A more inclusive affirmative action

[Thunderbird is the word]

wouldn't affirmative action be more equitable and inclusive if we both banned legacy admissions and based it solely on class? discuss

[ScottieF]

Yes, I have often maintained that this is how things out to be done - the current system puts wealthy minorities at an advantage over poor whites. Unfortunately this is only a financially feasible option for the wealthiest universities, unless vastly larger sums of money were pumped into higher education.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

By "class" do you mean income?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Better than using racist metrics.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

wouldn't affirmative action be more equitable and inclusive if we both banned legacy admissions and based it solely on class? discuss

No.  Not unless you want colleges to be 70% or more female.

[Cory]

Yes, I have often maintained that this is how things out to be done - the current system puts wealthy minorities at an advantage over poor whites. Unfortunately this is only a financially feasible option for the wealthiest universities, unless vastly larger sums of money were pumped into higher education.

[Intell]

Yes, I have often maintained that this is how things out to be done - the current system puts wealthy minorities at an advantage over poor whites. Unfortunately this is only a financially feasible option for the wealthiest universities, unless vastly larger sums of money were pumped into higher education.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

That said, racial AA is often needed as a sort of temporary and crude fix. The example I use is South Africa immediately post-apartheid, where decades of Institutional racism had left an elite that needed to become representative of the country fast (as the entire stability of the nation would have been destroyed otherwise). Although yes, widespread AA should be only used temporarily before being replaced with less crude mechanisms based on economic justice.

The exception may be certain public services like policing, in which forces should broadly "look like" their community, for obvious reasons.

[bedstuy]

You have to think about what colleges want.

They want to be "diverse!"  They don't care about helping people or being fair.  They want their student body to represent the college well and they've determined to helps the college to have different races represented.  But, they also want students who bring success, full tuition checks and will become successful and donate money in the future. 

Poor students cost money because they need thousands and thousands of dollars in financial aid.  A rich kid pays for the scholarships of poor kids by paying full-freight.  And, a rich kid who has shown their ambitious nature by getting lots of "extracurricular activities" is more likely to be a successful person.  That all matters to the college, just like it matters if you're a great swimmer or volleyball player.

Personally, I think college ought to have more objective academic measures.  I would just have students send their transcript, SAT/ACT and do a skype interview if they're on the borderline.  That seems basically fair.  Give people an objective measure and let the best students try to accomplish those standards.

As for affirmative action, I don't really think it's fair.  It's wrong to evaluate someone different simply based on their race.  Maybe there are certain circumstances where that wrong is balanced out.  But, I don't think that's the case in America today.  Is affirmative action really helping black people or Hispanic people?  I don't see it.  I think it's more using them as token examples to distract from the real racial inequality that persists in America.  It's more about helping white school administrators feel not racist and white students feel "diverse." 

[Taco Truck 🚚]

That said, racial AA is often needed as a sort of temporary and crude fix.

How many decades should this "temporary and crude fix" be in place?  I guess the real question is what is the objective?  Do you actually want to improve the numbers or just do a short term window dressing campaign to lie and say you did something?  Judging by the way affirmative action is slung around on this forum it is painfully clear a lot of the forum members have no interest in seeing African Americans successful.

Ben Carson: affirmative action brain surgeon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/24/449893318/there-were-fewer-black-men-in-medical-school-in-2014-than-in-1978

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Yes, I have often maintained that this is how things out to be done - the current system puts wealthy minorities at an advantage over poor whites.

Did you lift that quote from Stormfront?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well after a while, AA (especially in its easiest and crudest form of quotas) becomes self-defeating. You have a minority of elite ethnic Malays or whatever that cheat the system and leave everybody else in the dark. Malaysia's quota system is a good example of a temporary fix got way out of hand. As far as I know, the U.S. doesn't really have such a strong system and the elite still remain fairly white, so some elements of AA should remain. But it probably should be on a case by case basis (so if somebody notices a department's upper echelons is particularly lily-white or all male, there's probably something fishy going on and AA can be implemented to redress the balance). Gender is the easiest one to correct in this respect.

I'm not really sure college admissions need quotas at this point. Much simpler to stop admissions officers seeing remove names and personal data so their own bias cannot inform their choices.

[RFayette]

Personally, I think college ought to have more objective academic measures.  I would just have students send their transcript, SAT/ACT and do a skype interview if they're on the borderline.  That seems basically fair.  Give people an objective measure and let the best students try to accomplish those standards.

Fair enough, but the issue with this system is when it comes to admission to elite universities.   Because so many people desire admission to {Harvard, Stanford, MIT....}, the number of folks with top-tier credentials (i.e. 2300+ SAT and spotless transcripts) applying to those institutions is utterly astounding.  Perhaps more emphasis on the SAT 2's, or a special exam for the most selective universities which is more discriminating 2-3+ standard deviations above the mean would help, but it seems a very holistic admissions scheme is rather inevitable for those schools.

[bedstuy]

Personally, I think college ought to have more objective academic measures.  I would just have students send their transcript, SAT/ACT and do a skype interview if they're on the borderline.  That seems basically fair.  Give people an objective measure and let the best students try to accomplish those standards.

Fair enough, but the issue with this system is when it comes to admission to elite universities.   Because so many people desire admission to {Harvard, Stanford, MIT....}, the number of folks with top-tier credentials (i.e. 2300+ SAT and spotless transcripts) applying to those institutions is utterly astounding.  Perhaps more emphasis on the SAT 2's, or a special exam for the most selective universities which is more discriminating 2-3+ standard deviations above the mean would help, but it seems a very holistic admissions scheme is rather inevitable for those schools.

East solution, make a harder version of the SAT for those elite schools then.