like i said, it cprobably was sent out by mistake and everybody and every institution makes mistakes. btw, Yale is not above making mistakes dude. my point is people here jump all over mistakes like everything has to be and should be perfect.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If given the same advantages, etc blacks score lower then wouldn't that mean they are generally less qualified?
Although that's one interpretation of the data, the following interpretation is more widely held among colleges in America. Because URMs get lower scores than Whites holding things like income and geography constant, it means they are being discriminated against in a way that is not captured by socioeconomic status.
Specifically, being a minority has inherent disadvantages that affect even the most affluent among them. I mentioned specifics before but let me say again that ideas like "stereotype threat," "implicit assocation," and "dynamic social networking" all lead to the conclusion that purely racial discrimination still occurs.
Whether using AA to balance the playing field due to these inequities is morally justified is a very personal question.
but you are assuming that they are capable of getting equivalent scores in the first place.
The comments on this thread about AA have been interesting but I think we should all withold any conclusive remarks about racial preferences because the topic is entirely too complex.
That is nonsense. I've been studying this issue for years, and followed the recent Supreme Court cases very closely, while they were still in appeals court. Speak for yourself if you find the topic too complex.QuoteWe as citizens have to accept the consequences of this gross inequality. Remember, AA would not be necessary, if our ethnocentric English fathers had not decided to enslave a group of people because they were to lazy to pick their own cotton and tobacco
Again, this is absurd. People cannot be held morally responsible for the actions of their ancestors. And since the descendents of slave owners are a tiny minority, even if we could hold people morally responsible for the actions of their ancestors, why should everyone else -- especially people whose families came to this country recently -- be held responsible for something that neither they nor their ancestors had anything at all to do with?
And again, no one has addressed a fundamental question: why should the African American son of a successful neurosurgeon get preference over the white son of poor coal miner? Why use race as a proxy if our desired metric for admissions is adversity?
For those unfamiliar with the law, you should know that, according to the Supreme Court in Bakke and reaffirmed in the more recent Michigan cases Grutter and Gratz, Affirmative Action in the university admissions process can only be justified on the grounds of expanding viewpoint diversity, and not on the grounds of ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, nor on the grounds of making underrepresented groups better represented in proportion to the makeup of the general population.
Interestingly, viewpoint diversity has a number of illogical holes of its own. Just as skin color is no good proxy for adversity, skin color is an even worse proxy for viewpoints. And if viewpoint diversity is the goal, why give preferences to only racial minorities? Surely religious and political minorities have more consistent viewpoints as a group than racial minorities. Their very essence is their viewpoint; that is how the group is defined.
The comments on this thread about AA have been interesting but I think we should all withold any conclusive remarks about racial preferences because the topic is entirely too complex. I think, it should be granted that minorities receieve preference (deserved or not)in the admissions process. Is it true that by "strict numbers" some applicants are going to have better numbers than a minority but still denied admission, yes. But unfortunately, we are all citizens of a country that has tremendous but tragic history. Only until forty years ago did blacks get the right to vote and have schools desegregated "with all delibrate speed." We as citizens have to accept the consequences of this gross inequality. Remember, AA would not be necessary, if our ethnocentric English fathers had not decided to enslave a group of people because they were to lazy to pick their own cotton and tobacco. Blacks had it pretty tough in this country for 200 yrs, in my opinion AA is the least we can do. Just be thankful that all of us will eventually be lawyers some day and that is an immense accomplishment.