ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world

[7S]

Here's a simpler point:

If we could create a level playing field, what would prevent the successful from trying to "unfairly" unlevel it for their children? That's essentially how we got where we are now, anyway, kleptocracy that developed into ruling classes, etc. Seems the utopian ideal is itself always strived for, never reached.

There will never be a level playing field. There will always be attacks from the "successful." But does that translate into a non-attempt?

[7S]

No of course not. But the attempt at a level playing field (in my view, at least) needs to be based on level-ness, not on imposing OTHER un-level fields on the players.

Inevitably, I find, those who are deeply committed to race-based re-leveling aren't doing it for the betterment of the system as a whole. An African-American activist for affirmative action admissions is pissed off that more whites are taking the places that he wants blacks to take. But IF the places taken by whites are suddenly replaced by (formerly deserving but under-represented) Asians, he's PISSED OFF AGAIN. He isn't happy if the un-level playing field becomes more level for Asians, which is a happiness he SHOULD HAVE possessed if he were genuinely in it for the betterment of all. Instead, he's only happy if the un-level playing field becomes MORE EASY for blacks. THEN he likes it. This indicates to me he is unlikely to be truly committed to equality, and rather is committed to the betterment of his racial brothers. I equate that with racism.

There are of course a few who advocate for evenness across all races. I hope I am one of them. I can't ever prove it to most people's satisfaction, though, because I'm a white male from a privileged background (relatively speaking; I've had my share of ups and downs in THAT department, too).

But keep in mind how pissed off an affirm-act black man gets when an asian gets "his" spot, especially when the spot opened up only because of an insistence on quotas or other aff-act type requirements. This disappointment in him indicates he's not in it for "all of us" but for him and his ilk alone.

whoa now....we're threading into spots and quotas...

[7S]

whoa now....we're threading into spots and quotas...

No we aren't. Only mentioned to discuss the topic at hand, and heavens how could it not be related?

But the "whoa now" gives me pause. Familiar diction ...

lol. I'm a Texan. Guns a blazin.

[The F-cktard Express]

racial and gender equality are utopian.

In other words unattainable?

yep and so is the American Dream. Just because it's utopian doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Except, of course, that most Americans appear to be living the American Deam (high standard of living, personal freedom, etc.).  Which is presumably why millions of immigrants from around the planet strive to come here. 

If you believe the other thing, however, is unattainable, it's stupid to waste time pursuing it.

What might be worth pursuing (and is far more attainable), however, is a general equality of opportunity.  Maybe we should therefore strive for that.

Outside of your gated community it's a slightly different world. I mean, our poor comparatively aren't at the same level as many African or Latin American communities, but that doesn't mean they're still "living the American dream."

I'm glad you support equality of opportunity, though. It's too bad the rest of your rhetoric doesn't quite gel with that.

[Lindbergh]

racial and gender equality are utopian.

In other words unattainable?

yep and so is the American Dream. Just because it's utopian doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Except, of course, that most Americans appear to be living the American Deam (high standard of living, personal freedom, etc.).  Which is presumably why millions of immigrants from around the planet strive to come here. 

If you believe the other thing, however, is unattainable, it's stupid to waste time pursuing it.

What might be worth pursuing (and is far more attainable), however, is a general equality of opportunity.  Maybe we should therefore strive for that.

Outside of your gated community it's a slightly different world.

Unlike (perhaps) you, I don't live in a gated community. Maybe if I were technically white, I'd get an automatic slot.

I mean, our poor comparatively aren't at the same level as many African or Latin American communities, but that doesn't mean they're still "living the American dream."

Well, I specifically said "Most Americans."  Most Americans aren't poor. 

I did grow up poor, and it sucked.  But what the American Dream is really about is the opportunity to improve one's situation.  My family did that, so they also lived the American Dream. Many other poor people do so as well, particularly immigrants. 

I'm glad you support equality of opportunity, though. It's too bad the rest of your rhetoric doesn't quite gel with that.

How not?  Last time I checked, my threads are all essentially about ways to create a truly level playing field in admissions (with a slight benefit for minorities for diversity purposes).  This may or may not create an equality of results, but it appears to be the very definition of equality of opportunity. 

[Lindbergh]

To me that's not "equality of opportunity," not if "diversity" is among your criteria. That would be "diversity of opportunity," for lack of a better word.

If you'll look at my proposal on the other thread, I proposed 1) controlling for educational opportuity, and then 2) giving a slight tipping point to the minority candidate for diversity purposes.

The first part reflects equality of opportunity, the 2nd part reflects the desire to increase minority presence when everything else is equal.  (That's why I qualified the above statement by mentioning the diversity aspect.) 

But it's mainly about equality of opportunity.  I'm still looking to see if others can explain what other factors may directly impact GPA/LSAT, so those can perhaps be controlled for.

Maybe we better start by defining "equality." Getting in to one particular law school is equally likely for all humans who possess equal LSAT and GPA numbers? Or, getting in to that same school is equally likely for all humans who are born with (all other things being equal) identical skill at law? Or, for all humans who are born with identical IQs? Or, for all humans who are equally likely to succeed at law? Or ... ?

I'm not sure what your point is here.  My analysis would control for educational opportunity, and then focus primarily on objective numbers among similiarly-situated individuals.  That to me would appear to create a general equality of opportunity.

[7S]

To me that's not "equality of opportunity," not if "diversity" is among your criteria. That would be "diversity of opportunity," for lack of a better word.


If you'll look at my proposal on the other thread, I proposed 1) controlling for educational opportuity, and then 2) giving a slight tipping point to the minority candidate for diversity purposes.

The first part reflects equality of opportunity, the 2nd part reflects the desire to increase minority presence when everything else is equal.  (That's why I qualified the above statement by mentioning the diversity aspect.) 

But it's mainly about equality of opportunity.  I'm still looking to see if others can explain what other factors may directly impact GPA/LSAT, so those can perhaps be controlled for.



Maybe we better start by defining "equality." Getting in to one particular law school is equally likely for all humans who possess equal LSAT and GPA numbers? Or, getting in to that same school is equally likely for all humans who are born with (all other things being equal) identical skill at law? Or, for all humans who are born with identical IQs? Or, for all humans who are equally likely to succeed at law? Or ... ?

I'm not sure what your point is here.  My analysis would control for educational opportunity, and then focus primarily on objective numbers among similiarly-situated individuals.  That to me would appear to create a general equality of opportunity.

of course it would to you.

[Lindbergh]

To me that's not "equality of opportunity," not if "diversity" is among your criteria. That would be "diversity of opportunity," for lack of a better word.


If you'll look at my proposal on the other thread, I proposed 1) controlling for educational opportuity, and then 2) giving a slight tipping point to the minority candidate for diversity purposes.

The first part reflects equality of opportunity, the 2nd part reflects the desire to increase minority presence when everything else is equal.  (That's why I qualified the above statement by mentioning the diversity aspect.) 

But it's mainly about equality of opportunity.  I'm still looking to see if others can explain what other factors may directly impact GPA/LSAT, so those can perhaps be controlled for.



Maybe we better start by defining "equality." Getting in to one particular law school is equally likely for all humans who possess equal LSAT and GPA numbers? Or, getting in to that same school is equally likely for all humans who are born with (all other things being equal) identical skill at law? Or, for all humans who are born with identical IQs? Or, for all humans who are equally likely to succeed at law? Or ... ?

I'm not sure what your point is here.  My analysis would control for educational opportunity, and then focus primarily on objective numbers among similiarly-situated individuals.  That to me would appear to create a general equality of opportunity.

of course it would to you.

That's true, I'm a relatively rational person.

What would create general equality of opportunity for you?

[7S]

To me that's not "equality of opportunity," not if "diversity" is among your criteria. That would be "diversity of opportunity," for lack of a better word.


If you'll look at my proposal on the other thread, I proposed 1) controlling for educational opportuity, and then 2) giving a slight tipping point to the minority candidate for diversity purposes.

The first part reflects equality of opportunity, the 2nd part reflects the desire to increase minority presence when everything else is equal.  (That's why I qualified the above statement by mentioning the diversity aspect.) 

But it's mainly about equality of opportunity.  I'm still looking to see if others can explain what other factors may directly impact GPA/LSAT, so those can perhaps be controlled for.



Maybe we better start by defining "equality." Getting in to one particular law school is equally likely for all humans who possess equal LSAT and GPA numbers? Or, getting in to that same school is equally likely for all humans who are born with (all other things being equal) identical skill at law? Or, for all humans who are born with identical IQs? Or, for all humans who are equally likely to succeed at law? Or ... ?

I'm not sure what your point is here.  My analysis would control for educational opportunity, and then focus primarily on objective numbers among similiarly-situated individuals.  That to me would appear to create a general equality of opportunity.

of course it would to you.

That's true, I'm a relatively rational person.

What would create general equality of opportunity for you?

relative to what?   

Narrowly-tailored race, gender and class concious affirmative action programs. Race and gender will always play a part in our decision-making.

[Lindbergh]

To me that's not "equality of opportunity," not if "diversity" is among your criteria. That would be "diversity of opportunity," for lack of a better word.


If you'll look at my proposal on the other thread, I proposed 1) controlling for educational opportuity, and then 2) giving a slight tipping point to the minority candidate for diversity purposes.

The first part reflects equality of opportunity, the 2nd part reflects the desire to increase minority presence when everything else is equal.  (That's why I qualified the above statement by mentioning the diversity aspect.) 

But it's mainly about equality of opportunity.  I'm still looking to see if others can explain what other factors may directly impact GPA/LSAT, so those can perhaps be controlled for.



Maybe we better start by defining "equality." Getting in to one particular law school is equally likely for all humans who possess equal LSAT and GPA numbers? Or, getting in to that same school is equally likely for all humans who are born with (all other things being equal) identical skill at law? Or, for all humans who are born with identical IQs? Or, for all humans who are equally likely to succeed at law? Or ... ?

I'm not sure what your point is here.  My analysis would control for educational opportunity, and then focus primarily on objective numbers among similiarly-situated individuals.  That to me would appear to create a general equality of opportunity.

of course it would to you.

That's true, I'm a relatively rational person.

What would create general equality of opportunity for you?

relative to what?   

relative to most.

Narrowly-tailored race, gender and class concious affirmative action programs.

Okay.  Do you feel they should be race/gender conscious beyond a tipping point?  If so, why?  Do you believe race and gender inherenetly affect academic performance?  If so, how? If not, how/why should it be relevant in admissions decisions?  (Assuming we're seeking equality of opportunity, and not an opportunity of results.)

Race and gender will always play a part in our decision-making.

Why?  Isn't that a choice?  Should it? 

Sounds like an awfully negative attitude.  Where did you learn that?