9
   

Affirmative Action in the US: is it still needed?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 11:09 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I think it's called "studying."

Yes. And, done under the hegemony of an Asian (Tiger) mother.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 11:14 am
@Thomas,
There was an interesting article recently in the San Jose Mercury News about absenteeism in Oakland and other bay area schools. They found that absenteeism in Oakland was higher, and their demographic makeup of minorities are much higher.

You can't blame that to the school system. When absenteeism is high during the lower grades, their dropout rates are much higher as they reach graduation from high school. There is a correlation.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 11:25 am
The question that started this thread is "clipped speech" in my opinion, since it is not saying what Affirmative Action is needed for, in context of the consequences. Meaning, the thread's question might read: Affirmative Action in the U.S.: is it still needed, regardless if the less qualified might be making the U.S. less competitive in the global market?

My point is that, in my opinion, Affirmative Action is just Repararations Lite. So, if less qualified applicants must be hired, should the U.S. suffer the consequences? However, if the criteria for hiring requires all applicants to have the same scores on aptitude, or other tests, then it is just taking many a white person off of their high horse, so to speak.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 12:06 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
The SAT is basically fair.


nope
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 12:09 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Hence, as I said in the beginning of this thread, I expect that most of the discrepancies in test scores will go away with policies that decrease after-tax income inequality among parents, and that increase the budgets of poor-neighborhood schools.


the research doesn't agree with you (same articles I've already posted along with other research) - some of the people who comment on the articles do, but they don't bring any research along with them

I'd like to think it would make a difference, but I'm not a believer yet.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 12:42 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
the research doesn't agree with you (same articles I've already posted along with other research) - some of the people who comment on the articles do, but they don't bring any research along with them

"The" research? Which? As I tried to explain in this post, none of your sources in this post present research that establishes such a bias. The Fourth simply assumes this conclusion by postulating that no differences between subgroups should occur in a test that deserves the adjective "unbiased". The other three slice and dice the data in different ways and present evidence that scores differ between subgroups. After that, sources #1 and #2 tell he-said-she-said stories about the bias question.

Either way, none of your sources in that post actually researches if the unquestionable differences between subgroups come from a bias in the test, as opposed to injustices over the years before the test. I am not trying to be difficult. I am genuinely puzzled that you insist your sources are showing something something when they emphatically do not.

PS (off topic): Please check your Facebook messages Smile
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 12:59 pm
@ehBeth,
How do you arrive at "nope?" They all belong to the same schools as everybody else. Some black schools in South Chicago outperform white schools in the country.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 02:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
An article from five years ago quoting Charles Young from 1996 re my university, that I agree with:
http://diverseeducation.com/article/7588/

I'm putting a bit that matters to me in italics.

UCLA ‘greater’ because of affirmative action – University of California, Los Angeles
June 18, 2007
by Charles E. Young

In the past year, no issue has so touched the University of California as affirmative action and the controversy it has generated.

I have seen the affirmative action initiatives undertaken at UCLA in the past 20 years succeed in yielding the most diverse population of any research university in the United States. Simultaneously, UCLA has developed into one of our nation’s finest institutions of higher learning. This was no coincidence: Diversity and educational excellence go hand in hand.

But affirmative action has come under fire nationwide. In California, the Board of Regents, which governs the nine universities in the University of California system, voted last year to halt the consideration of race, gender and ethnicity in admissions and hiring decisions. This vote was regrettable and could undermine important gains.

UCLA could not have achieved its current level of diversity without affirmative action. We were an excellent university 25 years ago. We are a much greater university today — in large measure because we are so diverse. In 1980, our entering freshman class was two-thirds Caucasian; today, more than two-thirds are ethnic minorities: 39 percent Asian American, 24; percent Latino and 8 percent African American, The percentage of Latino students now in the freshman class is a record number for UCLA.

The notion that affirmative action benefits only those individuals whom it reaches out to is mistaken, in my view.

It is not something we do for them; it’s something we do for ourselves.

What Now?

As we look to the future, we must ask ourselves how we can maintain diversity at UCLA without the benefit of affirmative action. We know it will be a great challenge.

At least 80 percent of UCLA’s 25,500 under-graduate applicants last fall met the eligibility standards to attend, When choosing a freshman class from so many qualified applicants, our practice in recent years has been to admit about 60 percent on academic criteria alone — grades, test scores and the quality of courses a student has taken. But we’ve learned that these measures don’t tell the whole story of a student’s potential. So we admit the remainder of the class — who still meet our eligibility requirements — on academic and supplemental material combined. These criteria include California residence, ethnic identity, physical and learning disabilities, educational disadvantage, family income, whether a student comes from a two-parent or single-parent family, is first-generation college bound or has special talents and experiences.

By abandoning consideration of race or ethnicity in selecting students, we fear the number of Latino and African-American students at UCLA will decline significantly while the number of Asian and Caucasian students will increase. Our analysis suggests there is no other admissions formula that will yield the atmosphere we’ve created at UCLA.
end/clip

DR. CHARLES E. YOUNG Chancellor, University of California-Los Angeles
COPYRIGHT 1996 Cox, Matthews & Associates


The consideration of applicants at the UCs has been between students who qualify, and I'm very sure the history of choices of applicants in U.S. universities in general have not been solely about who got the highest possible grades and SAT scores. Alumni children come to mind, as a start. In my youth, it was men who were almost entirely the gainees of entrance to medical school (see mcat list of schools and who was accepted, circa 1962.) The impetus toward diversity, including ethnic/racial/genders, among qualifiers is reasonable, desirable, to me.
I'm not talking quotas, but consideration among other considerations within the list of qualified.




ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 02:16 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Either way, none of your sources in that post actually researches if the unquestionable differences between subgroups come from a bias in the test, as opposed to injustices over the years before the test.


don't fall over in shock

I don't agree
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 02:42 pm
@ossobuco,
In some respects, I agree with their conclusions about diversity. However, it's also true that grades at one school doesn't necessarily compare equally to another. I think there are variables that are difficult to measure, and from that perspective I believe the pudding is in the results accomplished by UCLA.

Since they "all" qualify, I'm sure other considerations are all important.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 02:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I gather it has changed since then and they don't get to consider ethnicity or race now - but I've not read much on that yet. Not talking about UC vs. Bakke, but post 1996.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 03:18 pm
@ossobuco,
Also reviewing it, I guess this was from 2007 - sorry, I'm confused re the date.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 01:35 pm
@ossobuco,
Here's the latest on this subject from the NYT.

Quote:
Supreme Court Faces Crucial Rulings in Coming Term
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: September 29, 2012


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returns to the bench on Monday to confront not only a docket studded with momentous issues but also a new dynamic among the justices.
Enlarge This Image

Justices Uphold Map for West Virginia Voting (September 26, 2012)


Alex Brandon/Associated Press
The term begins on Monday at the Supreme Court, which was under a protective scrim last week as facade work was being done.
The coming term will probably include major decisions on affirmative action in higher education admissions, same-sex marriage and a challenge to the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those rulings could easily rival the last term’s as the most consequential in recent memory.

The theme this term is the nature of equality, and it will play out over issues that have bedeviled the nation for decades. “Last term will be remembered for one case,” said Kannon K. Shanmugam, a lawyer with Williams & Connolly. “This term will be remembered for several.”
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 04:17:02