Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court

[dismalist]

One thing to notice is that if one were to provide affirmative action by income and wealth -- which would already be legal -- that would not change the numbers of Blacks receiving preferential treatment much because a larger share of Blacks than Whites is low income. So-called Asian-Americans also have a poverty rate higher than the White poverty rate.

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

[mahagonny]

A student belonging to an 'underrepresented' group that doesn't get into Harvard as a result of what we expect the Supreme Court to do would still get into a good enough school, and quite possibly a place that's a better fit for them. So there's no need to overdramatize the situation.

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

And you have contributed what, so far, in the way of pertinent content?

Unlike some people my whole life doesn't revolve around being an internet warrior.

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Congratulations. Do you dare say this around your friends?

[jimbogumbo]

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Not to disparage the idea, but how would a person's "economic class" be determined in any reasonably objective and fair manner? (Definitely better than race, but potentially even much harder to qualify).

Family income, adjusted for family size.

But that doesn't take into account things like family wealth. And one of the practices of the rich is to find ways to minimize "income" while amassing all kinds of assets (aka "wealth").

A subset of my beliefs:

Belief #1: people will always find ways to game a system.

Belief #2: Belief #1 does not justify trying to create the best system you can.

[ergative]

A subset of my beliefs:

Belief #1: people will always find ways to game a system.

Belief #2: Belief #1 does not justify trying to create the best system you can.

Did you forget a negative somewhere in Belief 2? E.g., '... does not justify giving up on trying to create the best system you can' or some such?

[marshwiggle]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

Wasn't part of the original idea that there were good students who weren't white males that would get overlooked and so the intent was to make sure more of those got in? I'd guess that the days when there were academically strong but "invisible" students are long gone, and so now most of affirmative action will be just bringing in students of under-represented groups who wouldn't be admitted for academic reasons otherwise. To the extent that that's the case, it won't have a lot of positive effect.

[jimbogumbo]

A subset of my beliefs:

Belief #1: people will always find ways to game a system.

Belief #2: Belief #1 does not justify trying to create the best system you can.

Did you forget a negative somewhere in Belief 2? E.g., '... does not justify giving up on trying to create the best system you can' or some such?

Sure? It is the math guy in me trying to use few words, but yours works for me.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

And you have contributed what, so far, in the way of pertinent content?

Unlike some people my whole life doesn't revolve around being an internet warrior.

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Congratulations. Do you dare say this around your friends?

Of course. You should try getting out into the real world once in a while instead of bouncing around a right wing echo chamber. You'd see that most most democrats are not the hyper-sensitive, left wing ideologues that you imagine (although I also have plenty of conservative friends, since I grew up in a conservative part of the country and now live in a different conservative part of the country).

[mamselle]

I think the original skew in Asian-American figures occurred because many such students were getting in of scholastic qualifications alone, by (perhaps itself, skewed observation at the time) so there were fewer concerns for their needs at the outset.

If one visits the two colleges named in the suit, both have a healthy number of (visibly, not to say originally) Asian students already on campus.

M.

[marshwiggle]

I think the original skew in Asian-American figures occurred because many such students were getting in of scholastic qualifications alone, by (perhaps itself, skewed observation at the time) so there were fewer concerns for their needs at the outset.

If one visits the two colleges named in the suit, both have a healthy number of (visibly, not to say originally) Asian students already on campus.

But of course that's the point. If the point is supposed to be that affirmative action is to correct discrimination against "visible minorities", then that should apply just as much to Asian students. (And of course there is anti-Asian discrimination, hate crime, etc., so the fact that they're "over-represented" in higher education doesn't negate its existence.)

If the argument is that "affirmative" action should only apply based on percentages in the population, then it obviously raises the question of why that specific metric is the basis for accommodations, (rather than, say, something quantifying specific evidence of discrimination).

[Wahoo Redux]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

Wasn't part of the original idea that there were good students who weren't white males that would get overlooked and so the intent was to make sure more of those got in? I'd guess that the days when there were academically strong but "invisible" students are long gone, and so now most of affirmative action will be just bringing in students of under-represented groups who wouldn't be admitted for academic reasons otherwise. To the extent that that's the case, it won't have a lot of positive effect.

There is debate, obviously, but supporters of AA can point to all sorts of numbers that seem to prove that AA has had a positive effect.

[mahagonny]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

Wasn't part of the original idea that there were good students who weren't white males that would get overlooked and so the intent was to make sure more of those got in? I'd guess that the days when there were academically strong but "invisible" students are long gone, and so now most of affirmative action will be just bringing in students of under-represented groups who wouldn't be admitted for academic reasons otherwise. To the extent that that's the case, it won't have a lot of positive effect.

There is debate, obviously, but supporters of AA can point to all sorts of numbers that seem to prove that AA has had a positive effect.

I'd be interested in seeing that data and I'd be interested in forumites who can explain what it shows. If putting more green people in college means those green people who were helped will make more money later on, that's nice to hear, but I'm not sure what it proves about the benefit to society.

[dismalist]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

Wasn't part of the original idea that there were good students who weren't white males that would get overlooked and so the intent was to make sure more of those got in? I'd guess that the days when there were academically strong but "invisible" students are long gone, and so now most of affirmative action will be just bringing in students of under-represented groups who wouldn't be admitted for academic reasons otherwise. To the extent that that's the case, it won't have a lot of positive effect.

There is debate, obviously, but supporters of AA can point to all sorts of numbers that seem to prove that AA has had a positive effect.

I'd be interested in seeing that data and I'd be interested in forumites who can explain what it shows. If putting more green people in college means those green people who were helped will make more money later on, that's nice to hear, but I'm not sure what it proves about the benefit to society.

Actually, the opposite may well be the case -- the Mismatch Theory was first suggested by Thomas Sowell, and investigated in  Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities,  William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael McPherson, PUP 2011. An example or two will suffice: The Blacks who are admitted to MIT have among the highest Math SAT scores in the country. Alas, they are in the bottom 10% of MIT students. Makes you feel bad when you look around in an institution like that if you're Black. So, lower gradation rates.  These kids would make fine engineers, economists, or whatever if they attended lower ranked schools. Law School is a clear cut example. Blacks who attend the highest ranking law schools, pass the bar exams at far lower rates than their White counterparts, if they haven't dropped out of law school. If they attend lower ranked law schools, they may well pass the bar at greater rates.

[Wahoo Redux]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

Wasn't part of the original idea that there were good students who weren't white males that would get overlooked and so the intent was to make sure more of those got in? I'd guess that the days when there were academically strong but "invisible" students are long gone, and so now most of affirmative action will be just bringing in students of under-represented groups who wouldn't be admitted for academic reasons otherwise. To the extent that that's the case, it won't have a lot of positive effect.

There is debate, obviously, but supporters of AA can point to all sorts of numbers that seem to prove that AA has had a positive effect.

I'd be interested in seeing that data and I'd be interested in forumites who can explain what it shows. If putting more green people in college means those green people who were helped will make more money later on, that's nice to hear, but I'm not sure what it proves about the benefit to society.

Google, my friend.  The data is easy to find.

[mahagonny]

Google, my friend.  The data is easy to find.

As of this moment, my money's on Sowell.

Mahagonny is about to buy real estate in this thread

And you have contributed what, so far, in the way of pertinent content?

Unlike some people my whole life doesn't revolve around being an internet warrior.

But, since you asked my opinion, I have always been of the opinion that economic class should be the basis for affirmative action, not race.

Congratulations. Do you dare say this around your friends?

Of course. You should try getting out into the real world once in a while instead of bouncing around a right wing echo chamber. You'd see that most most democrats are not the hyper-sensitive, left wing ideologues that you imagine (although I also have plenty of conservative friends, since I grew up in a conservative part of the country and now live in a different conservative part of the country).

We live in different locales. If I were to say, on my campus, to any group of more than one, that we should maintain affirmative action but base it on economic status not skin color, I would pay a penalty, socially, maybe even professionally. That's a color-blind policy, and colorblindness is de facto not acceptable. 'Anti-racism' is acceptable, and nothing else is. There would be people who agree with me, but the odds are against their admitting it.

[Anon1787]

Which brings me to a less appreciated dark side of current affirmative action in higher ed.  Affirmative action is really relevant only for highly selective schools. And those schools are not choosing poor Blacks to fill their self imposed quotas. They are choosing well off Blacks.

And in many cases their families have immigrated from elsewhere and thus are not descendants of American slaves.

Harvard is a (tax-exempt) hedge fund eager for more investors, finishing school, and research lab, so what would Harvard do with a lot of poor African-Americans?