions in my arguments.

Laugh however much you want, that doesn't change the fact that you were bluffing unless you can come up with something specific I can address.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 21, 2007, 09:01:07 PM
I win.

(And you've made two more assumptions in that last post of yours; you're on a roll)

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 21, 2007, 09:13:16 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.

Well, if anesthesiology is indeed more difficult than surgery, then I've made a flawed assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that if the doctor in this case had gone into a different field, one which was simpler than surgery, he might not have botched the procedure. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, you could swap it with a field that is easier than surgery and my argument would still apply.

In addition, I highly doubt all practicioners of Internal Medicine become surgeons, so there's room in that field for non-surgeons as well.

I'm here to discuss the issue. If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would stop posting. I'm assuming that you're here to discuss AA as well. If that is so, what would insinuating that "I have a lot of time on my hands" serve to forward the discussion of AA?

I did not say nor imply that anesthesiology is an easier specialty than surgery. I simply cautioned you against "passing it off" as easy b/c it is NOT.

And one last thing: I don't engage fools in discussion.  It's useless!

Now I'm off to study.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 09:46:13 PM

I did not say nor imply that anesthesiology is an easier specialty than surgery. I simply cautioned you against "passing it off" as easy b/c it is NOT.


If anesthesiology is easier than surgery, then my argument still applies. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, substitute a specialty easier than surgery for anesthesiology and my argument still applies.

I honestly don't know enough about medicine to judge how easy anesthesiology is, but that really isn't relevant since my argument only requires an example of a medical specialty easier to learn than surgery.

And one last thing: I don't engage fools in discussion.  It's useless!

Well, then, you're implying that any argument I put forward as not being worthy of being addressed. But that doesn't mean that you've addressed the argument.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 10:08:24 PM
(I don't know how it worked when the guy in question was in school, but today you don't get to be a surgeon just because you went to Harvard.)

Not a licensed surgeon at least.  Now if you excuse me, I have to remove a gallbladder, and this time it's not my own.  @#!*, I don't even know what a gallbladder is.  Good thing I have a half-drunk bottle of port around here somewhere.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 10:19:17 PM
(I don't know how it worked when the guy in question was in school, but today you don't get to be a surgeon just because you went to Harvard.)

hth.

hey, Pseudo, go back and list some assumptions you've made and we'll tell you which ones we'd like you to support.

Where did I state that going to Harvard was sufficient to allow one to practice surgery?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 21, 2007, 10:30:18 PM
Remind me again of the link between a medical student being qualified enough to be admitted into Harvard, even with the help of affirmative action, and being underqualified to practice medicine (assuming he graduated).

I do remember Sowell saying that he heard from friends within Harvard's administration and professorate that HMS had a policy of never failing black students. Combine that policy with a policy of admitting black students who don't mean normal HMS admissions standards and you have the makings of underqualified graduates.


Also, it seems to me that if affirmative action were removed this student would still have most likely been admitted to at least a reputable state medical school, and again assuming he graduated, would still be practicing medicine. So are you insinuating that Harvard graduated him when they shouldn't have? Or that difference in medical education between Harvard and State U results in more doctor-caused deaths (since Black Doctor was probably qualified to attend State U, but not Harvard)?


Well, if the doctor in this case hadn't attended HMS, but had attended a state school, he might have been learning medicine at a pace and depth for which he was more suited (a friend of mine at HMS says the pace is ridiculously frenetic, so you have to be on your toes if you want to learn it all). If he had been learning medicine at a slower pace and in less depth in a state school than what he would have been expected to learn at Harvard, it's possible that the doctor in this case would have learned more, rather than less, reducing the chance that he would screw up.

Furthermore, the doctor might not have been performing the surgery in which he screwed up. He may have gone into radiology or anesthesiology instead, which would have benefitted the hapless patient in this case.

You obviously know very little about medical specialties. An anesthesiologist could easily send a patient to glory by administering anesthesia in incorrect amounts.  You seem to have a lot of time on your hands b/c you constantly attempt to awe us with your endless cant on AA and its intrinsic flaws.

My suggestion? Research the different medical specialties.  I'm sure you'll find that Internal Medicine is one of the "easier" ones.

Well, if anesthesiology is indeed more difficult than surgery, then I've made a flawed assumption. But the point I'm trying to make is that if the doctor in this case had gone into a different field, one which was simpler than surgery, he might not have botched the procedure. If anesthesiology is more difficult than surgery, you could swap it with a field that is easier than surgery and my argument would still apply.

In addition, I highly doubt all practicioners of Internal Medicine become surgeons, so there's room in that field for non-surgeons as well.

I'm here to discuss the issue. If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would stop posting. I'm assuming that you're here to discuss AA as well. If that is so, what would insinuating that "I have a lot of time on my hands" serve to forward the discussion of AA?

You know what, the human brain never ceases to amaze me. Here we have an Asian chap who writes quite eloquently, but can not seem to comprehend the rationale behind AA. As an Asian-American wouldn't your energy be better committed to issues related to consistently out-performing all other races academically, yet the boardrooms, chief executives and high positioned goverment officials are incongrous to the academic accolades you all have made as a race of people.

I guess that is neither here nor there. Consider that you are asking us refute a book full of anecdotal evidence and self loathing. As a African-American I can assure you that one thing we are experts at identifying is self loathing Negroes. Hell, 500 years of torment and oppression yields such occurences no matter the modern cultural contras randomly coming about by black nationalism to reverse such damage.

By the way your gems about slavery contain some distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa implies quite a large region. This was not the case. Most slaves decended from not just West Africa, but morethe region surrounding the Congo. Secondly, it is common knowledge the African slavery was generally thought of us indentured servitude, not the systemic corroding of a person's self image, identity and culture/history (e.g.cutting off genitalia, amputation, theft, educating us to be inferior...etc). I could go on, but you get the idea. It is disturbing to know that a person of color seems to be completely oblivious to the systemic discrimination in place that prevents the very individual promoting a color blind standardized merit based system. @#!* anecdotal, lets go with empirical. The vault 100 partners are clearly visible on their respective firm's website; you tell me how many Asian partners you see. Maybe then you will realize that AA is not only appropriate, but the country lacks more social doorstops than you originally thougt.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 21, 2007, 10:31:03 PM
Pardon my spelling or grammar but its 1:30
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 10:59:14 PM

Where did I state that going to Harvard was sufficient to allow one to practice surgery?

Like I said, put down the LSAT books and think.

Well, why don't you point it out? I think you're bluffing.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 21, 2007, 11:05:23 PM
Well, why don't you point it out? I think you're bluffing.

And I think you shouldn't have taken it to heart when your mother told you that you were special.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 11:32:06 PM

You know what, the human brain never ceases to amaze me. Here we have an Asian chap who writes quite eloquently, but can not seem to comprehend the rationale behind AA. As an Asian-American wouldn't your energy be better committed to issues related to consistently out-performing all other races academically, yet the boardrooms, chief executives and high positioned goverment officials are incongrous to the academic accolades you all have made as a race of people.

I guess that is neither here nor there. Consider that you are asking us refute a book full of anecdotal evidence and self loathing. As a African-American I can assure you that one thing we are experts at identifying is self loathing Negroes. Hell, 500 years of torment and oppression yields such occurences no matter the modern cultural contras randomly coming about by black nationalism to reverse such damage.

By the way your gems about slavery contain some distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa implies quite a large region. This was not the case. Most slaves decended from not just West Africa, but morethe region surrounding the Congo. Secondly, it is common knowledge the African slavery was generally thought of us indentured servitude, not the systemic corroding of a person's self image, identity and culture/history (e.g.cutting off genitalia, amputation, theft, educating us to be inferior...etc). I could go on, but you get the idea. It is disturbing to know that a person of color seems to be completely oblivious to the systemic discrimination in place that prevents the very individual promoting a color blind standardized merit based system. @#!* anecdotal, lets go with empirical. The vault 100 partners are clearly visible on their respective firm's website; you tell me how many Asian partners you see. Maybe then you will realize that AA is not only appropriate, but the country lacks more social doorstops than you originally thougt.

Please explain how my being Asian somehow invalidates my arguments that AA policies will result in deleterious consequences for the favored classes.

Everything you wrote above is largely incongruous to addressing that argument.

Wouldn't addressing the argument do more to address the argument than making patronizing remarks about the person making the argument? Or does your dismissive patronization betray a lack of ability to address the arguments, therefore you hope that said patronization will distract observers from your ability to perform?

Have you read Sowell's book? How do you know it's full of self-loathing? Do you have some kind of mystical mind-reading ability? Or are you arbitrarily defining people holding contrary positions as self-loathing in order to call doubt upon their arguments without addressing the facts or validity of said arguments?

I could define you as a Shining-Path Commie, but I haven't. At least in this post, I'm making an effort to substantially respond to what you've written.

And...

How does calling Sub-Saharan Africa "Sub-Saharan Africa" in any way imply that it's a large region? That's what the region's always been called.

Furthermore, I had brought up the prevalence of the slave trade in Africa to show that its primary perpetrators were black Africans. I'm not sure how your characterization of African's attitudes towards the slave trade as an exercise in indentured servitude challenges the truth of that fact. And I sincerely doubt that even if African slavery were similar to indentured servitude (something that I don't know enough about to contest), I doubt that the indentured servants would be allowed to maintain their old cultures upon release from their temporary servitude.

FWIW, the Arabs were the ones who took black women as concubines and black men as eunuchs. Compared to what the Arabs were doing to their slaves, the Europeans were pretty tame (although that doesn't morally justify slavery).

And...

The lack of Asian partners at vault-100 firms doesn't suggest that systemic discrimination is at play. Other factors may have played a role.

Growing up in Silicon Valley in a largely Asian area, I can attest that most Asians studied engineering or the natural sciences. Most of these students went on to work as engineers, businesspeople, doctors, dentists, or researchers. The lack of prominent lawyers isn't indicative of systemic discrimination if Asians have historically prioritized admittance into other professions.

My pre-law advisor mentioned that it has only been within the last 5-8 years that Asians have applied to law schools in more than minute numbers. If her testimony on this matter can be applied to most undergraduate institutions, then the lack of Asians amongst vault-100 partners can also be explained by the lack of Asian lawyers experienced enough to make partner in these firms.

I don't doubt that some doors are blocked for some people, but seeing that it's impossible to actually gauge how much discrimination exists, it's impossible to tailor a standardized program that would address discrimination in all its possible individual cases, and AA causes more problems than it solves (possibly even causing more discrimination as a backlash against favored groups receiving privileged treatment due to unequal standards), AA doesn't strike me as a very wise policy.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 21, 2007, 11:47:58 PM
Ok, I'll nudge you closer.  This one is a freebie.

Assuming (yes, I'm making an assumption here) that today's standards were in place when surgeon in question went through the process, he would have had to:

1) get into Harvard.  Even assuming he was an AA admit, he was at least the cream of that crop.
2) make it through two years of classes
3) get a very high score on the USMLE (iirc, the lowest quintile for surgeons is still above the average for all medical students.  I can look this up another time if it matters).
4) get stellar recommendations from rotations in the 3rd and 4th years from doctors in programs NOT directly affiliated with Harvard.
5) Finish the rest of the licensing process.
6) Get accepted to a surgery residency somewhere
7) Make it through the several years of the residency (again NOT under a Policy that some author HEARD Harvard had.)

Given this, what assumptions would you have to make to maintain your previous claims?  This is your first homework assignment.


There we go! Now we're getting somewhere.

You make a good counter-argument, one that I wouldn't have thought of (which is why I wanted you to explicitly state your objection in the first place). I admit that I don't nearly have enough facts for the originally supplied anecdote to serve as air-tight evidence that the doctor in question is underqualified. I was going on someone else's recollection of an event that occurred before I was born, and assessment of the doctor in question as unqualified. In fairness, this isn't the best type of evidence to use in concluding anything.

Still, the evaluations you had specified in 1) -> 7) could all have been influenced by AA; that is, poor performance could have been glossed over in favor of promoting the doctor in congruence with the aims of AA. And the person providing the assessment had reached his conclusion that AA had compromised the evaluation process for this doctor based on his entree to the administrators and faculty at HMS. If you believe his assessment is credible, then the argument holds; if not, then it doesn't.

Regardless, the presence of AA allows other people to think that the doctor's screwup was a result HMS's AA policies permitting the graduation of underqualified doctors, and any AA that would be taken into consideration in subsequent evaluatory steps, even if the doctor's screwup was a genuine mistake. This draws doubts upon the qualifications of anyone favored by AA, regardless of their actual level of competency.

If AA had never been implemented as a policy, other people wouldn't have any reasons to think this, saving the competency of the competent doctors in the would-be favored-class from being questioned due to the screwup of someone else in the would-be favored-class.

Further,

As I said earlier, I wish I could magically conjure a list of successful malpractice claims against all Harvard doctors.  Your second homework assignment:  Why did I say that?

I'm not sure. Can you explain? FWIW, I'm not sure Sowell mentioned that someone had filed a malpractice claim in this case, or if they did, the claim was successfully litigated.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 22, 2007, 06:46:52 AM

You know what, the human brain never ceases to amaze me. Here we have an Asian chap who writes quite eloquently, but can not seem to comprehend the rationale behind AA. As an Asian-American wouldn't your energy be better committed to issues related to consistently out-performing all other races academically, yet the boardrooms, chief executives and high positioned goverment officials are incongrous to the academic accolades you all have made as a race of people.

I guess that is neither here nor there. Consider that you are asking us refute a book full of anecdotal evidence and self loathing. As a African-American I can assure you that one thing we are experts at identifying is self loathing Negroes. Hell, 500 years of torment and oppression yields such occurences no matter the modern cultural contras randomly coming about by black nationalism to reverse such damage.

By the way your gems about slavery contain some distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa implies quite a large region. This was not the case. Most slaves decended from not just West Africa, but morethe region surrounding the Congo. Secondly, it is common knowledge the African slavery was generally thought of us indentured servitude, not the systemic corroding of a person's self image, identity and culture/history (e.g.cutting off genitalia, amputation, theft, educating us to be inferior...etc). I could go on, but you get the idea. It is disturbing to know that a person of color seems to be completely oblivious to the systemic discrimination in place that prevents the very individual promoting a color blind standardized merit based system. @#!* anecdotal, lets go with empirical. The vault 100 partners are clearly visible on their respective firm's website; you tell me how many Asian partners you see. Maybe then you will realize that AA is not only appropriate, but the country lacks more social doorstops than you originally thougt.

Please explain how my being Asian somehow invalidates my arguments that AA policies will result in deleterious consequences for the favored classes.

Everything you wrote above is largely incongruous to addressing that argument.

Wouldn't addressing the argument do more to address the argument than making patronizing remarks about the person making the argument? Or does your dismissive patronization betray a lack of ability to address the arguments, therefore you hope that said patronization will distract observers from your ability to perform?

Have you read Sowell's book? How do you know it's full of self-loathing? Do you have some kind of mystical mind-reading ability? Or are you arbitrarily defining people holding contrary positions as self-loathing in order to call doubt upon their arguments without addressing the facts or validity of said arguments?

I could define you as a Shining-Path Commie, but I haven't. At least in this post, I'm making an effort to substantially respond to what you've written.

And...

How does calling Sub-Saharan Africa "Sub-Saharan Africa" in any way imply that it's a large region? That's what the region's always been called.

Furthermore, I had brought up the prevalence of the slave trade in Africa to show that its primary perpetrators were black Africans. I'm not sure how your characterization of African's attitudes towards the slave trade as an exercise in indentured servitude challenges the truth of that fact. And I sincerely doubt that even if African slavery were similar to indentured servitude (something that I don't know enough about to contest), I doubt that the indentured servants would be allowed to maintain their old cultures upon release from their temporary servitude.

FWIW, the Arabs were the ones who took black women as concubines and black men as eunuchs. Compared to what the Arabs were doing to their slaves, the Europeans were pretty tame (although that doesn't morally justify slavery).

And...

The lack of Asian partners at vault-100 firms doesn't suggest that systemic discrimination is at play. Other factors may have played a role.

Growing up in Silicon Valley in a largely Asian area, I can attest that most Asians studied engineering or the natural sciences. Most of these students went on to work as engineers, businesspeople, doctors, dentists, or researchers. The lack of prominent lawyers isn't indicative of systemic discrimination if Asians have historically prioritized admittance into other professions.

My pre-law advisor mentioned that it has only been within the last 5-8 years that Asians have applied to law schools in more than minute numbers. If her testimony on this matter can be applied to most undergraduate institutions, then the lack of Asians amongst vault-100 partners can also be explained by the lack of Asian lawyers experienced enough to make partner in these firms.

I don't doubt that some doors are blocked for some people, but seeing that it's impossible to actually gauge how much discrimination exists, it's impossible to tailor a standardized program that would address discrimination in all its possible individual cases, and AA causes more problems than it solves (possibly even causing more discrimination as a backlash against favored groups receiving privileged treatment due to unequal standards), AA doesn't strike me as a very wise policy.

I love it. I love it.

You being Asian doesn’t invalidate your arguments and furthermore to suggest that AA will have “deleterious” consequences is a gratuitous use of the English language. Even in the most extreme circumstance I would submit to you AA would have negligible adverse consequences at best. Many of the consequences you have outlined in your previous post would exist with or without AA. Discrediting Black folks because of AA, would merely turn into discrediting Blacks due to neighborhood they grew up in, maybe even undergraduate institution, clothes we wear, hairstyle or some other BS.

No I have not read Sowell’s book COMPLETELY, but I am familiar enough with it to make educated commentary. When it comes to mystical ability I would define it more so as intuition with a very low coefficient of error as it relates to detecting self loathing Blacks.

Incidentally, I have a more socialist lean.

Sub Saharan Africa by definition is the area below the Sahara. That’s roughly ¾ of Africa.

I brought up the slave trade because you brought up the slave trade. I don’t think you were trying to trivialize it, but there seem to consequences stemming from the slave trade that for one reason or another you can’t link to Blacks folks here and now despite them being conspicuous to most Black folks. That’s gap you will have to bridge on your own.

I will accept your accept your premise for lack of Asian partners, but I will assure you that 5-10 years from now there will still be a disproportionately small number of Asian partners. You mentioned business men, doctors and engineers; maybe its me but I haven’t seen even the slightest prevalence of Asian chief executives in the Fortune 1000. Are you familiar with what some people call a “glass ceiling”. There is no shortage of smaller businesses and engineering firms headed by Asians I am certain, but again you seem to be wearing blinders.

“I don't doubt that some doors are blocked for some people, but seeing that it's impossible to actually gauge how much discrimination exists, it's impossible to tailor a standardized program that would address discrimination in all its possible individual cases, and AA causes more problems than it solves (possibly even causing more discrimination as a backlash against favored groups receiving privileged treatment due to unequal standards), AA doesn't strike me as a very wise policy.”

I love it. The mere fact that you made this comment demonstrates the need for AA.  If it is impossible to gauge exactly how much discrimination exists yet everyone is cognizant of its pervasiveness it would be foolish to abolish a program that combats it. The fact it is not iron clad does not invalidate it. AA came about to reverse instances where less qualified Whites were being selected over more qualified Blacks, Indians…etc.  I think  it is quite convenient you haven’t brought that up. Ergo the “quota”.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 06:49:10 AM
Regardless, the presence of AA allows other people to think that the doctor's screwup was a result HMS's AA policies permitting the graduation of underqualified doctors, and any AA that would be taken into consideration in subsequent evaluatory steps, even if the doctor's screwup was a genuine mistake. This draws doubts upon the qualifications of anyone favored by AA, regardless of their actual level of competency.

If AA had never been implemented as a policy, other people wouldn't have any reasons to think this, saving the competency of the competent doctors in the would-be favored-class from being questioned due to the screwup of someone else in the would-be favored-class.

People are only likely to think that if they're racist anyway. Otherwise, they're liable to chalk it up to people f-ing up, as do many, many, many white doctors, which I'm thinking was a reason Piggy would like to see that list of successful malpractice claims. If black doctors aren't f-ing up proportionately more than white doctors are, then there's no reason to say that AA has relaxed admission standards, because presumably the white doctors who screwed up were admitted under the more "rigorous" admission standards.

Sorry for spoiling the second homework assignment, P. I had doubts about whether s/he was gonna get it anyway, though.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on August 22, 2007, 06:58:14 AM
Ok, I'll nudge you closer.  This one is a freebie.

Assuming (yes, I'm making an assumption here) that today's standards were in place when surgeon in question went through the process, he would have had to:

1) get into Harvard.  Even assuming he was an AA admit, he was at least the cream of that crop.
2) make it through two years of classes
3) get a very high score on the USMLE (iirc, the lowest quintile for surgeons is still above the average for all medical students.  I can look this up another time if it matters).
4) get stellar recommendations from rotations in the 3rd and 4th years from doctors in programs NOT directly affiliated with Harvard.
5) Finish the rest of the licensing process.
6) Get accepted to a surgery residency somewhere
7) Make it through the several years of the residency (again NOT under a Policy that some author HEARD Harvard had.)

Given this, what assumptions would you have to make to maintain your previous claims?  This is your first homework assignment.


There we go! Now we're getting somewhere.

You make a good counter-argument, one that I wouldn't have thought of (which is why I wanted you to explicitly state your objection in the first place). I admit that I don't nearly have enough facts for the originally supplied anecdote to serve as air-tight evidence that the doctor in question is underqualified. I was going on someone else's recollection of an event that occurred before I was born, and assessment of the doctor in question as unqualified. In fairness, this isn't the best type of evidence to use in concluding anything.

Still, the evaluations you had specified in 1) -> 7) could all have been influenced by AA; that is, poor performance could have been glossed over in favor of promoting the doctor in congruence with the aims of AA. And the person providing the assessment had reached his conclusion that AA had compromised the evaluation process for this doctor based on his entree to the administrators and faculty at HMS. If you believe his assessment is credible, then the argument holds; if not, then it doesn't.

Regardless, the presence of AA allows other people to think that the doctor's screwup was a result HMS's AA policies permitting the graduation of underqualified doctors, and any AA that would be taken into consideration in subsequent evaluatory steps, even if the doctor's screwup was a genuine mistake. This draws doubts upon the qualifications of anyone favored by AA, regardless of their actual level of competency.

If AA had never been implemented as a policy, other people wouldn't have any reasons to think this, saving the competency of the competent doctors in the would-be favored-class from being questioned due to the screwup of someone else in the would-be favored-class.

Further,

As I said earlier, I wish I could magically conjure a list of successful malpractice claims against all Harvard doctors.  Your second homework assignment:  Why did I say that?

I'm not sure. Can you explain? FWIW, I'm not sure Sowell mentioned that someone had filed a malpractice claim in this case, or if they did, the claim was successfully litigated.

end thread/. Silliest argument of all time.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:09:56 AM
Are you familiar with what some people call a “glass ceiling”.

the jews seem to have broken through it.  difference between them, other groups?  (i have an answer in mind, but i'm curious as to whether people think the same thing i do.)

What is whiteness, Alex?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:11:52 AM
People are only likely to think that if they're racist anyway.

the problem, of course, is that people are racist.  yes, even you.

I didn't say that quote.   >:(

But yeah, I am at least in the sense that I notice race.  A prof once told me that was the only requirement for being racist.  So yeah, I guess I'm racist.



The first step is admitting you have a problem!
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 22, 2007, 08:14:00 AM
Are you familiar with what some people call a “glass ceiling”.

the jews seem to have broken through it.  difference between them, other groups?  (i have an answer in mind, but i'm curious as to whether people think the same thing i do.)

For starters they look almost entirely like Whites Christian counterparts which makes for an almost seamless assimilation. Any other characteristics such as their last name or religion they can change or hide to avoid discrimination and prejudice. They also received reparations from the holocaust between 4-6 billion.

For that matter "US paid 1.6 Billion to Japanese Americans for 4 years and paid Black People $0 for 400 years of forced labor"
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:14:54 AM
I really don't think it was Holocaust reparations, fwiw.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:16:51 AM
You racist pig.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:19:07 AM
People are only likely to think that if they're racist anyway.

the problem, of course, is that people are racist.  yes, even you.

I didn't say that quote.   >:(

But yeah, I am at least in the sense that I notice race.  A prof once told me that was the only requirement for being racist.  So yeah, I guess I'm racist.

The first step is admitting you have a problem!

what's the second step?

Something about a higher power. That's about where I get off usually.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:21:31 AM

Something about a higher power. That's about where I get off usually.

God really does it for you, huh?

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:22:16 AM

Something about a higher power. That's about where I get off usually.

God really does it for you, huh?



read: DISEMBARK.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:23:41 AM

Something about a higher power. That's about where I get off usually.

God really does it for you, huh?



Something about a higher power. That's about where I get off usually.

God really does it for you, huh?



read: DISEMBARK.

Hey, I didn't need a euphemism to know what you meant ;)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:50:22 AM
I'm not sure - there is just as much vested interest in exposing the flaws in AA as there would be in suppressing any (should they be found), I would think.

Do you have any such evidence or information? It would interesting to read.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 06:14:48 PM

I love it. I love it.

You being Asian doesn’t invalidate your arguments and furthermore to suggest that AA will have “deleterious” consequences is a gratuitous use of the English language. Even in the most extreme circumstance I would submit to you AA would have negligible adverse consequences at best. Many of the consequences you have outlined in your previous post would exist with or without AA. Discrediting Black folks because of AA, would merely turn into discrediting Blacks due to neighborhood they grew up in, maybe even undergraduate institution, clothes we wear, hairstyle or some other BS.

No I have not read Sowell’s book COMPLETELY, but I am familiar enough with it to make educated commentary. When it comes to mystical ability I would define it more so as intuition with a very low coefficient of error as it relates to detecting self loathing Blacks.

Incidentally, I have a more socialist lean.

Sub Saharan Africa by definition is the area below the Sahara. That’s roughly ¾ of Africa.

I brought up the slave trade because you brought up the slave trade. I don’t think you were trying to trivialize it, but there seem to consequences stemming from the slave trade that for one reason or another you can’t link to Blacks folks here and now despite them being conspicuous to most Black folks. That’s gap you will have to bridge on your own.

I will accept your accept your premise for lack of Asian partners, but I will assure you that 5-10 years from now there will still be a disproportionately small number of Asian partners. You mentioned business men, doctors and engineers; maybe its me but I haven’t seen even the slightest prevalence of Asian chief executives in the Fortune 1000. Are you familiar with what some people call a “glass ceiling”. There is no shortage of smaller businesses and engineering firms headed by Asians I am certain, but again you seem to be wearing blinders.

“I don't doubt that some doors are blocked for some people, but seeing that it's impossible to actually gauge how much discrimination exists, it's impossible to tailor a standardized program that would address discrimination in all its possible individual cases, and AA causes more problems than it solves (possibly even causing more discrimination as a backlash against favored groups receiving privileged treatment due to unequal standards), AA doesn't strike me as a very wise policy.”

I love it. The mere fact that you made this comment demonstrates the need for AA.  If it is impossible to gauge exactly how much discrimination exists yet everyone is cognizant of its pervasiveness it would be foolish to abolish a program that combats it. The fact it is not iron clad does not invalidate it. AA came about to reverse instances where less qualified Whites were being selected over more qualified Blacks, Indians…etc.  I think  it is quite convenient you haven’t brought that up. Ergo the “quota”.


Sowell is arguing that AA "increases" discrimination. People who resent the favored privileges conferred to favored groups by AA programs will transfer that resentment to the favored groups. If any particular incident (such as a doctor from the favored group screwing up) draws into question how many of those people of the favored group are underqualified, people will not hesitate to point fingers at the AA policies as contributing to the cause.

You can't measure the extent of the "systemic" and "pervasive" discrimination you describe, so how do you know that AA isn't increasing that discrimination? How do you know when that discrimination has been rectified? If AA means to correct for this discrimination, you must have some means of measuring it, to see if AA is indeed correcting or having a negative effect on that discrimination. If, as Sowell suggests, AA is exacerbating discrimination by increasing racial conflict, then AA will only make the problem worse. If AA is making the discrimination worse, but means to correct for that problem, then even greater levels of AA are needed, which will, in turn, further increase discrimination.

Setting people at each other's throats for the drippings of political power will fragment the country.

Furthermore, differences in ethnic representation in a given industry or group is not necessarily an indication of discrimination. There are probably more Jewish financiers than Southern Slavic financiers. The Jews have worked in finance since the Middle Ages, while Balkan newspapers from as late as 1920 have decried bankers and moneylenders as hated "Greeks." These differing cultural attitudes towards finance are a more likely cause of the different levels of representation in that industry.

Why the Chinese not broken into the management positions of the Fortune 500 can be answered by examining the demographics of the Chinese. Most Chinese people immigrated to the United States around 1960. The Chinese who had lived in the United States prior to that were manual laborers (or, in some rare cases, their descendents - as these laborers couldn't marry or bring their wives from China) who were discriminated against and prevented from obtaining an education, precluding their opportunities to learn management skills. In the case of the 1960s immigrants, only one generation of cultural acclimation would hamper *any* ethnic groups attempts to rise to levels of management. Traditional Chinese cultural practices also tend to hamper cooperative undertakings (although that is another topic).

And I brought up the role of black Africans (and Arabs) in the slave trade to counter someone else's attempt to pin moral responsibility for that trade on the Europeans. The Europeans deserve some share of the moral condemnation, but much of the rest falls on various tribes of enslaving Africans.

Don't forget that slavery had been an accepted institution for thousands of years of human history across all cultures until the British and the Americans began to regard it as a moral injustice. If it weren't for British antislavery efforts, sometimes over the objections of their later subjects in their African colonies, Africans might still be enslaved today.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 06:20:59 PM

People are only likely to think that if they're racist anyway. Otherwise, they're liable to chalk it up to people f-ing up, as do many, many, many white doctors, which I'm thinking was a reason Piggy would like to see that list of successful malpractice claims. If black doctors aren't f-ing up proportionately more than white doctors are, then there's no reason to say that AA has relaxed admission standards, because presumably the white doctors who screwed up were admitted under the more "rigorous" admission standards.

Sorry for spoiling the second homework assignment, P. I had doubts about whether s/he was gonna get it anyway, though.

That would be a good place to begin a study, although I'm not sure successful medical malpractice claims are necessarily a good way to measure physician incompetency. I'm fairly certain the number of medical malpractice claims levied varies from specialty-to-specialty (OB/GYN suffers from a large number of claims; that's how John Edwards made his money); how many of these successful claims are due to genuine medical incompetence, versus finding a sympathetic jury or being brought by a convincingly charismatic plaintiff's counsel, is not necessarily easy to gauge.

If the racial distribution of doctors varies between specialties, any study would necessarily have to correct for these distorting factors. There are probably others, but the number of claims per specialty is the factor that I can think of at this moment.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:04:34 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 08:14:52 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.

This is sort of generalizable in these discussions, no?  It seems like clockwork that some kid comes along thinking his opposition to AA is somehow magical and due to always being the smartest of his friends, he must be right.  Throw in some Thomas Sowell (he's BLACK!!!!) and we have ourselves another thread.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:20:12 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.

This is sort of generalizable in these discussions, no?  It seems like clockwork that some kid comes along thinking his opposition to AA is somehow magical and due to always being the smartest of his friends, he must be right.  Throw in some Thomas Sowell (he's BLACK!!!!) and we have ourselves another thread.

And then we can sojourn here (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/board,31.0.html) to see the scattered corpses and charred remains of valiant warriors on both sides of the issue littering the landscape, festering, smelly, foul.



T S Eliot?

From now on my stock response is going to be "ur jus a jellus h8r."
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:26:22 PM
Eh, I prefer reality.

Becomes pretty obvious then, no?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:34:08 PM

T S Eliot?

From now on my stock response is going to be "ur jus a jellus h8r."

B M F Piggy

Take it as a compliment, my good sir. No one does despair like Eliot.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 08:35:31 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.

This is sort of generalizable in these discussions, no?  It seems like clockwork that some kid comes along thinking his opposition to AA is somehow magical and due to always being the smartest of his friends, he must be right.  Throw in some Thomas Sowell (he's BLACK!!!!) and we have ourselves another thread.

First you characterize me as white. Then you characterize me as thinking my opposition to AA is magical. Then you characterize me as being the smartest of my friends.

Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 08:37:41 PM
Eh, I prefer reality.

Becomes pretty obvious then, no?

Leftists don't care about people. Leftists only care about proving their moral or intellectual superiority to other people. What actually happens to other people is of no interest to leftists.

If by reality you mean "the leftist vision," then yes.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 22, 2007, 08:38:25 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.

This is sort of generalizable in these discussions, no?  It seems like clockwork that some kid comes along thinking his opposition to AA is somehow magical and due to always being the smartest of his friends, he must be right.  Throw in some Thomas Sowell (he's BLACK!!!!) and we have ourselves another thread.

First you characterize me as white. Then you characterize me as thinking my opposition to AA is magical. Then you characterize me as being the smartest of my friends.

Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.

Last I checked, JELLUS H8R, you were the one who responded to my point with some bull confounding factors that can easily be adjusted for. Ball's in YOUR court.

By the way, we know you're Chinese. Loud and clear. Over and out, numbnuts.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 08:39:27 PM
Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.

Maybe if you spent more time worrying about your personal life you'd have friends who told you that your ideas on this subject are not particularly insightful or interesting and that you're better off keeping them to yourself until you have something worthwhile to say.  I'm just trying to help shine the spotlight where you need it most.  But yeah, quote some more Thomas Sowell anecdotes to me.  That's how you get the respect of people who know the subjct better than you do.

Wah wah wah.  He hurt me in the aspects of my life.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:42:13 PM
Eh, I prefer reality.

Becomes pretty obvious then, no?

Leftists don't care about people. Leftists only care about proving their moral or intellectual superiority to other people. What actually happens to other people is of no interest to leftists.

Right. ::)


If by reality you mean "the leftist vision," then yes.

The position of minorities in society and in the professional world begs to differ. Hope that f-ing helps, ace.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 08:45:14 PM
the acrimony in this thread is a delicious topping on my slice of pizza.

Up here in MA, we let all people bind themselves in holy acrimony.  Don't tell that a-hole from the GMU thread or he's going to start crying about his hurt feelings and then we'll have a full daycare center in here.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:49:23 PM

I thought tj was actually pretty conservative.   ??? ??? ???

::conflates stuff, for fun::

No, I just don't do stuff (for fun).

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 08:52:12 PM
Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.

Maybe if you spent more time worrying about your personal life you'd have friends who told you that your ideas on this subject are not particularly insightful or interesting and that you're better off keeping them to yourself until you have something worthwhile to say.  I'm just trying to help shine the spotlight where you need it most.  But yeah, quote some more Thomas Sowell anecdotes to me.  That's how you get the respect of people who know the subjct better than you do.

Wah wah wah.  He hurt me in the aspects of my life.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:52:14 PM

No, I just don't do stuff.



well yeah, I knew you weren't promiscuous but that shouldn't have any bearing on your politics.

Yeah, it depends I guess.

Though I figured all of my anti-capitalist ranting would have given me away.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 08:54:32 PM
Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.

Maybe if you spent more time worrying about your personal life you'd have friends who told you that your ideas on this subject are not particularly insightful or interesting and that you're better off keeping them to yourself until you have something worthwhile to say.  I'm just trying to help shine the spotlight where you need it most.  But yeah, quote some more Thomas Sowell anecdotes to me.  That's how you get the respect of people who know the subjct better than you do.

Wah wah wah.  He hurt me in the aspects of my life.

You're the dipshit who can't stay on topic.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 22, 2007, 08:55:49 PM
Never mind. Already taken care of, I see.

This is sort of generalizable in these discussions, no?  It seems like clockwork that some kid comes along thinking his opposition to AA is somehow magical and due to always being the smartest of his friends, he must be right.  Throw in some Thomas Sowell (he's BLACK!!!!) and we have ourselves another thread.

First you characterize me as white. Then you characterize me as thinking my opposition to AA is magical. Then you characterize me as being the smartest of my friends.

Look, moron. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea who my friends are, nor do you have any idea about many other aspects of my life. What you do have an idea of is what arguments I have put forward against AA. Perhaps you should address those, instead of grasping at straws about my private life or personal identity, a topic that you have proven yourself to be completely and necessarily ignorant about.

Last I checked, JELLUS H8R, you were the one who responded to my point with some bull confounding factors that can easily be adjusted for. Ball's in YOUR court.

By the way, we know you're Chinese. Loud and clear. Over and out, numbnuts.

Look, fuckwad, I said that the study might work. I had simply noted that such a study may be complicated by a few data discrepencies, which, as you noted (and I agree with) would have to be accounted for by the designing statistician. I'm not what prompted this latest round of insults.
Eh, I prefer reality.

Becomes pretty obvious then, no?

Leftists don't care about people. Leftists only care about proving their moral or intellectual superiority to other people. What actually happens to other people is of no interest to leftists.

Right. ::)


If by reality you mean "the leftist vision," then yes.

The position of minorities in society and in the professional world begs to differ. Hope that f-ing helps, ace.

bull. You only claim to care about the position of minorities because it gives you an excuse to assert your moral superiority. Admit it, "ace."
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 08:58:06 PM
Yeah yeah, the white man that helps the black woman is patronizing and doing it for his own selfish reasons, blah blah.

I don't care about much right now other than waiting for college football to start, to be honest. So ya got me.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 09:00:42 PM
Up here in MA, we let all people bind themselves in holy acrimony.  Don't tell that a-hole from the GMU thread or he's going to start crying about his hurt feelings and then we'll have a full daycare center in here.

i don't even know who you're talking about.

This guys' long-lost twit brother is annoying me in the GMU threads and is bashing MA while doing so for reasons that are best left between him and whatever Christian god all the kids are praying to now.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Gengiswump on August 22, 2007, 09:04:59 PM
Yeah yeah, the white man that helps the black woman is patronizing and doing it for his own selfish reasons, blah blah.

I don't care about much right now other than waiting for college football to start, to be honest. So ya got me.

:'(
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 09:07:36 PM
why are you in a GMU thread?

The same reason conservatives cared about Ward Churchill or Norman Finkelstein.  People who are seriously considering GMU need to seriously consider that it's not any different than Regent.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 09:12:08 PM
oh.  i don't see why you would care about them to be honest, but i probably care about too little so whatever floats your boat.

Eh.  GMU is quietly being legitmized as another ND or Chicago when it really is another Oral Roberts.  I don't like sitting idly by as another outpost of non-meritocratic conservatism goes unchallenged.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 22, 2007, 09:12:52 PM
Yeah yeah, the white man that helps the black woman is patronizing and doing it for his own selfish reasons, blah blah.

I don't care about much right now other than waiting for college football to start, to be honest. So ya got me.

:'(

I know, I know...
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 22, 2007, 11:49:21 PM
People who are seriously considering GMU need to seriously consider that it's not any different than Regent.

I had a lecturer who went to GMU Law.  He taught introductory finance.

Smart enough guy, but, yeah. 

Comparing it to Regent is a bit harsh.

Quantity, not quality.  It's quantitatively better than Regent, just not qualitatively different as far as ideology goes.  And that doesn't mean than everyone who comes out of Regent or GMU is a braindead zombie.  I'm sure some of their grads could be somewhat decent, maybe, perhaps, and so on.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Funia on August 23, 2007, 12:45:38 AM
uhhh, so only blacks benefit from AA? :-\

Even if one were to view AA as a unearned "hook up," I know more white people who benefit from the unearned "hook ups" American life has to offer than I do black. In reality, people don't care about an issue or circumstance until it affects them. Then they want to scream to the high heaven about what they view as an injustice instead of seeking an outside perspective on why things are the way they are in this nation.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Funia on August 23, 2007, 12:47:20 AM
double post
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 23, 2007, 06:39:46 AM
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Galbraith

The single most potent argument against conservatism
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 23, 2007, 06:53:13 AM
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Galbraith

The single most potent argument against conservatism

what about if people are okay with selfishness?  what then?

Thats easy...were screwed
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 08:24:59 PM
Even if one were to view AA as a unearned "hook up," I know more white people who benefit from the unearned "hook ups" American life has to offer than I do black. 

Do two wrongs make a right?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 08:27:01 PM
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Galbraith

The single most potent argument against conservatism

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. "

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

What non-leftists think of leftists.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 08:29:40 PM

bull. You only claim to care about the position of minorities because it gives you an excuse to assert your moral superiority. Admit it, "ace."

Yeah, he's selfish.

So are you, for that matter. You desire a mark of moral distinction, but pretend that you objectively do not. At least I'm honest enough to admit that I, as an individual, like having and owning things and being esteemed by people whose values I agree with, rather than running around posing as though I didn't.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 23, 2007, 08:38:44 PM
You're being an idiot again. Go away.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 08:45:58 PM
You're being an idiot again. Go away.

Dostoevsky would be proud. Make me.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 23, 2007, 09:08:32 PM
You're being an idiot again. Go away.

Dostoevsky would be proud. Make me.

Seriously, what do you expect to gain here?

Coming to this forum to fire vacuous barbs that claim "libs" are (for some reason) disingenuous and inconsistent in their views and actions is simple trollish behavior. And yet you act annoyed when everyone ignores you - or worse, doesn't take you seriously.

There is plenty of good literature out there for you to consume - both for and against - if you want to learn something about AA. If you're looking to have an honest discussion here, to perhaps learn something (if not that, then I guess I just don't understand your motivations), perhaps you should (at least attempt to) check your clumsy rhetoric at the door.

Otherwise...
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 10:40:11 PM
You're being an idiot again. Go away.

Dostoevsky would be proud. Make me.

Seriously, what do you expect to gain here?

Coming to this forum to fire vacuous barbs that claim "libs" are (for some reason) disingenuous and inconsistent in their views and actions is simple trollish behavior. And yet you act annoyed when everyone ignores you - or worse, doesn't take you seriously.

There is plenty of good literature out there for you to consume - both for and against - if you want to learn something about AA. If you're looking to have an honest discussion here, to perhaps learn something (if not that, then I guess I just don't understand your motivations), perhaps you should (at least attempt to) check your clumsy rhetoric at the door.

Otherwise...

Well, that's what I had attempted to do, participatind in an honest argument. I had forwarded the arguments that had convinced me to oppose AA, but then people who opposed that position began to childlishly slag and troll away.

After spending a significant amount of time typing substantiative refutations to the bizarre tangents that people were ascribing to my position, I decided to @#!* it and flame back.

If I recall, you were one who had initially provoked this round of mudslinging, although H4CS deserves the lion's share of the blame.

If you go for a low blow, don't expect me not to retaliate. Don't try to take the high ground after you're partially responsible for creating the pigsty.

And I had made my statement about leftists (not liberals, leftists) in response to someone claiming that their support of AA meant that they "cared." Assumption that their position showed a greater "caring" has been central to the leftist position for 100s of years, and accusations of "not caring" have been central to accusations hurled by leftists towards non-leftists for 100s of years, from Rousseau towards Burke to English Democratic Socialists towards Hayek. I merely provided the centuries-old retort, in the tradition of the other political philosophy.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 23, 2007, 10:50:26 PM
Honestly, if you care, read this thread: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.0.html)

Read it all of the way through, and give an honest effort to understand what she's talking about.

Also, like piggy and H4CS have commented, it does get a little boring whenever someone comes in here guns-a-blazing. Like the Captain said, "I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out...beautiful snowflake, and all."


Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 23, 2007, 11:01:36 PM
Honestly, if you care, read this thread: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.0.html (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,64541.0.html)

Read it all of the way through, and give an honest effort to understand what she's talking about.

Also, like piggy and H4CS have commented, it does get a little boring whenever someone comes in here guns-a-blazing. Like the Captain said, "I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out...beautiful snowflake, and all."


FWIW, I typed my initial reply while listening to elevator music piped in by the credit protection company as I cancelled my credit protection plan. I really had no idea about the acrimonious history of these discussions.

I'm not really sure how anyone could assume that I had written what I wrote because I wanted to feel special, either. I had merely been responding to the topic at hand, and particularly the acrimony between the two positions in this argument, which, given a history of similar acrimony that has arisen wherever affirmative action policies have been implemented around the world, seemed fairly appropriate.

I didn't step into this thread to pick a fight, which is why I was so offput by the response I received. Insinuating that I was a "special little snowflake" or whatever was totally uncalled for, and thoroughly inaccurate.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: obamacon on August 23, 2007, 11:04:24 PM

one just makes more sense to a non-URM who didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth...

that's directed at tj?   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


 :D              :D :D :D :D     :D   
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D              :D       :D     :D
 :D :D :D :D     :D :D :D :D     :D :D :D :D


I'm fairly certain you have something more useful to do with your time.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 23, 2007, 11:04:47 PM
You amaze me, pig.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: obamacon on August 23, 2007, 11:09:50 PM
Not for another week.

Did someone misread the hockey stick again?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: obamacon on August 23, 2007, 11:19:04 PM
where did the hockey stick metaphor come from, again?  That's almost as stupid as the penguin diagram.

(http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/stuwork/rockwater/Ice/penguins-save%20them!!!.gif)
?
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: Funia on August 24, 2007, 12:05:33 AM
Even if one were to view AA as a unearned "hook up," I know more white people who benefit from the unearned "hook ups" American life has to offer than I do black. 

Do two wrongs make a right?

Well one wrong sure as hell doesn't. The same people who say affirmative action is wrong would purposely remain silent if, for instance, one of their parent's friends hooked them up with a great job. However, unlike the scenario, their is underlying intent associated with affirmative action. It is a "wrong" structured in hopes of helping individuals overcome historical injustice - an element that still affects communities of color (and women) today. As a result of institutional racism in America, many people of color (and women) do not have equal access to the quality education and preparation needed to be successful in a number of fields. The simple suggestion of working harder and getting better grades in undergrad, is a solution that does not fit the problem.

What if your K-12 education didn't adequately prepare you for the academic challenges of college? How do you expect disenfranchised individuals to overcome the odds of growing up in a neighborhood in which the education system is in shambles? I think you need to take some time out of your superiority realm.

Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 24, 2007, 12:17:59 AM
Even if one were to view AA as a unearned "hook up," I know more white people who benefit from the unearned "hook ups" American life has to offer than I do black. 

Do two wrongs make a right?

Well one wrong sure as hell doesn't. The second wrong is an attempt to overcome the hints of injustice that still affect African-American communities today.

You simply can't compare the plight of Asian-American's with African-Americans (apples and oranges). Both groups have two different histories and parts of their history contribute to the state of their cultures.

So you admit that AA is morally wrong?

How does doing very a concrete wrong to everyone else make the residual "hints" of wrong to one particular group any better? Do you think this will increase or decrease the net amount of wrongness in the world?

What if AA makes discrimination worse, by setting ethnic groups at each other's throats because of differential standards? If AA compounds the injustice, is it a wise policy?

And I never attempted to compare Asians with Blacks. I agree that their histories are very different (heaven knows how different the various Asian ethnic groups, much less the regional groups, are...).
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 24, 2007, 02:10:34 AM
Even if one were to view AA as a unearned "hook up," I know more white people who benefit from the unearned "hook ups" American life has to offer than I do black. 

Do two wrongs make a right?

Well one wrong sure as hell doesn't. The second wrong is an attempt to overcome the hints of injustice that still affect African-American communities today.

You simply can't compare the plight of Asian-American's with African-Americans (apples and oranges). Both groups have two different histories and parts of their history contribute to the state of their cultures.

So you admit that AA is morally wrong?

How does doing very a concrete wrong to everyone else make the residual "hints" of wrong to one particular group any better? Do you think this will increase or decrease the net amount of wrongness in the world?

What if AA makes discrimination worse, by setting ethnic groups at each other's throats because of differential standards? If AA compounds the injustice, is it a wise policy?

And I never attempted to compare Asians with Blacks. I agree that their histories are very different (heaven knows how different the various Asian ethnic groups, much less the regional groups, are...).

Wow! 

Attributing increasing interethnic (or interracial)  tension to AA is naively idiotic.  Ethnic groups were at each other's throats long before civil rights proponents lobbied for AA.  The culprit? Try racism! Unfortunately, its vestiges stubbornly remain embedded in today's societal fabric, necessitating such institutionalized initiatives as AA.

Now you have me reminiscing about my 1st yr in college.  My ex-KKK "white" college dormitory roommate from freshman year hated my guts due to my "black" skin, NOT affirmative action.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 24, 2007, 07:27:41 AM

So you admit that AA is morally wrong?


Oh quit.

Stop looking at things in a binary, black or white (no pun intended), yes or no, right or wrong lens. You're being overly simplistic and disingenuous by doing so.

The world just doesn't quite work that way.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: dashrashi on August 24, 2007, 07:34:25 AM
I especially like the return to kindergarten and the whining insistence, if AA is ever "admitted" to be "wrong" by a proponent, that "two wrongs don't make a right."

Classic.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 24, 2007, 08:44:43 AM
and both sides have decent arguments?

Dunno.  Haven seen any good ones ;)

I second that.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 25, 2007, 12:15:04 AM

So you admit that AA is morally wrong?


Oh quit.

Stop looking at things in a binary, black or white (no pun intended), yes or no, right or wrong lens. You're being overly simplistic and disingenuous by doing so.

The world just doesn't quite work that way.

Well, is raping infants morally wrong? What about forcing children to beat their parents to death, a la the Khmer Rouge?

I agree with you that there are certainly shades of what's moral and what isn't, but there are circumstances that fall more completely in one category or the other.

Anyways, I made that comment because it seemed that Funia was agreeing to the moral wrongness of AA, and I wanted to clarify that's what she meant. If it were, then any defense of AA she would have to make would need to take that admission into account, which would make defending AA more difficult (not impossible, but more difficult).
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 25, 2007, 12:26:57 AM

Wow! 

Attributing increasing interethnic (or interracial)  tension to AA is naively idiotic.  Ethnic groups were at each other's throats long before civil rights proponents lobbied for AA.  The culprit? Try racism! Unfortunately, its vestiges stubbornly remain embedded in today's societal fabric, necessitating such institutionalized initiatives as AA.

Now you have me reminiscing about my 1st yr in college.  My ex-KKK "white" college dormitory roommate from freshman year hated my guts due to my "black" skin, NOT affirmative action.

Well, I won't disagree with you that ethnic groups had been at each others' throats prior to AA. But I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict. This evidence isn't conclusive, but it does support the idea.

I can't provide you bullet-proof evidence that AA is increasing racial disharmony, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think citing "institutionalized racism" provides much justification for AA policies, either, because, as I've previously stated, such alleged "racism" can't be measured, much less proven. If policymakers can't measure the extent of alleged "institutionalized racism" (versus, say, non-institutionalized racism), much less the extent of AA's effects upon it, then it doesn't provide much of a support for AA policies.

And I'm sorry to hear that you had to live with a bigot for a year. My condolences.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: OperaAttorney on August 25, 2007, 06:33:55 AM

Wow! 

Attributing increasing interethnic (or interracial)  tension to AA is naively idiotic.  Ethnic groups were at each other's throats long before civil rights proponents lobbied for AA.  The culprit? Try racism! Unfortunately, its vestiges stubbornly remain embedded in today's societal fabric, necessitating such institutionalized initiatives as AA.

Now you have me reminiscing about my 1st yr in college.  My ex-KKK "white" college dormitory roommate from freshman year hated my guts due to my "black" skin, NOT affirmative action.

Well, I won't disagree with you that ethnic groups had been at each others' throats prior to AA. But I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict. This evidence isn't conclusive, but it does support the idea.

I can't provide you bullet-proof evidence that AA is increasing racial disharmony, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think citing "institutionalized racism" provides much justification for AA policies, either, because, as I've previously stated, such alleged "racism" can't be measured, much less proven. If policymakers can't measure the extent of alleged "institutionalized racism" (versus, say, non-institutionalized racism), much less the extent of AA's effects upon it, then it doesn't provide much of a support for AA policies.

And I'm sorry to hear that you had to live with a bigot for a year. My condolences.

Correlation DOES NOT indicate CAUSATION. Yes, an increase in racial conflict may correlate with the implementation of AA policies, but one must eliminate all other possible causal variables before arriving at the conclusion presented above.  Plainly speaking, Sowell's argument lacks cogency! He might be able to sell that s**t to an uneducated redneck from Alabama, a fellow self-loathing black person, a selfish educated bigot, etc.  But I know better.

Living with a white ex-KKK member wasn't so bad.  I was STRONG, and we eventually had a stand-off LOL  ;D.  He couldn't take the "heat in the kitchen," so he moved out, leaving the room to me for all of spring quarter.  I was in HEAVEN!  ;)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: H4CS on August 25, 2007, 08:21:44 AM
I'm inclined to believe that AA has increased the rancor, because, as Sowell had pointed out in "Inside American Education," after AA policies have been implemented, crimes attributable to racial conflict have begun appearing in university towns located in areas where there had never been a history of racial conflict.

Before James Meredith appeared in Oxford, the whites there never rioted or burned down the city.  But when one Black guy showed up, then whamo, pandamonium.  Clearly integration caused racial conflict.

You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory.  Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution.  Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality.  That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: t... on August 25, 2007, 10:25:05 AM
Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality.  That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

...AND it is exactly because of the status quo we have need affirmative action.

Among other things.

Well put.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 25, 2007, 08:58:15 PM

Correlation DOES NOT indicate CAUSATION. Yes, an increase in racial conflict may correlate with the implementation of AA policies, but one must eliminate all other possible causal variables before arriving at the conclusion presented above.  Plainly speaking, Sowell's argument lacks cogency! He might be able to sell that s**t to an uneducated redneck from Alabama, a fellow self-loathing black person, a selfish educated bigot, etc.  But I know better.


I'm quite aware that Correlation != Causation. The sudden emergence of racial acrimony after AA policies have been implemented in one area doesn't allow one to definitively conclude that the policies were the cause of the acrimony. Like you mentioned, the greater numbers of people in the AA-favored groups could account for this increase in conflict. This is definitely another plausible explanation for this sequence of events, and I wouldn't be honest if I didn't take it as a possibility.

However, if you take into consideration that similar consequences have occurred when AA has been implemented in other cultures around the world, and in many of these cultures, members of the favored group had been present in the AA-implemented institution prior to the implementation of AA without sparking racial acrimony, then it's more likely that AA is the cause than the presence of members of the favored-group is the cause.

I can't really give you conclusive proof, but I thought this argument would at least make plausible sense. I was pretty convinced by it when I've also taken into consideration other things I've read about the topic of AA, but you may not be.

There was more to Sowell's argument against AA in that book, but because I only read up to that part (since I was browing the book preview on amazon.com, rather than a physical copy of the book), I can't tell you what more there is.


Living with a white ex-KKK member wasn't so bad.  I was STRONG, and we eventually had a stand-off LOL  ;D.  He couldn't take the "heat in the kitchen," so he moved out, leaving the room to me for all of spring quarter.  I was in HEAVEN!  ;)


I'm surprised that the administration of your school didn't step in. Honestly, that would probably be one of the most awkward living arrangements you could force two people into.

On a side note, even though racial bigotry is largely a social taboo in the United States, it's still very prevalent in Asia. Several Singaporean managers in my company have mentioned that they thought Black people were more related to animals than non-Blacks, citing, as evidence, the prevalence of Black people in professional sports (as to these managers, more "animal" persons would have greater physical attributes than less "animal" persons) and lack of intelligent Black people.

What's really surprising is that these managers are in their mid-30s, and by no means ignorant of the world, although they may be ignorant of the achievements of Black people.

My girlfriend mentions that this set of beliefs is also somewhat prevalent amongst the Mainland Chinese. And, from an article I read about what Hines Ward had to endure as a Blasian who had grown up amongst Koreans in the United States, similar beliefs may be found amongst the Koreans.
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: PNym on August 25, 2007, 09:24:14 PM
You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory.  Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution.  Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality.  That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

The problem with AA is precisely that it turns processes (school admissions, government hirings, government contracts) that had previously been not-necessarily influenced by political considerations into processes that definitely are influenced by political considerations. Increasing how much political considerations influence these processes provides people applying to these processes a stronger incentive to pursue political influence, which may distract from applicants pursuing the knowledge or skills that would normally allow them to better compete for positions in the absence of these considerations. And greater knowledge and skills of applicants would improve how much the applicants could learn from, or contribute to, the institution, while political influence does no such thing.

Furthermore, if you define the rule of law as applying an equal set of standards to all people under its rule, then since AA requires the application of different standards to different groups of people, AA is in conflict with the principle of the rule of law.

Since part of the appeal of the rule of law is that its enforcement does not favor particular groups (that is, justice is blind), and this appeal is part of the reason why people follow the rule of law without the need for stronger measures of enforcement, then if AA policies that conflict with the rule of law are implemented, the subsequent reduction in the appeal of the principle may require stronger enforcement to yield the same level of civil peace. Stronger enforcement requires a judiciary that more often encroaches on personal matters, which, in turn, reduces the amount of freedom of the people in the society of its jurisdiction.

On a side note, I don't think crime statistics are necessarily inaccurate. More Black people being arrested and prosecuted isn't necessarily because the police or prosecutors are selectively targeting Blacks; it may be because Black people are committing more crimes. Heather McDonald made this argument in one of her books (which I admit I haven't read). Both factors may play a role in the disproportionate presence of Blacks in reported crime statistics, so I think to come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on how much more one factor plays in the ex post results than the other, one must examine both possibilities, which I doubt you have done (of course, I could be wrong with this doubt).

(FYI, I myself haven't come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on this matter, so please sheath your rhetorical sword.)
Title: Re: Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?
Post by: UNAS on August 26, 2007, 01:06:31 PM
You realize how perverse Sowell's argument is when it's white people attacking black people who dare to venture it what used to be fairly exclusively white territory.  Whatever fake statistics he's going to quote will reflect the legal system's violence towards black men in reporting and prosecution.  Sure, AA will cause increased racial conflict, but it's likely going to be conflict from the group that is losing some power manifested towards the group that is trying to gain some equality.  That's why struggles for equality are hard and a desire to avoid all conflict is a desire to never disrupt the status quo.

The problem with AA is precisely that it turns processes (school admissions, government hirings, government contracts) that had previously been not-necessarily influenced by political considerations into processes that definitely are influenced by political considerations. Increasing how much political considerations influence these processes provides people applying to these processes a stronger incentive to pursue political influence, which may distract from applicants pursuing the knowledge or skills that would normally allow them to better compete for positions in the absence of these considerations. And greater knowledge and skills of applicants would improve how much the applicants could learn from, or contribute to, the institution, while political influence does no such thing.

Furthermore, if you define the rule of law as applying an equal set of standards to all people under its rule, then since AA requires the application of different standards to different groups of people, AA is in conflict with the principle of the rule of law.

Since part of the appeal of the rule of law is that its enforcement does not favor particular groups (that is, justice is blind), and this appeal is part of the reason why people follow the rule of law without the need for stronger measures of enforcement, then if AA policies that conflict with the rule of law are implemented, the subsequent reduction in the appeal of the principle may require stronger enforcement to yield the same level of civil peace. Stronger enforcement requires a judiciary that more often encroaches on personal matters, which, in turn, reduces the amount of freedom of the people in the society of its jurisdiction.

On a side note, I don't think crime statistics are necessarily inaccurate. More Black people being arrested and prosecuted isn't necessarily because the police or prosecutors are selectively targeting Blacks; it may be because Black people are committing more crimes. Heather McDonald made this argument in one of her books (which I admit I haven't read). Both factors may play a role in the disproportionate presence of Blacks in reported crime statistics, so I think to come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on how much more one factor plays in the ex post results than the other, one must examine both possibilities, which I doubt you have done (of course, I could be wrong with this doubt).

(FYI, I myself haven't come up with anything more than a tentative opinion on this matter, so please sheath your rhetorical sword.)

I have come to the conclusion that PsuedoNym uses the rope-a-dope method of arguing. Guess what, he won. Simply put, my young Asian brother or sister is turning this debate into a battle of endurance. I am recusing myself with aplomb. My head is bloody but unbowed.