AA: More harm than good?

[SteelersandGators]

I'm asking for the link that shows being poor is more of a disadvantage in society than being Black.

Where is the link that shows being Black is more of a disadvantage than being poor?

[Kirk Lazarus]

I'm asking for the link that shows being poor is more of a disadvantage in society than being Black.

Where is the link that shows being Black is more of a disadvantage than being poor?

What kinda reasoning is that? I asked a question and then you answer a question with a question.

Seems to me that the whole movement to SES AA is designed to decrease the number of minorities in higher ED while increasing the number of majority students.

My questions are:

1. How do we know simply being poor is more of a disadvantage than being black?

2. How do we design the system so that poor whites because of their raw numbers don't usurp all the opportunities from poor minorities (presumably the most disadvantaged group)?

3. Don't schools already take into account SES when evaluating applicants?

4. Even if there was AA for SES, why should AA for minorities be eliminated?

5. While race is a suspect class, what practical rationale is there to eliminate race based AA if one agrees that it is legitimate to give boosts to candidates based on personal and societal disadvantage?

Feel free to answer any of the above questions in any order.

[Kirk Lazarus]

Whoa, you keep repeating what I say, and then trying to turn the tables. That doesnt work. I'll rewind here so you can understand what the issue is. 

The point was acknowledge that a wealthy URM has an advantage over a disadvantaged ORM. The gap between these two groups is irrelevant; if there is one, why should it exist, since clearly the wealthy URM will have an advantage already by their wealth, and hence why should an AA policy further increase that? You present a hypothetical exception, or make claims about flaming. There has been a reasoned debate until you entered with the rhetoric, and frankly that doesn't it (either here or in law school, as you probably should know). Feel free to respond to the issues, rather than just spewing whatever you feel like.

Also for the record, I am fairly neutral with regard to AA, so there is no need for you to just spew venom at someone you think is not going to listen.

I think the system works pretty well. Seems to me, exceptional students who overcome poverty seem to do pretty well in admissions. Of course, it may not seem like poor people are getting more of a boost, but that may because the population of low SES students applying to each school might be greater than the pool of minorities.

Thus, to get a critical mass of poor and financially disadvantaged students, a school may not have to compromise as much on "objective" criteria as they do to get a critical mass of minority students.

In any event, at many colleges gifted poor students are actively recruited, admitted and then given substantial financial aid to afford college without having to take out many loans.

I don't think the bar to college is in admissions for most financially disadvantaged students looking to attend college, I think it is in its affordability and we need to find ways to make school more affordable, imo.

[imdashep]

Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

[..................................1]

African Americans, whether wealthy or poor, have experienced a long history of discrimination and systemic racism in America.  Class has nothing to do with this debate. Wealthy blacks remain to be black, African American, and therefore a member of a highly disadvantaged group of people in America.  Rich or poor, black is black.  Although wealth provides greater opportunities for individuals of all races, the wealthy black man is still viewed as a black man, an inferior being in American history.  This is why AA is necessary: to provide equitable opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.

[Kirk Lazarus]

Never mind, not arguing this anymore. Galt is thoroughly convinced of his/her correctness, and is ignoring posts to the contrary by engaging in a bit of shotgun semantics. That's fine, glad you are so strongly convicted.

Shotgun semantics? Strawman?

Give me a break. Every single person engaged in this thread knows that you've made a poor argument.

You give this broad assertion that being a wealthy minority is less disadvantageous than being poor. You've been asked to provide some support for the assertion, but you resort to either 1) unpersuasive anecdotal evidence that you don't even put into context for a comparative purpose or establish that is even supports your position or 2) circular reasoning (Wealthy minorities have more advantages than poor whites because they are wealthy minorities).

Neither explanation makes a whole lot of sense.

[NYU2011]

wow, i'm not even going to enter this debate after this post, but if you think being a wealthy black is more disadvantageous than being a poor white you are nuts.

I bet if you took a poll no more than 5% at most of wealthy blacks would trade it all to be a poor white, while about 95% of poor whites would trade their life for a wealthy black.  Do I have proof of this, no. 

The only proof I can give you that being a wealthy black is much better than being a poor white is: OPEN YOUR EYES.

[imdashep]

Galt/TM: the reason why I refuse to participate in this thread is that I was not there for the initial stages, and was only making a point that IMO (a point which has yet to be countered) it is much more advantageous with regards to applying for law school to be a rich URM than a poor ORM. Bottom line. You continue to make enjoyable rants to stroke your intellectual egos, and will gladly engage in a debate on this matter if you want to pm me (and we can discuss via messanger or email). I think arguing about these matters in general on an internet forum is not only a waste of time, but leads to the grandstanding and porous logic that has been used so far.

[imdashep]

Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level. 

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game. I prefer playing basketball at the rec center or a school gym, and avoid streetball type situations. Just not something I consider a worthwhile expenditure of time.

[imdashep]

Well if you want to go with that analogy, I don't feel like playing in games that are below my level. 

Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game.Or perhaps the better analogy, not my type of game

yeah i suspect it's not your type of game.  see you later.

Was there a point to your post, other than to get the last word and be obnoxiously dismissive?