I'm going to assume that.....

[indyguy7484]

Id prefer a purely merit based blind selection procedure for college admissions.  But if we have to use AA, i believe that income based selection will benefit dispossessed native americans on welfare rather then the children of a casino owner, the lower middle class white who has never felt any privilege of race in her homogeneous home town, and the inner city african american child who has been failed by still segregated schools.

I don't really want to get into a raging AA debate, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for the bolded part.  I don't think I've encountered many people who want to move to a system based solely on "merit".

[$Bill]

Id prefer a purely merit based blind selection procedure for college admissions.  But if we have to use AA, i believe that income based selection will benefit dispossessed native americans on welfare rather then the children of a casino owner, the lower middle class white who has never felt any privilege of race in her homogeneous home town, and the inner city african american child who has been failed by still segregated schools.

I don't really want to get into a ragin AA debate, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for the bolded part.  I don't think I've encountered many people who want to move to a system based solely on "merit".

Lsat score + gpa + extracurriculars/work experience; sans name and location.  Best applicant gets in.  LSAT doesnt seem to show a particular racial bias, though id like to read studies on it, because frankly, a lot of municipalities have rewritten their civil service exams in that exact regards.  GPA does not show racial bias.  And if your extracurriculars happen to be helping inner city children...the adcom salutes you for it, he/she doesn't infer the color of your skin. 

[indyguy7484]

My concern is that a system like that is hugely preferential to wealthy people.  I guess if you don't think that promoting economic mobility should be a goal of our education policy, though, a merit-only system make sense.

[$Bill]

My concern is that a system like that is hugely preferential to wealthy people.  I guess if you don't think that promoting economic mobility should be a goal of our education policy, though, a merit-only system make sense.

Its not to protect wealth, but to entitle a man to his own sweat.  Economic mobility should be promoted by education, not by a cherry picking external system built into academic bureaucracy.     It doesnt take a wealthy man to eschew a social life for 5 months to study for the LSAT, and it doesnt take a wealthy man to go to a state school, attend class, join a club or two, and get above a 3.0.

[indyguy7484]

I'm still not convinced that a pure meritocracy is any better than the current system, but I do sort of understand your point of view.

Here's a pretty interesting article on the concept of meritocracy in admissions and the general problems associated with it.  I thought it might be worth a read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/books/review/Gessen-t.html?_r=1&sq=samuels%20runner&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

[filet o' fish]

Id prefer a purely merit based blind selection procedure for college admissions.  But if we have to use AA, i believe that income based selection will benefit dispossessed native americans on welfare rather then the children of a casino owner, the lower middle class white who has never felt any privilege of race in her homogeneous home town, and the inner city african american child who has been failed by still segregated schools.

I don't really want to get into a ragin AA debate, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for the bolded part.  I don't think I've encountered many people who want to move to a system based solely on "merit".

Lsat score + gpa + extracurriculars/work experience; sans name and location.  Best applicant gets in.  LSAT doesnt seem to show a particular racial bias, though id like to read studies on it, because frankly, a lot of municipalities have rewritten their civil service exams in that exact regards.  GPA does not show racial bias.  And if your extracurriculars happen to be helping inner city children...the adcom salutes you for it, he/she doesn't infer the color of your skin. 

This ignores far too much.

No person exists in a vacuum. The argument that we are or can be purely "self-made men" of our own "sweat" is absolutely ridiculous.

[filet o' fish]

My concern is that a system like that is hugely preferential to wealthy people.  I guess if you don't think that promoting economic mobility should be a goal of our education policy, though, a merit-only system make sense.

Its not to protect wealth, but to entitle a man to his own sweat.  Economic mobility should be promoted by education, not by a cherry picking external system built into academic bureaucracy.     It doesnt take a wealthy man to eschew a social life for 5 months to study for the LSAT, and it doesnt take a wealthy man to go to a state school, attend class, join a club or two, and get above a 3.0.

It doesn't.

It does take a lifelong supportive environment to instill those sorts of values and discipline in individuals - family, friends, school systems, etc.

The argument is that there is a strong correlation between wealth and these sorts of support systems needed to make a successful student and person. It's isn't an absolute correlation, and no one is pretending it is, but is there nonetheless.

Strong arguments can be made that race has a discriminatory factor that influences, and/or can go beyond these types of support systems. Hence the (almost universally accepted) need for "diversity" in the work place and educational system (among other reasons).

There will always be self made people, much like there will always be socially made and unmade people. Surely we not ignore one for the sake of the other?

[$Bill]

Id prefer a purely merit based blind selection procedure for college admissions.  But if we have to use AA, i believe that income based selection will benefit dispossessed native americans on welfare rather then the children of a casino owner, the lower middle class white who has never felt any privilege of race in her homogeneous home town, and the inner city african american child who has been failed by still segregated schools.

I don't really want to get into a ragin AA debate, but I'm curious as to your reasoning for the bolded part.  I don't think I've encountered many people who want to move to a system based solely on "merit".

Lsat score + gpa + extracurriculars/work experience; sans name and location.  Best applicant gets in.  LSAT doesnt seem to show a particular racial bias, though id like to read studies on it, because frankly, a lot of municipalities have rewritten their civil service exams in that exact regards.  GPA does not show racial bias.  And if your extracurriculars happen to be helping inner city children...the adcom salutes you for it, he/she doesn't infer the color of your skin. 

This ignores far too much.

No person exists in a vacuum. The argument that we are or can be purely "self-made men" of our own "sweat" is absolutely ridiculous.

I hear that Allan Greenspan and Ayn Rand disagree with you.  You may not agree but it isnt ridiculous

[filet o' fish]

Lol. Okay.

Tell me you'd be exactly where you are without the support of your parents, without the luck you've had, and the purely fortuitous circumstances (where you grew up, what schools you've attended, friends you've made, etc.) that mark your life from your birth to now.

I'm not suggesting you haven't influenced your position and circumstance through your own efforts and choices; I am suggesting that your own efforts are not the sole reason for who you are and where you are.

Despite what Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand have to say about it.

[$Bill]

Lol. Okay.

Tell me you'd be exactly where you are without the support of your parents, without the luck you've had, and the purely fortuitous circumstances (where you grew up, what schools you've attended, friends you've made, etc.) that mark your life from your birth to now.

I'm not suggesting you haven't influenced your position and circumstance through your own efforts and choices; I am suggesting that your own efforts are not the sole reason for who you are and where you are.

Despite what Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand have to say about it.

I went to state college where I worked at delis throughout to pay for (almost done paying btw).  I moved out afterwards to work at a chair van company in boston driving old people around because I couldnt find a job.  I made 23k a year.  I moved to NYC with my fiancee while she goes to medical school. I make 30 a year as an office clerk and support her cost of living.  I havent received money or support from my parents in 4 years.  Perhaps they gave me moral grounding, and a good sense about saving money and budgeting, but surely we arent using AA to make up for the lack of work ethic or morals in minorities, nor their ability to pick the wrong crowds and be unlucky, situations which frankly, i do not believe exist in minority populations in a general sense.

Indeed, ive noticed that in minority communities the sense of community is stronger then in Caucasian ones.