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

[Kirk Lazarus]

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.

[OperaAttorney]

...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!

[The F-cktard Express]

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?

 

[UNAS]

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.

[PNym]

...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.

[t...]

...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?

[PNym]

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?

[Gengiswump]

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!

[t...]

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."

[Gengiswump]

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.