Why don't blacks work harder in UG and on the LSAT so we can get rid of AA?

[H4CS]

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.

[PNym]

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."

[PNym]

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.

[H4CS]

  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.

[PNym]

  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."

[H4CS]

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.

[dashrashi]

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.

[PNym]

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.

[Kirk Lazarus]

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.

[PNym]

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.