(December 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I found it strange because it was published by ETS, which is strange because they are the makers / administrators of the TOEFL test of English.  They make HUGE money in Asia, as their test is used to establish English proficiency scores for universities, English-speaking elite private high-schools, and so on.  Behind every international student at MIT filling a spot at MIT or in Harvard, there are probably a half-dozen ETS-administered tests.  Ironic!

Not really relevant to the content and findings of the study itself.

Quote:Also ironic are the following lines from that paper:

Quote:These dimensions may include not only race or SES, but also academic interests, extracurricular talents, geography, and other
factors. For example, colleges may want to boost enrollment in an undersubscribed major or program or find talented players for their sports teams.

I sniff some serious implications  here-- because it's possible that it won't even be the best-achieving black students who are accepted, but the best running-backs for a sports team.  What a win for the institution-- you get to fill your quota, and justify the presence of an academically weak athlete on the basis of "urban difficulties" or whatever.  More power to the kids who get accepted on that basis, but it's unlikely to do much to change the position of black Americans overall.

Out of context. Read the first sentence of the paragraph from which you got that quote:

Quote:Selective colleges generally try to admit classes of students that are both academically qualified and also diverse along numerous dimensions.

For anyone who'd like a link to the study:
https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/r..._paper.pdf

---

Regarding the Harvard incident, that was exactly due to racism (against Asian students) and not a fault per se with affirmative action. White people, not black people, were the ones who benefited (as expected!) from this discrimination against Asians. White privilege in action.

Read this:
Anti-Asian Bias, Not Affirmative Action, Is on Trial in the Harvard Case

(December 18, 2018 at 1:25 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(December 17, 2018 at 11:35 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I've been somewhat more irritable than normal lately, possibly due to a cold.  Rather than make enemies I don't want to make, I'm bowing out of this discussion until I'm feeling more confident of my tone.

I admire your restraint-- it's something I'm trying to develop as well, and will probably be a resolution next year.  In this case, if you're talking about me, I know that you and a couple others have strong feelings about the issue.  I'll give you open season for a couple posts if you want to tell me what's on your mind-- no offense taken.

It's more how I was reacting to tack.

(December 18, 2018 at 6:04 am)Grandizer Wrote: Out of context. Read the first sentence of the paragraph from which you got that quote:

Quote:Selective colleges generally try to admit classes of students that are both academically qualified and also diverse along numerous dimensions.

I'm not reading that line the same way you are, I think. By "classes of students" I read "the student body for the year," i.e. some will be chosen for IQ or academic achievement, and others will be chosen for sports achievements (or maybe just as a token gesture).

The good news is that a black student with real academic achievements should have a pretty easy ride, because not only will he be a good student, but he will also help fill their quota.

Quote:Read this:
Anti-Asian Bias, Not Affirmative Action, Is on Trial in the Harvard Case

No doubt. It's basically affirmative action for the white majority, and it's hypocritical as well-- at least for any among them who would like to reinforce exclusion of black people based mainly on academic credentials.

There's as much danger on the up-side of the spectrum as on the tail side-- I'm sure that had very much to do with why Jews were so despised-- they were a visibly successful minority in every country to which they immigrated. And if you go to almost any good school these days, the honor roll is absolutely filled with Asian names. It's a little ridiculous, actually, but hey-- those 8 hours a day since kindergarten really pay off.

No, Benny.....lol....it's not "basically affirmative action for the white majority".  The white majority doesn't have a history of being racially discriminated against.  It is, accurately, and as was pointed out to you..an example of exactly why affirmative action exists.

(December 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(December 18, 2018 at 6:04 am)Grandizer Wrote: Out of context. Read the first sentence of the paragraph from which you got that quote:

I'm not reading that line the same way you are, I think.  By "classes of students" I read "the student body for the year," i.e. some will be chosen for IQ or academic achievement, and others will be chosen for sports achievements (or maybe just as a token gesture).

Yeah, we're reading it differently, but it's pretty clear what the authors are saying here. You just choose to read it the way you want to suit your own position. Affirmative action doesn't mean that a couple token black students should be chosen irrespective of whether they're academically qualified or not. The problem is the racial inequality that was/is observed when it comes to such things as college admissions because of the social and political obstacles blocking the way to a fair access. Hence, race-based affirmative action. And hence the conclusion of the study, which I don't think you fully grasped, if at all.

Quote:The good news is that a black student with real academic achievements should have a pretty easy ride, because not only will he be a good student, but he will also help fill their quota.

The good news is that a black student is now more likely than ever to be admitted to some college/university exactly because a set of policies have been enacted to ensure a fairer path for such students, free from the obstacles not faced by the privileged.

Quote:No doubt.  It's basically affirmative action for the white majority, and it's hypocritical as well-- at least for any among them who would like to reinforce exclusion of black people based mainly on academic credentials.

Affirmative action does not mean what you think it means, lol. There can be no affirmative action for the white majority (and Khem correctly points out why). What happened in the case of the Harvard incident was the opposite of affirmative action. It was discrimination against a racial minority group. Unfortunately, the media in general has opted to spin it as a problem with affirmative action itself, which is really infuriating.

(December 18, 2018 at 7:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Yeah, we're reading it differently, but it's pretty clear what the authors are saying here. You just choose to read it the way you want to suit your own position. Affirmative action doesn't mean that a couple token black students should be chosen irrespective of whether they're academically qualified or not.

Of course it means that. If not, you'd just have the rule I suggested-- that the students with the best scores are accepted to the best schools.

Quote: The problem is the racial inequality that was/is observed when it comes to such things as college admissions because of the social and political obstacles blocking the way to a fair access. Hence, race-based affirmative action. And hence the conclusion of the study, which I don't think you fully grasped, if at all.

[quote]
Affirmative action does not mean what you think it means, lol. There can be no affirmative action for the white majority (and Khem correctly points out why). What happened in the case of the Harvard incident was the opposite of affirmative action. It was discrimination against a racial minority group. Unfortunately, the media in general has opted to spin it as a problem with affirmative action itself, which is really infuriating.

Of course there can't be affirmative action for the white majority. I was making fun of that position, not asserting it.

---

(December 18, 2018 at 2:11 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: No, Benny.....lol....it's not "basically affirmative action for the white majority".  The white majority doesn't have a history of being racially discriminated against.  It is, accurately, and as was pointed out to you..an example of exactly why affirmative action exists.

You derps are so used to fighting against me that you don't know when I'm agreeing with you.

Sure Benny, that must be it.  

It couldn't possibly be that people who tell you.."no, it's not basically affirmative action" might actually be disagreeing with you about how it's basically affirmative action. You've already cashed in you "haha, jk, I was making a funny" chips with me, on this subject. You weren't..you were expressing an opinion that you have expressed many times and in countless other ways, and followed it up with the usual invocations of hypocrisy. You were asserting the position, just stop.

(December 19, 2018 at 12:06 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure Benny, that must be it.  

It couldn't possibly be that people who tell you.."no, it's not basically affirmative action" might actually be disagreeing with you about how it's basically affirmative action.  You've already cashed in you "haha, jk, I was making a funny" chips with me, on this subject.  You weren't..you were expressing an opinion that you have expressed many times and in countless other ways, and followed it up with the usual invocations of hypocrisy.  You were asserting the position, just stop.

Nope, you're wrong about this, and while I was making fun of that scenario, I don't particularly think it's funny.  The idea that Asian students need to be cleared away to give white people a chance is hypocritical-- because they want to deny black applicants on one side because "we earned it, why should we give up our spot?"  What about the Asian students who also "earned it?"

Why shouldn't MIT consist of 50% Asian students, if those are the best students available?  Or, in short, what's good for the goose is good for the gander-- those who would deny black applicants on the basis of tests or academic performance should also be willing to step aside when THEY are found relatively lacking in those regards.

See?  You think I'm just racist against black people.  But that was never it-- I want to see REAL equality, across the board, applied equally to all citizens.  That's my absolute caveat-- that you need to make rules that, while they might differentially benefit certain groups, do so only implicitly.

One point is one I've already stated-- student applications should be done blind-- ID #s instead of named application with "race" and "gender" checkboxes (if they still even have those).

All you're doing above is confirming that you don't know what affirmative action is, and that we are, in fact, in disagreement.

(December 19, 2018 at 12:48 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: All you're doing above is confirming that you don't know what affirmative action is, and that we are, in fact, in disagreement.

Affirmative action is favoring those who face prejudice or discrimination in an attempt at least partially to compensate for its real effect on the opportunities which they have in their pursuit of liberty, prosperity and happiness.  Specifically, it's the practice of favoring them in schools or work places with that end in mind.

When white people say, "We're discriminated against because everyone keeps offering these positions to Asian students," then that's what they're talking about, and it's ridiculous.

I am, as you know, against affirmative action.  But it's not because I dislike black people-- it's because an effective social contract, and the expectations that it holds for all participants, must extend those rights individually rather than differentially based on arbitrary group identities.

It seems to me that total homogeneity comes best from accurately assessing people's merits.  For example-- it should be a rule that the average IQ of teachers in all schools in all school districts should be approximately the same, as should their university grades be.  I'd like to see more federal power and less state power, such that police would be assigned anywhere in the country, rather than in the same town in which they've developed their world view and the prejudices that go along with it.

That's a big part of tolerance, actually-- breaking people out of their social entrenchments and putting them in situations where they have to adapt to various cultures and personalities.

/random rant