or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › White Ressentiment, the Poster Child
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

White Ressentiment, the Poster Child - Page 2

post #16 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This is interesting from the OP link:
So for 92% of the incoming class SAT was meaningless. I also wonder what type of candidate variability occurs across high schools using this rule.

Check out the report I linked to above: http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report10.pdf

If you're interested in what's hidden behind the 75/25 numbers schools usually publish, it's really eye-opening.
post #17 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

By my math 3/4 of the black students entering UT in 2005 had below a 1200 SAT score.

Interestingly, the percentages are exactly reversed for Asian students; 3/4 of them who were admitted had above a 1200.

I am just flabbergasted that anyone can defend this racial gerrymandering.
post #18 of 440
I'm not a Scalia fan boy necessarily, but I do favorably recall a question he posed. If it turns out that a) selective public universities; b) diverse admissions; and c) equal protection; are mutually incompatible, on what possible legal basis would equal protection be what was dispensed with (a paraphrase).
post #19 of 440
OP, mad props for using ressentiment in your threak title.
post #20 of 440
Thread Starter 
A little Nietzschesque action for a humdrum Tuesday.

But I apparently fialed to channel NameBack properly.
post #21 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This is interesting from the OP link:
So for 92% of the incoming class SAT was meaningless. I also wonder what type of candidate variability occurs across high schools using this rule.

Hmmm, that is interesting. Time for the striving Asians to transfer to the ghetto schools to insure their place in the top 10%.
post #22 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasmade View Post

I'm a minority in Texas and I had slightly higher scores than her (over 10 years ago). I was flat out denied to Texas and basically got the same offer as her for Texas A&M where I could go to another school and get a high GPA and transfer in as a sophomore. She couldn't cut it to get in to her dream school. Minorities didn't take her spot since she never earned her spot in.

No wonder you and I never hit it off.
post #23 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Interestingly, the percentages are exactly reversed for Asian students; 3/4 of them who were admitted had above a 1200.

I am just flabbergasted that anyone can defend this racial gerrymandering.

Maybe there is more to a student than a SAT score?
post #24 of 440
The color of their skin seems to be very important.
post #25 of 440
I know racial preferences benefit whites and Asians in law school. This is pretty well documented. The average black student is ranked in the 18% percentile because they used racial preferences to get into a law school that they really don't have the intellect/work ethic to succeed at. (God knows, if Harvard somehow gave a preference to stuttering kids and accepted me, I'd have flunked out, even with my very high LSAT score. My work ethic just isn't there - 2.8 GPA).

So, the black kids get into the law school they are unqualified for and then have to compete against overqualified whites and Asians. And unlike undergrad, the "in over my head" students (regardless of race) can't transfer to a joke major like criminology or gender studies (which has been shown to be a repeated pattern in undergrad). Law school is law school. And someone has to get that D or F. So, the whites and Asians get bumped up in the class rankings, while the black kids struggle. And everyone receives the tremendous benefits of being in a diverse classroom.

But I'm not really worried about a public undergrad university choosing to give preferences to kids based on their ethnic background. It's morally indefensible, but if America is going to keep investing in this myth that everyone should go to college, we should try to make the public college system reflect the public school system.

That, and it sounds like this woman's case is pretty lousy.

(Is that what you wanted, Eric?)
post #26 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

Hmmm, that is interesting. Time for the striving Asians to transfer to the ghetto schools to insure their place in the top 10%.

All snark aside, that might not be such a bad thing.
post #27 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

All snark aside, that might not be such a bad thing.

Indeed. It would certainly be an interesting phenomenon.
post #28 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

All snark aside, that might not be such a bad thing.

Sounds like something my lazy ass would do. My parents wouldn't stand for it though.
post #29 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

I know racial preferences benefit whites and Asians in law school. This is pretty well documented. The average black student is ranked in the 18% percentile because they used racial preferences to get into a law school that they really don't have the intellect/work ethic to succeed at. (God knows, if Harvard somehow gave a preference to stuttering kids and accepted me, I'd have flunked out, even with my very high LSAT score. My work ethic just isn't there - 2.8 GPA).

So, the black kids get into the law school they are unqualified for and then have to compete against overqualified whites and Asians. And unlike undergrad, the "in over my head" students (regardless of race) can't transfer to a joke major like criminology or gender studies (which has been shown to be a repeated pattern in undergrad). Law school is law school. And someone has to get that D or F. So, the whites and Asians get bumped up in the class rankings, while the black kids struggle. And everyone receives the tremendous benefits of being in a diverse classroom.

But I'm not really worried about a public undergrad university choosing to give preferences to kids based on their ethnic background. It's morally indefensible, but if America is going to keep investing in this myth that everyone should go to college, we should try to make the public college system reflect the public school system.

That, and it sounds like this woman's case is pretty lousy.

(Is that what you wanted, Eric?)

Not sure I wanted anything in particular--other than to stir up the pot and liven CE up a bit. From my own limited experiences at my current institution, I think it's absolutely true that there's a tension between wanting to enroll minority students from poorer families and keeping up high academic standards. (One way a predominantly racial view of representation/diversity skews things: I'm not sure about the actual numbers, but I know that a lot of the minority students at my school are actually international students whose families can afford the full tuition.)


Re: the "morally indefensible" part as well as ataturk's remark about "racial gerrymandering," there are obviously two related but separate factors at play.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
One is whether or not your sense of fairness takes into consideration why there's still such a strong correlation between race, family income, and educational preparation in the U.S. We've already started bandying about comparisons between African-American and Asian-American students: we have one population that has been largely enslaved and then poor for generations and only even offered equal educational opportunities for the last two generations or so, and we have another population that largely (not exclusively, of course) immigrated here under a controlled system. Yes, lots of Asians came here to perform low-paying jobs, etc., but policies also fostered and promoted the immigration of people and families with a good deal of education in their home countries. Personally, I'm fine (even with lots of reservations about specific policies and strategies) with "gerrymandering" our current student population as a way of acknowledging why we're in the mess we're in and as a way of trying to do something about it.

But this raises the second question: whether the best way to promote economic/educational equality across ethnic groups is this kind of tinkering. My own (slightly polemical) take is that labeling preferential admissions as "morally indefensible" actually takes a response to this second question and then applies it to the first. That is, I oppose the claim that, given the country's history and our present-day landscape, it's simply fair and ethical to claim that all applications, regardless or race (and family income!), should merely be treated equally. I do think it's totally valid to question, repeatedly, whether the systems we have in place are actually helping the situation. In fact, I'd be much happier with a claim that we should uphold equality among groups as a fantasy/fiction that we aspire toward. I might not really agree with this--I'd have to be convinced that the best way to bring about demographic change at the macro-level is to uphold a fiction of equality at the personal--but at least it would be more honest, in my view.

tl;dr: if the Western-liberal view of equality among individuals is the goal we're working toward (I'm have reservations, but I admit it's a very tempting goal), I'm not convinced we can merely say we live in that kind of world when we clearly don't for all sorts of familiar historical reasons, and I'm not necessarily convinced that pretending we do is the best way to bring about this goal.
post #30 of 440
The admission to college is the exact wrong time to curse under prepared students with preferential treatment. It would be like giving any of us a pass on Olympic qualifying and just tossing us in a pool with Michael Phelps. The predictable results are a crime against these students, IMO. If you want to really fix things the way to start is with the current crop of minority teenagers. Give them support (economic, social, housing) and teach them to be functioning members of society even if they function at a lower economic level. Then foster them into stable relationships to have children and work on those kids to become college bound. Any material and effective solution will be multi-generational and multi-phased. Thinking society can just toss ill prepared kids, and ill prepared in many domains, into the deep end and watch them swim to Olympic glory is just stupid.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › White Ressentiment, the Poster Child