2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, since I don't have kids and think this country is irretrievably screwed, I don't really care all that much. And most of the work would have to be done by better parents. But if you're OK with funding schools inadequately, then you're a hypocrite to be against AA.

I also agree there, though I'd point out it's not a funding issue. The Philadelphia School District spend more per student than my district, which is fairly affluent. 

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Never assumed any such thing.  That's simply the name of the overarching rationale used to gut any mandate aimed at benefiting minorities who need more opportunities.

AA is a crutch used to ignore the need to solve the actual problem. Remove the crutch and do the hard work of actually fixing the problems so no one has to be discriminated against.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

I also agree there, though I'd point out it's not a funding issue. The Philadelphia School District spend more per student than my district, which is fairly affluent. 

Well, don't even get me started on that conversation. Teachers unions are part of the problem, but the massive administrator level at each school and district is beyond ridiculous. 

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

AA is a crutch used to ignore the need to solve the actual problem. Remove the crutch and do the hard work of actually fixing the problems so no one has to be discriminated against.

The problem is that blacks in the US are descended from slaves.  There is little culture of attaining higher education. AA was a clumsy but effective method of jumpstarting a process that takes generations to fix.

 

Maybe I will make an assumption about you after all.  Whoever came over first from your family, I bet they didn't come from the lowest castes, did they?  Probably the merchant caste if had to guess.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

The problem is that blacks in the US are descended from slaves.  There is no culture of attaining higher education. AA was a clumsy but effective method of jumpstarting a process that takes generations to fix.

 

Maybe I will make an assumption about you after all.  Whoever came over first from your family, I bet they didn't come from the lowest castes, did they?  Probably the merchant caste if had to guess.

I'm not 100% sure, to be honest. Pretty sure my dad was somewhere in the middle. He got to the USA because he had an engineering degree -- that pretty much made the whole caste thing irrelevant. My father was very poor growing up -- he was born pre-partition in what is now Pakistan, and his family lost everything in 1947. They were refugees and got some assistance from the Indian government, but their house had no roof on like 80% of it. He got a scholarship to college in India, got a master's degree, and then got accepted to a PhD program in Canada. What he didn't know was the professor who sponsored him was in the practice of bringing a student from India over every year, ignoring him, and making him clean the lab and stuff like that. So he got a master's in Canada, applied for US immigration, and moved to the states with no job or friends in 1969.

Got a job in 1970 at an oil refinery in DE and worked there until 2004 when he retired.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, don't even get me started on that conversation. Teachers unions are part of the problem, but the massive administrator level at each school and district is beyond ridiculous. 

Students in poorer communities face a much larger number of negative environmental factors relative to middle and upper classes. Regardless of the causes, when you're in homes that tend to value education less, are more likely to be raised by single parents or at least less stable parental/guardian situations, and start school having rarely if ever been exposed to reading for pleasure or mind expansion, it's almost too late.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Students in poorer communities face a much larger number of negative environmental factors relative to middle and upper classes. Regardless of the causes, when you're in homes that tend to value education less, are more likely to be raised by single parents or at least less stable parental/guardian situations, and start school having rarely if ever been exposed to reading for pleasure or mind expansion, it's almost too late.

There's really not much the government can do about crappy parents, other than maybe we could stop incentivizing them to have even more kids.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

There's really not much the government can do about crappy parents, other than maybe we could stop incentivizing them to have even more kids.

If that group responded rationally to incentives and disincentives, they wouldn't be in the fix they're in 🤣

Good news is that teenage parenthood is dropping. 

15 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I'm not 100% sure, to be honest. Pretty sure my dad was somewhere in the middle. He got to the USA because he had an engineering degree -- that pretty much made the whole caste thing irrelevant. My father was very poor growing up -- he was born pre-partition in what is now Pakistan, and his family lost everything in 1947. They were refugees and got some assistance from the Indian government, but their house had no roof on like 80% of it. He got a scholarship to college in India, got a master's degree, and then got accepted to a PhD program in Canada. What he didn't know was the professor who sponsored him was in the practice of bringing a student from India over every year, ignoring him, and making him clean the lab and stuff like that. So he got a master's in Canada, applied for US immigration, and moved to the states with no job or friends in 1969.

Got a job in 1970 at an oil refinery in DE and worked there until 2004 when he retired.

Sounds about right.  Asian immigration to US is mostly from the middle classes who have more drive than the higher classes but get screwed from the heirarchy.  it's double true for Indians with their caste system that puts the merchants hard ceilinged in the middle class of a poor nation.  But rich or poor, these are families who have valued education for many generations.  That is not the case for the descendants of slaves or the bulk of manual laborers that come from latin america or the pacific islands.

 

These are issues that can never be truly fixed, but FFS setting aside 10% of college admissions which only affects the end results at the bottom fringe of accepted candidates was perfectly reasonable and it was hard work and it was effective.  The arguments against it are mostly venomous hearsay and silly plainspeak logic.

9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Good news is that teenage parenthood is dropping. 

Oh that will be sharply rising again very soon.  Thanks again SUPREME COURT!!

52 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I am the #1 proponent of decriminalization in here, of course it's more important than AA was.  But AA was still a valuable piece to the puzzle.  We have generations of college educated minorities because of it.  It has been absolutely crucial in getting college education as a something that minority families actually do and pass down.  

 

It was unfair to who?  Fringe white candidates?  Now it will again be unfair to fringe minority candidates who are statistically less likely to pay off their loans and be future boosters.  We can't do things like full on reparations so this was a completely sane and effective compromise.  AA was hard work, as proven by how gleefully it gets overturned now.  The logic and fairness to it had holes.  It's effectiveness was shaky.  But it did work in making university graduates more diverse.  It absolutely increased the mean education level of minority populations.

 

 

It was still...racism. 

47 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Final exam for you:  Stick 3 fingers up your arse and tell me if shite is color blind.

 Crying because colleges will have to now focus on merit instead of skin color.

45 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Oh please spare me the perfect immigrant BS.  AA should have been tweaked to make up for that error.  You don't have to tear down something that the other 90% of minority populations really needed just so you can beat your chest buddy.

Maybe you should start your own college and keep whitey out.

20 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Students in poorer communities face a much larger number of negative environmental factors relative to middle and upper classes. Regardless of the causes, when you're in homes that tend to value education less, are more likely to be raised by single parents or at least less stable parental/guardian situations, and start school having rarely if ever been exposed to reading for pleasure or mind expansion, it's almost too late.

Yep. One of the biggest reasons the AA community has so many issues.

11 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

 

 Crying because colleges will have to now focus on merit instead of skin color.

If only they would.  They are going focus on who can pay (not minorities), who can afford SAT classes (not minorities) and who has more recommendations from their inner circle (also not minorities), just like they used to before AA and just like they have been doing for the bulk of admissions sans the top and the bottom which was reserved for AA.  You are one silly rabbit if you think striking down AA makes it color blind.  AA was a meek but somewhat effective counter for the reality of University admissions which is anything but.

I would also like to add this:  I think people in general waaaaay oversimplify the word "diversity" to just mean race.  And I really don't think that's a proper way to look at what it means to be diverse.   You could have a room of 10 people of 5 different nationalities/races, and a room of 10 people with only 2 nationalities/races represented, and it doesn't automatically mean that the room with 5 different nationalities/races is more diverse. 

I'll give you an example.  My son is white.   A couple doors down the family has a child my son's age who is black, and another few doors down is a family with an Asian child my son's age.  They live in the same development.  They are going to go to the same exact schools.  They are going to grow up in similar size houses with family's who's incomes are pretty similar.  From a socio-economic standpoint, there is nothing at all that is diverse between the 3 of them, and the fact that they are different races means squat to that.   But, to an organization looking to create "diversity" they would put all three in a group and go "wow look at this diversity! A white kid, a black kid, and an Asian kid. That checks the boxes!"

Meanwhile, I went to an engineering conference recently in Harrisburg, and met a lot of people who grew up and still live in the rural areas in the middle of the state.  In talking with them, our lives are/were very different.  And for me, coming from someone who grew up and lived in the suburbs and city, it was very interesting conversing with people who grew up and live in very rural areas.  Just a different lifestyle, different environment.  I'd argue that our backgrounds were far more diverse than what my son and his two friends will be.  But again, to someone looking at a group of 5 white guys standing around and talking, they'd go "oh well that's not a diverse group at all.  They're all white".

I think we need to get beyond this idea that diversity = being a different race. 

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I would also like to add this:  I think people in general waaaaay oversimplify the word "diversity" to just mean race.  And I really don't think that's a proper way to look at what it means to be diverse.   You could have a room of 10 people of 5 different nationalities/races, and a room of 10 people with only 2 nationalities/races represented, and it doesn't automatically mean that the room with 5 different nationalities/races is more diverse. 

I'll give you an example.  My son is white.   A couple doors down the family has a child my son's age who is black, and another few doors down is a family with an Asian child m son's age.  They live in the same development.  They are going to go to the same exact schools.  They are going to grew up in similar size houses with family's who's incomes are pretty similar.  From a socio-economic standpoint, there is nothing at all that is diverse between the 3 of them, and the fact that they are different races means squat to that.   But, to an organization looking to create "diversity" they would put all three in a group and go "wow look at this diversity! A white kid, a black kid, and an Asian kid. That checks the boxes!"

Meanwhile, I went to an engineering conference recently in Harrisburg, and met a lot of people who grew up and still live in the rural areas in the middle of the state.  In talking with them, our lives are/were very different.  And for me, coming from someone who grew up and lived in the suburbs and city, it was very interesting conversing with people who grew up and live in very rural areas.  Just a different lifestyle, different environment.  I'd argue that our backgrounds were far more diverse than what my son and his two friends will be.  But again, to someone looking at a group of 5 white guys standing around and talking, they'd go "oh well that's not a diverse group at all.  They're all white".

I think we need to get beyond this idea that diversity = being a different race. 

The day that Universities can fill their modest quotas nationwide with suburbanite minorities from families with traditions in higher education without having to dip into the lesser pool of students that don't come from that and genuinely need the jump start, THAT is the day you can finally get rid of the crutch (yes it is) that is AA.  That day was not here yet.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

The day that Universities can fill their modest quotas nationwide with suburbanite minorities from families with traditions in higher education without having to dip into the lesser pool of students that don't come from that, THAT is the day you can finally get rid of the crutch (yes it is) that is AA.  That day was not here yet.

That day will NEVER come so long as AA is an active policy.

You don't fix racial injustices and discrimination of the past by creating new racial injustices and discrimination.   

 

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

If only they would.  They are going focus on who can pay (not minorities) and who has more recommendations from their inner circle (also not minorities), just like they used to before AA and just like they have been doing for the bulk of admissions sans the top and the bottom which was reserved for AA.  You are one silly rabbit if you think striking down AA makes it color blind.  AA was a meek but somewhat effective counter for the reality of University admissions which is anything but.

Universities like Harvard will start to use "adversity scores" as something of a proxy for what AA was trying to accomplish.

But at the college/university level you're still attempting to treat the problem at such a late stage that it's not as helpful.

AA made a lot more sense back in the late 60s/early 70s when colleges were legit trying to keep blacks out. At that time black students who qualified still struggled to get admitted to many universities. 

But black students with academic credentials are now not only not getting the door closed, but they're being competed over by top institutions. And I don't see that changing, because universities see it as a competitive necessity to foster diversity on campus. 

If we are truly serious about achieving an equality of opportunity for persons of all backgrounds, AA at the college level was and is no longer an effective tool to achieve that. We have to start earlier - much earlier.

This may mean in some way socializing early childcare and education in impoverished communities. There is a moral hazard there of making it that much easier for persons of lesser means to produce babies, not sure how you can get around that though. You either err on the side of the moral hazard, or allow poor communities to keep ushering kids off to kindergarten without ever having cracked open a book in their lives. 

I will allow here that I'm being very stereotypical here ... there are a LOT of poor students who come from backgrounds that place a higher value on education, and who make sacrifices to ensure that their children are set up for success long before they step foot in a classroom. And there's plenty of entitled kids whose parents are physically present but emotionally and parentally absent, who show up in the classroom as or near as unprepared for success as their poorer counterparts. 

But broadly speaking, even well intentioned parents of limited means are going to have less resources to devote to their kids, whether it's because they're working extra shifts to make ends meet or sharing custody with a deadbeat baby mama/daddy, or whatever else. 

Trying to lurch towards something where we're setting students from poorer communities up for success at the college level is going to pay off far more than AA in college admissions in 2023. The problem is different than it was 50 years ago, so the solution has to be different as well. 

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

The day that Universities can fill their modest quotas nationwide with suburbanite minorities from families with traditions in higher education without having to dip into the lesser pool of students that don't come from that, THAT is the day you can finally get rid of the crutch (yes it is) that is AA.  That day was not here yet.

If I understand this SCOTUS holding, there cannot be any more quotas, modest or otherwise. What this does is create a level playing field for all kids to compete on merit. if a particular community is worried about falling behind then their activism should take the shape of getting kids into reading programs and spending Saturdays at the library instead of wasting time hanging out and doing nothing.

 

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That day will NEVER come so long as AA is an active policy.

You don't fix racial injustices and discrimination of the past by creating new racial injustices and discrimination.   

 

Absolute BS.  AA was the "hard work" of fixing racial injustice.  It was clumsy and slow but brought higher education into minority communities where it wasn't and wouldn't have been.  The blowback is going to be fierce.  If we don't do it the hard and slow way, we are going to have to face the fast and brutal way instead (reparations).  You guys have no sense of forward vision if you can't see what' coming because of this..

39 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Oh that will be sharply rising again very soon.  Thanks again SUPREME COURT!!

...don't forget to thank human genitalia

6 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

What this does is create a level playing field for all kids to compete on merit.

SURE POCONO DON.  ADMISSIONS WERE FAIR BEFORE AA AND NOW THEY WILL BE FAIR AGAIN.  LOL

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Absolute BS.  AA was the "hard work" of fixing racial injustice.  It was clumsy and slow but brought higher education into minority communities where it wasn't and wouldn't have been.  The blowback is going to be fierce.  If we don't do it the hard and slow way, we are going to have to face the fast and brutal way instead (reparations).  You guys have no sense of forward vision if you can't see what' coming because of this..

https://www.thinkimpact.com/college-dropout-rates/ 

Six years after admittance to a college/university:

• 46% of black students complete their degrees; 35% drop out and aren't enrolled. 
• 72% of asian students complete their degrees; 14% drop out and aren't enrolled.
• 67% of white students complete their degrees; 21% drop out and aren't enrolled.

That means 1 in 3 black students admitted to universities have student loans, but no college degree with increased earning potential. 

That means black students are being set up for failure so that colleges can say "we brought higher education to minority communities" ... 

It's not just a "clumsy" but effective solution. It was, at this stage, not only ineffective but a net-negative. 

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Universities like Harvard will start to use "adversity scores" as something of a proxy for what AA was trying to accomplish.

But at the college/university level you're still attempting to treat the problem at such a late stage that it's not as helpful.

AA made a lot more sense back in the late 60s/early 70s when colleges were legit trying to keep blacks out. At that time black students who qualified still struggled to get admitted to many universities. 

But black students with academic credentials are now not only not getting the door closed, but they're being competed over by top institutions. And I don't see that changing, because universities see it as a competitive necessity to foster diversity on campus. 

If we are truly serious about achieving an equality of opportunity for persons of all backgrounds, AA at the college level was and is no longer an effective tool to achieve that. We have to start earlier - much earlier.

This may mean in some way socializing early childcare and education in impoverished communities. There is a moral hazard there of making it that much easier for persons of lesser means to produce babies, not sure how you can get around that though. You either err on the side of the moral hazard, or allow poor communities to keep ushering kids off to kindergarten without ever having cracked open a book in their lives. 

I will allow here that I'm being very stereotypical here ... there are a LOT of poor students who come from backgrounds that place a higher value on education, and who make sacrifices to ensure that their children are set up for success long before they step foot in a classroom. And there's plenty of entitled kids whose parents are physically present but emotionally and parentally absent, who show up in the classroom as or near as unprepared for success as their poorer counterparts. 

But broadly speaking, even well intentioned parents of limited means are going to have less resources to devote to their kids, whether it's because they're working extra shifts to make ends meet or sharing custody with a deadbeat baby mama/daddy, or whatever else. 

Trying to lurch towards something where we're setting students from poorer communities up for success at the college level is going to pay off far more than AA in college admissions in 2023. The problem is different than it was 50 years ago, so the solution has to be different as well. 

why was it no longer effective?  Because there is racism in the hiring process when they graduate?  is this actually an argument against AA or am i taking crazy pills?

I mean, it's really not that difficult. Race is a federally protected class, like gender. You can't discriminate SOLELY on the basis of race. Schools will prioritize students from poorer school districts instead, and that is 100% legal.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

https://www.thinkimpact.com/college-dropout-rates/ 

Six years after admittance to a college/university:

• 46% of black students complete their degrees; 35% drop out and aren't enrolled. 
• 72% of asian students complete their degrees; 14% drop out and aren't enrolled.
• 67% of white students complete their degrees; 21% drop out and aren't enrolled.

That means 1 in 3 black students admitted to universities have student loans, but no college degree with increased earning potential. 

That means black students are being set up for failure so that colleges can say "we brought higher education to minority communities" ... 

It's not just a "clumsy" but effective solution. It was, at this stage, not only ineffective but a net-negative. 

College loans are whole 'nother issue.  46% of 6% is still more than 70% of 1%, which is what it will be without AA.  As long as we can trace generational progress, and we can, then it was still working.

5 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

why was it no longer effective?  Because there is racism in the hiring process when they graduate?  is this actually an argument against AA or am i taking crazy pills?

see my subsequent post.

it's "effective" in getting minorities admitted. it's ineffective at actually seeing them graduate with a degree, which is after all the goal.

so now you have a highly disproportionate number of black students having student loans and no degree, the worst of both.