i don't see what's so controversial about trollik's definition of affirmative action. nor do i see why it should be terribly problematic.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
so why's J busy calling him a racist?
Quote from: beast on February 25, 2007, 11:18:32 AMso why's J busy calling him a racist?Pattern and practice, most likely. Or because of his assumptions about the superior "unmeasured qualifications" of the non-URM students in the bottom quarter of the class? (Limiting his control group to legacies.)
J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all.
so is the question being answered here whether there is a boost to relatively smart kids given a leg up? or is the question whether or not AA ends up increasing or decreasing the number of minorities who become lawyers?
they say what I agreed with a while ago:Sanders doesn't know statistics, so his methodology and analysis is wrong.But, from the looks of it there simply isn't enough data to actually come up with anything approaching an answer one can be confident in. Whether the conclusion is incorrect has not been proven.