Socio-Economic Affirmative Action

[philibusters]

I am not an immigrant. In fact, in one family line I am tenth generation in America. Well, it wasn't America when they first got here. Even with that, I am do not follow any of the things that you said white people do. I do not use US history as my history. My family does come from other countries, and I am proud of that. I do not readily identify with the government and social institutions.

There are tons of white people who are alienated from mainstream history, culture, and political and social institutions.  Very few of them are elites.  The fact that you are in college and plan on going to law school shows that you probably identify more than you think with the mainstream political and social institutions.  Truely alienated people drop out of highschool, they definitely would not plan on going to law scchool-It sounds more like you have an open mind more than you do not identify with government and social institutions-after all the law profession is one of the stables and core government and social institutions in the nation.

I am not sure what you mean when you say you don't identify with U.S. history. U.S. history is far more complicated than a lot of dead presidents-it contains major themes, like the puritan work ethic leading to captalitistic and materialistic values.  It contains themes of individualism and violence? What history do you identify with?

[norcaldude]

I mentioned before why I think this can't work.

Assume Presitigious College X makes 200 spots available for "low-income" students which has lower admissions standards.

A reasonable parent would then do everything possible to make themselves seem low-income, if at all possible.  Work part-time for two years so that the child has a higher chance at school, transfer property ownership to a blind trust, rent an apt.  Now you have a low-income child in a good school, with characteristics that technically shouldn't get them into the "socio-economic affirmative action" bin.  Only two thousand families a year would need to do this to completely screw up the whole system. 

And I think there are at least that many that would.

[philibusters]

I def. agree, socio-economic affirmative action wouldn't work cause you wouldn't be able to efficently adminster it as a practical matter I think the matter ends there.

Furthermore even if you could, I am not sure its better than racial AA for some of the policy reasons discuessed in this thread, but thats debateable.

[ImVinny!]

I mentioned before why I think this can't work.

Assume Presitigious College X makes 200 spots available for "low-income" students which has lower admissions standards.

A reasonable parent would then do everything possible to make themselves seem low-income, if at all possible.  Work part-time for two years so that the child has a higher chance at school, transfer property ownership to a blind trust, rent an apt.  Now you have a low-income child in a good school, with characteristics that technically shouldn't get them into the "socio-economic affirmative action" bin.  Only two thousand families a year would need to do this to completely screw up the whole system. 

And I think there are at least that many that would.

You know, I actually doubt that, have you looked at the US Census data that states what the poverty line in the US is? It is VERY low and unreasonable to live on that amount of money if you are not accustomed to it. Also, there are many programs for poor people and I don't see anyone trying to "fake" it in order to get their kid a boost.

[norcaldude]

You know, I actually doubt that, have you looked at the US Census data that states what the poverty line in the US is? It is VERY low and unreasonable to live on that amount of money if you are not accustomed to it. Also, there are many programs for poor people and I don't see anyone trying to "fake" it in order to get their kid a boost.

You likely wouldn't need to be below the poverty line, but below some level of income.  In wealthier communities, that level would be higher due to higher housing costs, meaning you could still report a substantial enough income to live off.  Remember, you only need to report LAST year's income, and your current assets.  Best would be communities like cities where it is not immediately obvious by city or even zip code how wealthy one is depending on rent v. own, etc.  Besides, I'm sure there will be ways to hide money if/when it becomes necessary, since you're hiding only your assets from FAFSA, not your income from the IRS, which have quite different legal implications, esp. if you don't go on to accept the FAFSA aid, I'm not sure what kind of penalties there would even be.

And getting some gov't subsidy likely isn't nearly as important to a middle class parent as getting into HYPS.  Completely different.

[psr13]

I am not an immigrant. In fact, in one family line I am tenth generation in America. Well, it wasn't America when they first got here. Even with that, I am do not follow any of the things that you said white people do. I do not use US history as my history. My family does come from other countries, and I am proud of that. I do not readily identify with the government and social institutions.

There are tons of white people who are alienated from mainstream history, culture, and political and social institutions.  Very few of them are elites.  The fact that you are in college and plan on going to law school shows that you probably identify more than you think with the mainstream political and social institutions.  Truely alienated people drop out of highschool, they definitely would not plan on going to law scchool-It sounds more like you have an open mind more than you do not identify with government and social institutions-after all the law profession is one of the stables and core government and social institutions in the nation.

I am not sure what you mean when you say you don't identify with U.S. history. U.S. history is far more complicated than a lot of dead presidents-it contains major themes, like the puritan work ethic leading to captalitistic and materialistic values.  It contains themes of individualism and violence? What history do you identify with?

I don't really identify with any history. I like to learn about the history of the entire world since I am a history nut. A lot of who I am comes from learning a lot about the countries that my ancestors did come from. I see Finnish, English, Czech, Native American, and other traits in me. Yes, I am Cherokee, but only a little bit. I am not materialistic. I am more into teamwork than individualism. I do believe in capitalism. The main reason I did not drop out of high school is that I am a nerd who loves to learn. Many times I did get close to it, but I do like learning.

[JayDee/P-Head]

The Declining Significance of Race by William Julius Wilson.  I always agreed with his premise that race impacts upper class blacks much less than it impacts lower class blacks. 

Though Wilson's main claim may be empirically correct, I think it's foolish to not acknowledge the fact that race still impacts upper-class blacks to a degree that would not seem intuitively accurate.  In housing, blacks of any class level still are more likely to reside in poorer neighborhoods than their white counterparts; in assets, blacks of even the highest class levels are more likely to have much fewer assets than their white counterparts; and on education, blacks still realize lower returns on their investment in education in comparison to whites.  Of course, at extremely elite institutions, many exceptions will be present that seem to call the truth of the research to which I have just referred. Furthermore, if you look at Wilson's The Truly Disadvantaged, his "follow-up" to The Declining Significance of Race, his policy advice is quite interesting.  He states that socio-economic based affirmative action policies will attract more widespread support than race-based policies, and as such AA policies should move in that direction.   

However, what lies at the heart of the above research (especially the housing research) and opposition to AA (especially as observed on this forum) is the disdain for personal, individual sacrifice that is necessary to realize a more egalitarian society.  In other words, people on this board frequently state that a URM being admitted over them is unfair to them individually (implying that such a result is directly opposed to the notion of meritocracy).  I can empathize with that sentiment; however, the notion that people would like a more egalitarian, meritocratic society without having to sacrifice personally for that is nonsensical to me. 

[ibroadrunr]

A few words from Emile Durkheim:

"One sort of heredity will always exist, that of natural talent…A moral discipline will therefore still be required to make those less favored by nature accept the lesser advantages which they owe to the chance of birth.  Shall it be demanded that all have an equal share and that no advantage be given those more useful and deserving?  But then there would have to be a discipline far stronger to make these accept a treatment merely equal to that of the mediocre and incapable....But like the one first mentioned, this discipline can be useful only if considered just by the peoples subject to it."

and

"Nothing is falser than this antagonism too often resented between legal authority and individual liberty.  Quite on the contrary, liberty (we mean genuine liberty, which it is society’s duty to have respected) is itself the product of regulation.  I can be free only to the extent that others are forbidden to profit from their physical, economic, or other superiority to the detriment of my liberty.  But only social rules can prevent abuses of power. It is now known what complicated regulation is needed to assure individuals the economic independence without which their liberty is only nominal."

[JayDee/P-Head]

A few words from Emile Durkheim:

"One sort of heredity will always exist, that of natural talent…A moral discipline will therefore still be required to make those less favored by nature accept the lesser advantages which they owe to the chance of birth.  Shall it be demanded that all have an equal share and that no advantage be given those more useful and deserving?  But then there would have to be a discipline far stronger to make these accept a treatment merely equal to that of the mediocre and incapable....But like the one first mentioned, this discipline can be useful only if considered just by the peoples subject to it."

Interesting quote from Durkheim.  Of course, there is a natural distribution of talent that is distributed across a population; this we cannot avoid.  However, I believe that even Durkheim, were he granted the advantage of the knowledge of a century's worth of social science research, would even have to acknowledge the fact that the ways in which such natural talent is nurtured and developed, and - perhaps more importantly - how individuals are positioned in order to use their natural talents, are informed by many structural factors, among them socioeconomic status, sex, and race  One's advantage or disadvantage in a society depends on not just their natural talent, but also on their location in a society stratified according to the above characteristics (and others as well).