Mid Term Elections- Lessons Learned

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Woke Agenda of DEI is alive and well in corporate America. A Person of color with a college degree is a highly sought after prize for corporations in 2022.
While small businesses may still discriminate based on names the largest corporations are seeking preferential hiring of minorities.

 

[BLADEMDA]

American Express in an "Environmental, Social, and Governance" report released August 4 pledged to devote billions of dollars to left-wing social causes.

The credit card giant announced in its report that it would allocate $3 billion to a "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Action Plan," in addition to the billion dollars the company already earmarked in October 2020. So far, American Express has spent funds on social justice nonprofits, "BIPOC businesses in Canada," events that refer to Hispanic Americans as "Latinx," and LGBT sites in New York City. The report also touts the company's launch of "ByBlack," a platform that checks whether a business is majority-owned by black people.

American Express has faced scrutiny for allegedly discriminating against white employees. Nick Williams, a former employee, alleges he was fired so that management could fill his position with a non-white worker. Williams has since filed a civil rights suit against American Express.

"Investors and customers should be wary of a company that spends billions on woke initiatives … and is willing to drop trusted vendors and employees based on race," said a spokesman for Color Us United, a group that opposes "woke" policies at corporations.

 

[vector2]

I don’t think you understood my different arguments in different posts. You look at groups if you want to gather statistics and differences. That said, whether/how you act on those statistics is a totally different matter.

I believe when you decide on policies it should should take into account fairness to the individual, and individual rights.

Right, and that's where you end up contradicting yourself. What is the point of all those group statistics you're collecting if you're going to discard those group statistics when making a policy decision? To me, it seems like you're fine bringing up group stats when it works against the policy goal of a group you don't think should be favored, but when it's a pet group of yours suddenly the focus is on individual rights instead of the salient part....which really is that Asians are represented at over 4x their population rate at Harvard.

There's obviously a balance to be had between the good of the group and the individual, but like I said before, countries don't make laws and large institutions don't set policies primarily based on how it affects one individual. Maybe to actually use a tax analogy this time, say the federal government has to set the top marginal rate at some arbitrarily high income level. Too low and working professionals needlessly get punished. Too high, and those professionals get a break to the detriment of the US taxpayer. In either case, there is going to be some Joe Blow (or narrow group of Joe Blows) out there whose income level is at that exact level where they're getting a pretty raw deal. But it would be foolish to modify the entirety of that tax policy to cater to that one group doing so clashed with the overall objectives of the US and its taxpayers.

Regarding the case law - even O’Connor who cast the deciding vote on the original AA decision explicitly said in her opinion it should not be permanent and suggested a sunset of 25 years. .

She didn't suggest a sunset. A SCOTUS decision is not like a law that sunsets. She said:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.”​

And unfortunately she "expected" that result in the same way the writers of every 80s and 90s scifi movie "expected" flying cars to be prevalent in the 2020s...i.e. they both had unrealistic expectations of unrealistic change in an unrealistic timeframe.

She (like me) was OK with AA going by the wayside when the underlying conditions that necessitated AA actually changed. However, the disparities have barely changed, so I see no reason for overturning four decades of precedent.

 

[doctalaughs]

Right, and that's where you end up contradicting yourself. What is the point of all those group statistics you're collecting if you're going to discard those group statistics when making a policy decision? To me, it seems like you're fine bringing up group stats when it works against the policy goal of a group you don't think should be favored, but when it's a pet group of yours suddenly the focus is on individual rights instead of the salient part....which really is that Asians are represented at over 4x their population rate at Harvard.

There's obviously a balance to be had between the good of the group and the individual, but like I said before, countries don't make laws and large institutions don't set policies primarily based on how it affects one individual. Maybe to actually use a tax analogy this time, say the federal government has to set the top marginal rate at some arbitrarily high income level. Too low and working professionals needlessly get punished. Too high, and those professionals get a break to the detriment of the US taxpayer. In either case, there is going to be some Joe Blow (or narrow group of Joe Blows) out there whose income level is at that exact level where they're getting a pretty raw deal. But it would be foolish to modify the entirety of that tax policy to cater to that one group doing so clashed with the overall objectives of the US and its taxpayers.



She didn't suggest a sunset. A SCOTUS decision is not like a law that sunsets. She said:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved today.”​

And unfortunately she "expected" that result in the same way the writers of every 80s and 90s scifi movie "expected" flying cars to be prevalent in the 2020s...i.e. they both had unrealistic expectations of unrealistic change in an unrealistic timeframe.

She (like me) was OK with AA going by the wayside when the underlying conditions that necessitated AA actually changed. However, the disparities have barely changed, so I see no reason for overturning four decades of precedent.

No contradictions. I never expressed any problem with any statistics that either of us brought up- as they are facts and how you interpret them is what matters.

I don’t care that Asians are 4x over represented at an elite institution, just as I don’t care that Jews are 10x over represented. Same thing with employment. As long as individuals were fairly admitted / hired - and their race/religion was not part of the decision.

Individual rights here are more important than superficial / visual diversity in my opinion. But I know there’s no convincing anyone on this topic so I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

 

[vector2]

I don’t care that Asians are 4x over represented at an elite institution, just as I don’t care that Jews are 10x over represented. Same thing with employment. As long as individuals were fairly admitted / hired - and their race/religion was not part of the decision.

Strange you say now that you don't care about the representation numbers....cause just a few posts ago you thought it prudent to specifically point out that California university composition didn't go to 70% Asian after race was removed as a factor, but that it merely went from 20 to 30%.

I mean, that made it sound like you had some notion why a very high percentage like 70% would potentially be undesirable to colleges, but now I'm wondering: would you still be saying "I don't care" if, hypothetically, elite universities changed their tune overnight, weighted objective data like SAT to the max regardless of anything on the application, and then actually became comprised of 90-99% white and Asian men? All those individuals would've still been "fairly" admitted, right?

Individual rights here are more important than superficial / visual diversity in my opinion. But I know there’s no convincing anyone on this topic so I guess we’ll just have to disagree.

Well, we're definitely going to disagree as long as you obnoxiously insist, even after I've written three million words about it, that the liberal position regarding affirmative action as it pertains to broad US history can be boiled down to a preference for simply "superficial" diversity.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

“What I’m learning in this environment is that there is no alternative,” Ogundele said. “There is no race-neutral alternative to being able to consider race.”

California banned affirmative action in 1996. Inside the UC struggle for diversity

As the Supreme Court weighs affirmative action, the University of California's struggle with diversity since a 1996 ban offers lessons.

www.latimes.com

 

[Southpaw]

Ending race-based preference in university admissions will also be the correct decision.

I didn't like the result of Citizens United, but it was the correct decision.

Seems like we've argued this line before. I will again put forth the claim that (in general) conservative Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they are, while the liberal Justices rule on the law and Constitution as they wish they were ... drawing from their own conscience and experience to rule on what is morally or ethically right.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0
RBG was confirmed 96-3

As the late Justice Scalia said, concerning the politicization of judge nominations and confirmations:


We probably won't agree on this today, either.

Yes. A literal interpretation of the constitution is always best as conservatives say. It’s not living nor breathing and society shouldn’t progress. Maybe Kavanaugh and Barrett can lead an opinion taking us back to the 3/5ths compromise.

You can ignore my snark. I just think it’s absurd to consider what’s occurred with 2A, abortion, and what’ll likely happen with AA, and say to yourself ‘ah yes this is exactly as it should be…clearly a literal interpretation’ while also having your head screwed on straight. SCOTUS is just a political arm for both sides at this point. Clear as day.

 

[doctalaughs]

Strange you say now that you don't care about the representation numbers....cause just a few posts ago you thought it prudent to specifically point out that California university composition didn't go to 70% Asian after race was removed as a factor, but that it merely went from 20 to 30%.

I mean, that made it sound like you had some notion why a very high percentage like 70% would potentially be undesirable to colleges, but now I'm wondering: would you still be saying "I don't care" if, hypothetically, elite universities changed their tune overnight, weighted objective data like SAT to the max regardless of anything on the application, and then actually became comprised of 90-99% white and Asian men? All those individuals would've still been "fairly" admitted, right?

If it was 70% or 99% I wouldn’t care either. I was just pointing out to those who apparently care, that is unrealistic, bizarre- and not what happens if you eliminate racial preferences. 99% is a paranoid fantasy akin to saying the Jews are taking over the world- so it’s just not worth talking about.

Also, I said that I am not for making objective tests the only metric; but they are an extremely important data point. To say that they are useless - and only a reflection of wealth/race- and do away with them entirely is also asinine. But apparently another crazy darling of the DEI agenda - eliminate all basis of objective ability, and select for skin color and whatever story the person and their references want to paint.

 

[vector2]

If it was 70% or 99% I wouldn’t care either. I was just pointing out to those who apparently care, that is unrealistic, bizarre- and not what happens if you eliminate racial preferences. 99% is a paranoid fantasy akin to saying the Jews are taking over the world- so it’s just not worth talking about.

Calm down, chief. As I said it was a hypothetical. A thought experiment. And the salient purpose of a thought experiment is not about whether the scenario in question literally materializes, but rather it's to examine the validity of the underlying reasoning or ethical framework which supports one's argument.

In my opinion, it's pointless trying to reason with you if you genuinely believe what you wrote, i.e. "If it was 70% or 99% [white\Asian men] I wouldn’t care either." Cause what that tells us, when it comes down to brass tacks, is that you're really not interested in a compromise position at all. You're not interested in the history or context of race in the US and how it pertains to higher education. You're not interested in what the existing legal precedents actually say.

Your statement says that as long as you get your way and your group / the methodology for selecting your group is favored, even if the hypothetical consequences are just godawful, then that's the only way you'll be satisfied.

Also, I said that I am not for making objective tests the only metric; but they are an extremely important data point. To say that they are useless - and only a reflection of wealth/race- and do away with them entirely is also asinine. But apparently another crazy darling of the DEI agenda - eliminate all basis of objective ability, and select for skin color and whatever story the person and their references want to paint.

It's wonderful you can knock down someone else's imagined DEI strawmen, but no one in this thread is in favor of removing objective testing from the admissions process.

 

[doctalaughs]

In my opinion, it's pointless trying to reason with you if you genuinely believe what you wrote, i.e. "If it was 70% or 99% [white\Asian men] I wouldn’t care either." Cause what that tells us, when it comes down to brass tacks, is that you're really not interested in a compromise position at all. You're not interested in the history or context of race in the US and how it pertains to higher education. You're not interested in what the existing legal precedents actually say.

Your statement says that as long as you get your way and your group / the methodology for selecting your group is favored, even if the hypothetical consequences are just godawful, then that's the only way you'll be satisfied.

If that scenario, by your agreement, is clearly not the result of the policy I’m advocating why is it useful even as a thought experiment?

Let me ask you this hypothetical argument then since you are into imagining. If current DEI policies lead to exactly the equal population proportions of race in schools, jobs and the boardrooms — and there continues to be large gaps in statistical metrics of performance (ie Asians need to get a standard deviation or two above other certain races for admittance etc) — would that be your ideal state? Or do you have a “magic number” where there is still under representation of certain races but we stop considering race?

 

[vector2]

If that scenario, by your agreement, is clearly not the result of the policy I’m advocating why is it useful even as a thought experiment?

Read my post again. The thought experiment is useful to see what logic or reasoning you're using to derive your argument, and to see whether that reasoning is sound. For instance, we would all agree that passing an unjust law is not ethically defensible, even if no one happened to be arrested under that law, right? That's because I think, at least to the majority of us, we care as much about the underlying principles of our rules as much as the consequences those rules have in the real world.

It matters when you say "If it was 70% or 99% [white\Asian men] I wouldn’t care either" not because that scenario definitely will happen, but because your principles would allow you to get behind a very unjust law/rule as long as your objectives were met. It puts our starting positions at such polar opposites that it seems silly to try to sway your opinion if we can't even both agree that it would be wrong for academia to be composed of 99% of any group.

Let me ask you this hypothetical argument then since you are into imagining. If current DEI policies lead to exactly the equal population proportions of race in schools, jobs and the boardrooms — and there continues to be large gaps in statistical metrics of performance (ie Asians need to get a standard deviation or two above other certain races for admittance etc) — would that be your ideal state? Or do you have a “magic number” where there is still under representation of certain races but we stop considering race?

No, that's not my ideal state. My ideal state is that childhood opportunity, schools, broader social support, etc are on such an equal footing that any quotas in colleges or the workplace are unnecessary. I shouldn't be able to predict a child's degree of achievement to such a stunning degree of accuracy just by knowing her zip code. But it seems unlikely we'll get there soon though given how bad K-12 segregation is, how strong the disagreements are on public vs private school funding, how just throwing money at public schools doesn't fix the problem alone, how hard the cycle of generational poverty is to break, etc.

 

[doctalaughs]

It matters when you say "If it was 70% or 99% [white\Asian men] I wouldn’t care either" not because that scenario definitely will happen, but because your principles would allow you to get behind a very unjust law/rule as long as your objectives were met.

So I assume you have a big problem that 70% of NFL players are black? That 85% of nurses are women? That only 0.5% of professional basketball players are Asian? I don’t.

I have no problem with continuing to work on opportunities for poor communities — but there never will be equality of outcome. There are big cultural and social differences in different groups and what they value in their communities. And that makes 80-90% of the difference — not wealth, access to test prep, schools etc. Why do you think Jews are literally 10x over represented in elite institutions here despite a thousands of years of persecution and genocide? Was it access to good schools? Was it because their families weren’t broken up and slaughtered?

Of course zip codes will be correlated to success because successful families move to those zip codes. Correlation not causation.

 

[Southpaw]

So I assume you have a big problem that 70% of NFL players are black? That 85% of nurses are women? That only 0.5% of professional basketball players are Asian? I don’t.

I have no problem with continuing to work on opportunities for poor communities — but there never will be equality of outcome. There are big cultural and social differences in different groups and what they value in their communities. And that makes 80-90% of the difference — not wealth, access to test prep, schools etc. Why do you think Jews are literally 10x over represented in elite institutions here despite a thousands of years of persecution and genocide? Was it access to good schools? Was it because their families weren’t broken up and slaughtered?

Of course zip codes will be correlated to success because successful families move to those zip codes. Correlation not causation.

More to say but I don’t know how many times now you’ve quoted the 10x at elites for Jews, never giving a reference. I’ve looked and can’t find anything remotely close. Please give a reference.

There is no societal benefit to having a diverse group of NBA players aside from the obvious - a bunch of Asian kids wanting to be Jeremy Lin or Yao Ming which of course just brings more NBA revenue. It’s not the same as societal benefit from a diverse group of physicians.

All that said, if you want to create a league and pay all the Asians and white males big bucks for doing well on standardized tests then feel free. If you can make a living from all the marketing revenue and people filling up your stadiums then I applaud you.

 

[vector2]

So I assume you have a big problem that 70% of NFL players are black? That 85% of nurses are women? That only 0.5% of professional basketball players are Asian? I don’t.

I very specifically said "it would be wrong for academia to be composed of 99% of any group, but to reply to your question anyway, racial composition in sports is one of those things that AA opponents bring up where they think they've got themselves a "gotcha" zinger, but if you think about it for longer than 5 seconds you'll realize that you're not making an apples to apples comparison at all.

1. As I said throughout the thread, equality of opportunity is my goal, not necessarily of outcome. There is no question that from the most podunk of public elementary schools all the way to elite division IA colleges, public athletics is generally very, very well-funded in this country. Google any list of "most state football championships" in any state and you'll see a list that includes significant number or probably an outright majority of public schools. Public university SEC football coaches make, on average, $7.5m per year. NFL players frequently have ascended the ladder from public elementary school to public high school to public university to the pros, whereas this almost never happens when talking about elite academics / professional achievement. Because there is simply no analogous equality of opportunity for academics like there is for sports. (An an aside though, even with the NFL being 70% black, look up what owners historically thought of black coaches or black quarterbacks if you're unfamiliar with the topic.)

2. The reliance on objective data in professional sports is orders and orders of magnitude higher than it is for academics. I can tell you 90% of what I need to know about a running back if you tell me his last three seasons' total yards/yards per carry. I can tell you 99% of what I need to know about a shotputter if you just tell me how far he can throw the damn ball. I can't tell you 99% of what I need to know about college applicant just from an SAT score.

I have no problem with continuing to work on opportunities for poor communities — but there never will be equality of outcome. There are big cultural and social differences in different groups and what they value in their communities. And that makes 80-90% of the difference — not wealth, access to test prep, schools etc. Why do you think Jews are literally 10x over represented in elite institutions here despite a thousands of years of persecution and genocide? Was it access to good schools? Was it because their families weren’t broken up and slaughtered?

Of course zip codes will be correlated to success because successful families move to those zip codes. Correlation not causation.

Ad nauseum, I've said that equality of outcomes is not necessarily the goal, but rather equality of opportunity. And while they are contributory, you place too much emphasis on "cultural and social differences" being the main causative factor.

Also, looking at the historical persecution of the Jewish people throughout antiquity or in the middle ages does not make for a relevant comparison when looking at their historical achievements in the US. If you don't believe me, just look up what the average life was like for a black person and a Jew in the US in 1850, 1900, and 1950.

 

[doctalaughs]

More to say but I don’t know how many times now you’ve quoted the 10x at elites for Jews, never giving a reference. I’ve looked and can’t find anything remotely close. Please give a reference.

Pretty easy to find but here’s one source where the rates for Harvard, Yale, Columbia and many other elite colleges are 20-30% Jewish. As you know Jews comprise 2.5% of the US population.

https://www.reformjudaism.org/sites/default/files/Col_TopCharts_f14_F_spreads.pdf

 

[doctalaughs]

Ad nauseum, I've said that equality of outcomes is not necessarily the goal, but rather equality of opportunity. And while they are contributory, you place too much emphasis on "cultural and social differences" being the main causative factor.

Also, looking at the historical persecution of the Jewish people throughout antiquity or in the middle ages does not make for a relevant comparison when looking at their historical achievements in the US. If you don't believe me, just look up what the average life was like for a black person and a Jew in the US in 1850, 1900, and 1950.

I hear your argument- but I still contend if you are a black or Hispanic student with a family and peer group that values/promotes education, you have an equal (if not better) shot than an Asian or white student today.

Obviously the trick is there aren’t a ton of people in this category. But I’m certain that AA is not good way to change that.

I see no easy way to measure the effects of cultural / family values, but I do think it accounts for at least 50% of the differences we see. Not schools, not money.

 

[vector2]

I hear your argument- but I still contend if you are a black or Hispanic student with a family and peer group that values/promotes education, you have an equal (if not better) shot than an Asian or white student today.

Right, but how rare is that? It's simple (and incomplete) to say black or Hispanic people just have different "cultural/family values" and that's why they have worse group academic performance, but if you look from a statistical opportunity standpoint, the parents of black and Hispanic children, on average, have less education, less income, less wealth, less job security, live in neighborhoods/zip codes with worse (or at least poorer) schools, and not to mention,
likely face implicit or explicit race-based biases that lower SES whites do not have to grapple with. It's trivial to say that parents should just value/promote education, but without the education/time/money/tools/school district to do so, it's kind of an empty, toothless recommendation.

 

[Southpaw]

Pretty easy to find but here’s one source where the rates for Harvard, Yale, Columbia and many other elite colleges are 20-30% Jewish. As you know Jews comprise 2.5% of the US population.

https://www.reformjudaism.org/sites/default/files/Col_TopCharts_f14_F_spreads.pdf

That includes all of their graduate programs. I thought we were focusing on undergrad and medical school mostly here? Their undergrad is 10% Jewish (Record)

Additiionally they have a Center for Jewish Studies that attracts a lot of Jewish graduate students. The Ivys and Northeast schools in general attract a lot of Jewish students who've done well as the American Jewish are greatly concentrated in the Northeast. There aren't nearly as many Jewish students across the Midwest and West.

Asian students are represented well beyond their societal makeup across all elite undergrads, and if I were to guess, graduate programs also.

 

[doctalaughs]

Right, but how rare is that? It's simple (and incomplete) to say black or Hispanic people just have different "cultural/family values" and that's why they have worse group academic performance, but if you look from a statistical opportunity standpoint, the parents of black and Hispanic children, on average, have less education, less income, less wealth, less job security, live in neighborhoods/zip codes with worse (or at least poorer) schools, and not to mention,
likely face implicit or explicit race-based biases that lower SES whites do not have to grapple with. It's trivial to say that parents should just value/promote education, but without the education/time/money/tools/school district to do so, it's kind of an empty, toothless recommendation.

There is a large study to show that gaps between black/Hispanic students and white students are large (or possibly even bigger) even in vey wealthy communities, where all the families have abundant resources:

In Wealthier School Districts, Students Are Farther Apart

Black and Latino students in economically prosperous cities are grade levels behind their white peers.

www.theatlantic.com

Many cite this article as evidence of systemic racism - but could it not also be cultural values and emphasis families place on education that persist across the socioeconomic spectrum? I’m not sure how you’d distinguish but certainly wealth and resources alone do ZERO to close the gap (they do have an effect, as in these kids do better than their race-matched poorer peers, but still have a huge gap to their wealth matched other races).

 

[doctalaughs]

That includes all of their graduate programs. I thought we were focusing on undergrad and medical school mostly here? Their undergrad is 10% Jewish (Record)

Additiionally they have a Center for Jewish Studies that attracts a lot of Jewish graduate students. The Ivys and Northeast schools in general attract a lot of Jewish students who've done well as the American Jewish are greatly concentrated in the Northeast. There aren't nearly as many Jewish students across the Midwest and West.

Asian students are represented well beyond their societal makeup across all elite undergrads, and if I were to guess, graduate programs also.

I thought we were talking all higher education but as you said, whether it’s 5x or 10x- Jews are even more over-represented than Asians. I haven’t looked at high powered businesses positions, but I would expect it to be no different there. And I don’t hear any outcry over it (as there shouldn’t be one). The success of a group should not be held against any individual that happens to belong to that group.

 

[doctalaughs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/09/14/before-asian-americans-sued-harvard-the-school-tried-restricting-the-number-of-jews/

 

[vector2]

There is a large study to show that gaps between black/Hispanic students and white students are large (or possibly even bigger) even in vey wealthy communities, where all the families have abundant resources:

In Wealthier School Districts, Students Are Farther Apart

Black and Latino students in economically prosperous cities are grade levels behind their white peers.

www.theatlantic.com

Many cite this article as evidence of systemic racism - but could it not also be cultural values and emphasis families place on education that persist across the socioeconomic spectrum? I’m not sure how you’d distinguish but certainly wealth and resources alone do ZERO to close the gap (they do have an effect, as in these kids do better than their race-matched poorer peers, but still have a huge gap to their wealth matched other races).

Again, I didnt say that SES is entirely to blame or that culture is blameless, I just said you're overestimating the impact of culture (and likely underestimating the societal causes).

And you saying that wealth and resources does ZERO to close the gap is contradicted by your very next sentence where you point out that the grade level gap between wealth-matched groups, while it's still significant, is still much smaller than the gap between non-wealth matched groups.

Let's take a look at the study the Atlantic article cites:

...
But differences in the socioeconomic status of parents do not explain the entire gap. Even districts with similar socioeconomic disparities can have very different gaps. For example, Georgia’s Gwinett County school district has the same White-Black disparity in socioeconomic status as Newton County just to its south, but Gwinett’s White-Black achievement gap is twice that of Newton’s. Likewise, Walton County school district has a smaller achievement gap than Gwinett County, despite the fact that the socioeconomic gap is much larger in Walton County.

So what other factors contribute to unequal opportunity? Our research suggests that the most important predictor of achievement gaps is school segregation. This is readily evident in the data.

The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford | What Explains White-Black Differences in Average Test Scores

What explains racial and ethnic disparities in children’s academic performance? We use fine-grained data to understand a stubborn problem.

edopportunity.org

​

 

[BLADEMDA]

Finally, conservatives who want to improve academic achievement should stop emphasizing the relationship between heredity and achievement and play up the importance of another conservative virtue—namely, hard work. Americans seem to be unusually likely to attribute academic failure to low ability rather than inadequate effort. When Harold Stevenson and James Stigler asked American, Japanese, and Taiwanese parents and teachers why some children did better than others in school, the Americans were more likely to emphasize ability whereas the Japanese and Taiwanese were more likely to emphasize effort. This difference does not seem to reflect a difference in fundamental beliefs about causation. Children all over the world recognize that both ability and effort affect achievement, and the same is probably true for their parents as well. But attributing failure to inadequate effort implies that if you work harder, you will learn more. Attributing it to ability serves as an excuse for doing nothing.

The Black-White Test Score Gap: Why It Persists and What Can Be Done | Brookings

Brookings Review article by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Spring 1998)

www.brookings.edu

 

[doctalaughs]

Again, I didnt say that SES is entirely to blame or that culture is blameless, I just said you're overestimating the impact of culture (and likely underestimating the societal causes).

And you saying that wealth and resources does ZERO to close the gap is contradicted by your very next sentence where you point out that the grade level gap between wealth-matched groups, while it's still significant, is still much smaller than the gap between non-wealth matched groups.

Let's take a look at the study the Atlantic article cites:

​

...​

But differences in the socioeconomic status of parents do not explain the entire gap. Even districts with similar socioeconomic disparities can have very different gaps. For example, Georgia’s Gwinett County school district has the same White-Black disparity in socioeconomic status as Newton County just to its south, but Gwinett’s White-Black achievement gap is twice that of Newton’s. Likewise, Walton County school district has a smaller achievement gap than Gwinett County, despite the fact that the socioeconomic gap is much larger in Walton County.​

​

So what other factors contribute to unequal opportunity? Our research suggests that the most important predictor of achievement gaps is school segregation. This is readily evident in the data.​

​

View attachment 362527​

​

The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford | What Explains White-Black Differences in Average Test Scores

What explains racial and ethnic disparities in children’s academic performance? We use fine-grained data to understand a stubborn problem.

edopportunity.org

​

​

The writers seem to contradict themself in the link you gave analyzing the study data. First they say:

“It is common to assume that these gaps have a straightforward explanation: White students tend to live in wealthier communities, where schools often have more resources and are presumed to be better. The data, though, do not support this argument. In general, gaps in academic performance are quite large when children enter school in kindergarten, a pattern we can’t blame on schools. Moreover, the gaps grow relatively little while children are in school, which is not what we’d expect if schools were primarily responsible.”

Then they go on to say that the gaps persist even in wealthy communities, but are more pronounced when schools are more segregated. However they cite several outliers that are not segregated — yet still have a large gap:

“It is possible to have a large achievement gap in the absence of segregation (as in Berkeley, CA and Evanston, IL), but segregation appears to be tightly linked to inequality in educational opportunity.”

Beyond that, is segregation a cause or an effect of the gap that is seen? Certainly I would think if these kids go into kindergarten with large gaps between racial performance, and this gap persists even in wealthy zip codes, it’s more likely to be that families choose to self-segregate based on cultural value of education.

 

[doctalaughs]

Finally, conservatives who want to improve academic achievement should stop emphasizing the relationship between heredity and achievement and play up the importance of another conservative virtue—namely, hard work. Americans seem to be unusually likely to attribute academic failure to low ability rather than inadequate effort. When Harold Stevenson and James Stigler asked American, Japanese, and Taiwanese parents and teachers why some children did better than others in school, the Americans were more likely to emphasize ability whereas the Japanese and Taiwanese were more likely to emphasize effort. This difference does not seem to reflect a difference in fundamental beliefs about causation. Children all over the world recognize that both ability and effort affect achievement, and the same is probably true for their parents as well. But attributing failure to inadequate effort implies that if you work harder, you will learn more. Attributing it to ability serves as an excuse for doing nothing.

The Black-White Test Score Gap: Why It Persists and What Can Be Done | Brookings

Brookings Review article by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Spring 1998)

www.brookings.edu

I agree with this. Moreover, liberals seem to sneer at test prep as something only the wealthy are allowed. It is actually widely available with many free resources and need-based allowances for those that want to use it. Test prep is just really another type of studying, aka what we used to call “hard work.”

In my days teaching underserved high school students - I made a massive effort to push test prep onto those kids. They had absolutely no interest in the resources offered. I had no influence by that time in their lives.

 

[BLADEMDA]

One can't ignore the role IQ plays in all these discussions. But, as we intermarry in the USA at a high rate the importance of one's race on the impact to IQ (as we measure it) becomes even less of a factor. I find the discussion on IQ levels between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews to be highly relevant to this discission. Even among members of the same group/subgroup there are huge variations in IQ. This holds true for Blacks as well when we look at African Blacks (recent immigrants) and Jamaicans vs fourth generation inner city US Blacks.

Over time, there is a huge rate of intermarrying going on among different races, religions, etc in America. A true melting pot of ethnicity not seen anywhere else in the world. That's why I believe re-establishing a meritocracy over the next decade is more important than ever. I look forward to the SCOTUS ruling of abolishing Affirmative Action once and for all.

The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’

The long read: Its defenders claim to be standing up for uncomfortable truths, but race science is still as bogus as ever

www.theguardian.com

 

[vector2]

.”

Beyond that, is segregation a cause or an effect of the gap that is seen? Certainly I would think if these kids go into kindergarten with large gaps between racial performance, and this gap persists even in wealthy zip codes, it’s more likely to be that families choose to self-segregate based on cultural value of education.

I don't think there's any contradiction in the article. The authors acknowledge that the gap can't be nailed down to only one factor, and have essentially gone through their data to see where the strongest correlations exist.

In regard to segregation...just lol. Seriously, lmao. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt in this argument, but are you really suggesting that black/white segregation persists because "[black] families choose to self-segregate based on cultural value of education." ???

It's hard to take you seriously when you make comments like that which are just totally, utterly ignorant of the economic circumstances and post-Civil Rights widespread white flight which forcibly concentrated poorer black ppl into neighborhoods because white people at the time didn't feel like sharing educational and economic opportunity. The school (and general geographic) segregation that exists today is largely a remnant of the phenomenon that's been persisting for 50 yrs.

 

[doctalaughs]

In regard to segregation...just lol. Seriously, lmao. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt in this argument, but are you really suggesting that black/white segregation persists because "[black] families choose to self-segregate based on cultural value of education." ???

You are inserting your own words. Rather white/Asian (and occasionally other) families that highly value education, tend to move to neighborhoods which are like-minded and thus self-segregate. I said nothing about black families choosing this. I just don’t see how you prevent that unless you force people to live certain places.

 

[vector2]

You are inserting your own words. Rather white/Asian (and occasionally other) families that highly value education, tend to move to neighborhoods which are like-minded and thus self-segregate. I said nothing about black families choosing this. I just don’t see how you prevent that unless you force people to live certain places.

You know you're precisely describing the conditions of post-Civil Rights era white flight which persist today but just in a slightly different form, right?

One of the salient parts of the flight is that it's not just a flight of money or jobs or the physical schools, but of a shared community culture of education and higher learning. Many whites and Asians have had advanced degree earners in their families for generations, but instead of intermingling or making sure communities with higher proportions of URM with less of a higher education lineage benefit from having a higher proportion of involved parents, more qualified teachers, better extracurricular activities at they schools, etc they just......leave. With regard to the cultural aspect, I suspect this is in part why even controlling for affluence there is a racial grade gap.

And no, of course you can't "force" people to live somewhere. What you do from a policy standpoint is stop the perverse maldistribution of property taxes which makes "moving to this neighborhood for the good schools" something which people don't have to say because all schools ideally have a low delta in quality.

 

[doctalaughs]

You know you're precisely describing the conditions of post-Civil Rights era white flight which persist today but just in a slightly different form, right?

One of the salient parts of the flight is that it's not just a flight of money or jobs or the physical schools, but of a shared community culture of education and higher learning. Many whites and Asians have had advanced degree earners in their families for generations, but instead of intermingling or making sure communities with higher proportions of URM with less of a higher education lineage benefit from having a higher proportion of involved parents, more qualified teachers, better extracurricular activities at they schools, etc they just......leave. With regard to the cultural aspect, I suspect this is in part why even controlling for affluence there is a racial grade gap.

And no, of course you can't "force" people to live somewhere. What you do from a policy standpoint is stop the perverse maldistribution of property taxes which makes "moving to this neighborhood for the good schools" something which people don't have to say because all schools ideally have a low delta in quality.

Well at least in this I agree with you. But we should concentrate all our efforts at equalizing funding for different public primary/secondary schools, not affirmative action. It’s way too late then and breeds resentment/ polarization in society.

People are way more open to supporting kids at a very young age and trying to equalize opportunities then— not after they see how unmotivated / complete lack of effort has been instilled in 99% of them (for whatever reason you want to argue- cultural vs wealth vs racism).

 

[vector2]

Well at least in this I agree with you. But we should concentrate all our efforts at equalizing funding for different schools, not affirmative action. It’s way too late then and breeds resentment/ polarization in society.

People are way more open to supporting kids at a very young age and trying to equalize opportunities then— not after they see how unmotivated / complete lack of effort has been instilled in 99% of them (for whatever reason you want to argue- cultural vs wealth vs racism).

Right, and as I’ve said time and time again, the opportunities are not anywhere close to equal, which means that the impetus for totally removing race-conscious admissions is still not there.

And I don’t really buy the resentment/polarization argument for doing away with AA, especially not in the case of Asians where 70% of Asians still support affirmative action. Most of the AA resentment I see from high achieving folks I can’t even take seriously because it’s so saturated in entitlement, selfishness, and apathy toward the rest of the big society they exist in. I’m South Asian. I’m relatively certain that someone who I’m sure had a lower MCAT score was selected for a spot over me in the first choice med school I didn’t get into. I don’t blame them and I don’t resent them (or government policy) for it, and I roll my eyes at people who are so triggered over a URM getting a shot that they feel the need to sue.

 

[doctalaughs]

Right, and as I’ve said time and time again, the opportunities are not anywhere close to equal, which means that the impetus for totally removing race-conscious admissions is still not there.

And I don’t really buy the resentment/polarization argument for doing away with AA, especially not in the case of Asians where 70% of Asians still support affirmative action. Most of the AA resentment I see from high achieving folks I can’t even take seriously because it’s so saturated in entitlement, selfishness, and apathy toward the rest of the big society they exist in. I’m South Asian. I’m relatively certain that someone who I’m sure had a lower MCAT score was selected for a spot over me in the first choice med school I didn’t get into. I don’t blame them and I don’t resent them (or government policy) for it, and I roll my eyes at people who are so triggered over a URM getting a shot that they feel the need to sue.

How has AA worked for us so far? 40-50 years and the gaps are not appreciably smaller. And society is polarized more than ever- I would argue partially because of policies like this. It’s not working and it’s time to try something different.

I’m East Asian but from a poorer background and not the typical large/powerhouse countries. I’ve never had anyone take a spot from me in anything— as I was poor but had essentially first choice of undergrad / med school / residency just because I had the ability, and did the work to make sure that there would be no question, even with box-checking handicaps applied. I have no individual grievance or resentment.

That being said, - I know not everyone has that ability and their hard work SHOULD be measured equally against everyone else- not given various bonuses or handicaps. I feel bad for poor white and Asian kids of average ability who have very low chances in education, workplaces etc today even when they do put in 3x the work. Why should their work count less than another race? If they aren’t intellectually gifted and also hard workers- they are at a big disadvantage. Not all asian/white households have parents that can/do culturally push education either.

Even if it impacts me zero - I still have a problem with using race and skin color as a surrogate to assume things about an individual. And it’s hypocritical when we are trying as a society NOT to discriminate based on race in the first place.

Using the supposed end (which isn’t even working) to justify the means is the crux of AA’s argument.

 

[vector2]

How has AA worked for us so far? 40-50 years and the gaps are not appreciably smaller. And society is polarized more than ever- I would argue partially because of policies like this. It’s not working and it’s time to try something different.

Um, of course it's worked. You've complained ad nauseum about all the folks such as the black 14-15% of the Harvard student body (and all the other schools) who you think are there not on merit, so obviously AA has worked to close some gaps. Ergo it's very misleading to claim it hasn't just because gaps still exist. Furthermore, one can even see exactly how the repeal of race-conscious admissions negatively affected the URM gap.

And beyond higher education, one can see AA has closed gaps in the labor force. In the mid 90s, it was estimated that 6 million URM and 5 million women had moved up the workforce in part due to AA.

That being said, - I know not everyone has that ability and their hard work SHOULD be measured equally against everyone else- not given various bonuses or handicaps. I feel bad for poor white and Asian kids of average ability who have very low chances in education, workplaces etc today even when they do put in 3x the work.

Dude, you're pathologically incapable of engaging this topic with the facts in mind. Again, there is no hard quota on any race in admissions in any institution in this country. The absolute number and percentage of matriculants who are Asian at Harvard has continued to increase despite their policy which you think is so unjust. And I know you don't care but I'll repeat it for the readers who haven't totally lost all rationality on the issue: Asians are represented at 6x their population rate in Harvard and other elite schools.

How are you even capable of writing "white and Asian kids of average ability who have very low chances in education, workplaces etc today even when they do put in 3x the work" with a straight face? Like, I'm only barely exaggerating when I say you have to be either insanely delusional or ignorant if you seriously think white and Asian kids of average ability who put in 3x the work [of all those URM you think are so undeserving] aren't getting excellent college spots or jobs somewhere.

Ugh, really kicking myself for not just signing off at the "doctalaughs would be fine if colleges were 99% white/Asian men" part of the convo

 

[vector2]

Thread palate cleanser from 538. Some more polls since the Emerson College one

Trump's not a shoe-in for the nomination but the notion that the midterms damaged him severely seems to be mistaken. The only ppl amongst whom it damaged him are the GOP party elite who've always hated him, but who are as powerless to do anything about it now as they were in 2016.

 

[doctalaughs]

Um, of course it's worked. You've complained ad nauseum about all the folks such as the black 14-15% of the Harvard student body (and all the other schools) who you think are there not on merit, so obviously AA has worked to close some gaps. Ergo it's very misleading to claim it hasn't just because gaps still exist.

Sounds like this conversation is getting too heated when the name calling starts - so I’ll leave it at this and you can have the last word if you like. 50 years of AA “working” to me would mean the achievement gap for admitted students is significantly smaller - not that we continue to admit more URMs by lowering the bar for them, and then declare that — “oh look the percentages of URM are going up (because we artificially made it so).”

Just because a policy might achieve the ends you want, doesn’t mean we should enact it. It’s not ok to be “a little racist” to correct prior injustices or get the outcome you think is good for society.

 

[doctalaughs]

Thread palate cleanser from 538. Some more polls since the Emerson College one

View attachment 362542

Trump's not a shoe-in for the nomination but the notion that the midterms damaged him severely seems to be mistaken. The only ppl amongst whom it damaged him are the GOP party elite who've always hated him, but who are as powerless to do anything about it now as they were in 2016.

The thing that gives me hope is that large GOP donors seem to be abandoning him and possibly will throw their money behind someone else.

 

[vector2]

Sounds like this conversation is getting too heated when the name calling starts - so I’ll leave it at this and you can have the last word if you like. 50 years of AA “working” to me would mean the achievement gap for admitted students is significantly smaller - not that we continue to admit more URMs by lowering the bar for them, and then declare that — “oh look the percentages of URM are going up (because we artificially made it so).”

You're so far off center with your comments about being ok with colleges hypothetically consisting of 99% white/Asian men, or your belief that hardworking white or Asian people of average achievement have "very low chances in education, workplaces etc" that my observation really should not be seen as an ad hominem.

To me, what you're saying - particularly with that latter comment - is just so astoundingly untrue that delusion or ignorance really are some of the most logical explanations. The claim that the average hardworking white guy in America has poor academic and employment prospects is a claim whose veracity is on the same level as the one trump makes about millions of votes being stolen from him in 2020.

And as far as whether you believe AA is working, I think it's pretty clear that there is no outcome or statistic that would satisfy you as to its worth (other than an unachievable one). Undoubtedly, if say someone pointed out to you ...that affirmative action shrunk the racial gap across a range of measures—in grades by 18%, in applications to selective schools by 13%, in attendance by 8%, and in SAT math scores by 5%, you'd ignore it or say it's not good enough, etc, while remaining purposefully oblivious to all the other contributory factors responsible for the gap upon which we've also made little progress.

Just because a policy might achieve the ends you want, doesn’t mean we should enact it.

Sure thing, Mr. I'm-theoretically-OK-with-academia-being-99%-one-ethnicity

 

[Southpaw]

One can't ignore the role IQ plays in all these discussions. But, as we intermarry in the USA at a high rate the importance of one's race on the impact to IQ (as we measure it) becomes even less of a factor. I find the discussion on IQ levels between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews to be highly relevant to this discission. Even among members of the same group/subgroup there are huge variations in IQ. This holds true for Blacks as well when we look at African Blacks (recent immigrants) and Jamaicans vs fourth generation inner city US Blacks.

Over time, there is a huge rate of intermarrying going on among different races, religions, etc in America. A true melting pot of ethnicity not seen anywhere else in the world. That's why I believe re-establishing a meritocracy over the next decade is more important than ever. I look forward to the SCOTUS ruling of abolishing Affirmative Action once and for all.

The unwelcome revival of ‘race science’

The long read: Its defenders claim to be standing up for uncomfortable truths, but race science is still as bogus as ever

www.theguardian.com

Not going to touch the racist undertones in your post (intermarriage to bring up black IQs....) however I am going to call it as I see it. Every major city in this country is liberal. The most populous areas of this country go liberal. Generally speaking, as one gets more education they trend towards liberalism.

The poorest, least urban, least populous, least diverse, most heavily dependent on the government, areas of this country are Republican. That also probably isn't changing anytime soon. Your Republican majority in the Supreme Court may very well end AA because the whites and Asians will keep whining and suing until they get all the elite seats they feel they're entitled to. But I have a really strong feeling that so long as the highly educated, and the most populous areas of our country remain liberal, that the universities in those places and those admission committees are going to find ways to maintain diversity in their classes. That may be through more question asking on the application, closer looks at financial information, less reliance on objective measures (setting a minimum bar and not looking beyond that, as many residency programs do), etc. all in effort to maintain diversity and help groups who have not and are not given equality of opportunity. You can ignore the lack of equal opportunity all the while trying to knock down all of the programs and efforts to create that equality of opportunity.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Not going to touch the racist undertones in your post (intermarriage to bring up blacks IQs....) however I am going to call it as I see it. Every major city in this country is liberal. The most populous areas of this country go liberal. Generally speaking, as one gets more education they trend towards liberalism.

The poorest, least urban, least populous, least diverse, most heavily dependent on the government, areas of this country are Republican. That also probably isn't changing anytime soon. Your Republican majority in the Supreme Court may very well end AA because the whites and Asians will keep whining and suing until they get all the elite seats they feel they're entitled to. But I have a really strong feeling that so long as the highly educated, and the most populous areas of our country remain liberal, that the universities in those places and those admission committees are going to find ways to maintain diversity in their classes. That may be through more question asking on the application, closer looks at financial information, less reliance on objective measures (setting a minimum bar and not looking beyond that, as many residency programs do), etc. all in effort to maintain diversity and help groups who have not and are not given equality of opportunity. You can ignore the lack of equal opportunity all the while trying to knock down all of the programs and efforts to create that equality of opportunity.

Look, I like most Americans just want a fair playing field in this country. That means "reverse racism" won't be embraced in the name of DEI/Wokeness.
The racism against African Americans was blatantly wrong and we have strived over the past 60 years to correct it. Unlike you, I believe that racism is a non issue in Academia and corporate America. But, in society as a whole there are pockets of racism which still persist. We need to tackle those areas and make changes so the entire system is fair to all Americans.

Again, I believe "equality of opportunity" exists right now in terms of access to academia, professional schools and corporate positions. What doesn't exist and will NEVER exist is the equality of opportunity in family structure, socio-economic status, place of birth, etc. The individual must work hard for himself/herself to overcome those barriers. Our society will never be able to fix those issues. All the other groups in America who arrived on these shores overcame these obstacles and became success stories. The dream is still alive for anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to work past their misfortunes. I believe in the spirit of the individual to overcome obstacles. I do not support and will never support structural racism for the betterment of one group over another one. Affirmative Action as practiced today is racist and Unconstitutional. The end does not justify the means.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Affirmative action should be based on class, not race

Focusing on the disadvantaged of all races is fairer and more appealing, writes Richard Kahlenberg, a scholar

www.economist.com

But in practice, universities have long relied heavily on race and given short shrift to considerations of economic disadvantage. Harvard’s own analysis found that its preferences for African American students, for example, are about twice as large as their preferences for students from families making less than $60,000 a year. Unsurprisingly, at Harvard, 71% of the black and Latino students come from wealthy backgrounds.

Moreover, the notion that race should be considered in perpetuity—even when socioeconomic preferences can produce racial diversity—ignores the fact that using race to decide who gets ahead has downsides.

 

[BLADEMDA]

How Affirmative Action Actually Harms Minorities: 8/11/2022 | PragerU

Have you noticed “minority-owned” sections in retail stores, “black creators” being featured on streaming platforms, or “diversity quotas” in corporations…

www.prageru.com

 

[secretasianman]

In the early 2000s, I got a 3.9 gpa and a 33 on the mcat. With those numbers, it felt I barely got into med school. With the bar for success being set so much higher, it was disheartening that all my effort and hard work was arbitrarily worth so little. Having kids that will face the same drastic uphill climb is the worst part of this.

 

[BLADEMDA]

In the early 2000s, I got a 3.9 gpa and a 33 on the mcat. With those numbers, it felt I barely got into med school. With the bar for success being set so much higher, it was disheartening that all my effort and hard work was arbitrarily worth so little. Having kids that will face the same drastic uphill climb is the worst part of this.

The hill to climb will likely be even steeper.

 

[Splenda88]

In the early 2000s, I got a 3.9 gpa and a 33 on the mcat. With those numbers, it felt I barely got into med school. With the bar for success being set so much higher, it was disheartening that all my effort and hard work was arbitrarily worth so little. Having kids that will face the same drastic uphill climb is the worst part of this.

You "felt'', but that probably was not the case.

Med school was not that competitive in 2004-2005.

 

[secretasianman]

Doesn’t matter what I feel. I know what others got at the time, and exactly how much lower the bar was set. It wasn’t just a small gap, it was a chasm.

You "felt'', but that probably was not the case.

Med school was not that competitive in 2004-2005.

 

[Splenda88]

Doesn’t matter what I feel. I know what others got at the time, and exactly how much lower the bar was set. It wasn’t just a small gap, it was a chasm.

Well, I am also gonna find something to complain about today or yell at my cat...

 

[chessknt]

Doesn’t matter what I feel. I know what others got at the time, and exactly how much lower the bar was set. It wasn’t just a small gap, it was a chasm.

I'm white with lower scores than you around the same time and had no issue getting in (14/35 acceptances), maybe the caliber of school you were applying to was the issue...

 

[nimbus]

Not going to touch the racist undertones in your post (intermarriage to bring up black IQs....) however I am going to call it as I see it. Every major city in this country is liberal. The most populous areas of this country go liberal. Generally speaking, as one gets more education they trend towards liberalism.

The poorest, least urban, least populous, least diverse, most heavily dependent on the government, areas of this country are Republican. That also probably isn't changing anytime soon. Your Republican majority in the Supreme Court may very well end AA because the whites and Asians will keep whining and suing until they get all the elite seats they feel they're entitled to. But I have a really strong feeling that so long as the highly educated, and the most populous areas of our country remain liberal, that the universities in those places and those admission committees are going to find ways to maintain diversity in their classes. That may be through more question asking on the application, closer looks at financial information, less reliance on objective measures (setting a minimum bar and not looking beyond that, as many residency programs do), etc. all in effort to maintain diversity and help groups who have not and are not given equality of opportunity. You can ignore the lack of equal opportunity all the while trying to knock down all of the programs and efforts to create that equality of opportunity.

I read an interesting fact the other day. LA County has a population just under 10million. That means almost 3% of the US population lives in LA county and LA county has a larger population than 40 individual states.