Why should minorities get easier access to good schools?

Why should minorities get easier access to good schools?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LpFm6SeMgM0
theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/07/16/kevin-macdonald-jewish-overrepresentation-at-elite-universities-explained/
propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r
dailybruin.com/2014/11/18/ucla-ranks-sixth-in-nation-for-international-student-enrollment/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

asians do not, they have a higher benchmark in those places and af does harm them

It also boosts poor white people up considerably

WE

To get black people out of the ghettos.

wew boy is this going to cause some immense butthurt

I think this is widely misunderstood. Affirmative Action, that is.

While it's true that blacks with arguably less academic credentials can get into institutions of higher education, if you look at it statistically, it's close to fucking nil. The amount of blacks admitted in comparison to whites, even with AA, is absurdly low because not a lot of blacks are even applying to Colleges/Universities. Period. There were more blacks in University in the 70s, 80s and even 90s compared to now.

In addition, AA wasn't even implemented for that original purpose. AA was designed not to give blacks a "leg up" as racists assume, but to give them an equal playing field. There were literally highly qualified and intelligent black men/women who were relegated to work ONLY in black neighborhoods/businesses, which were economically less well off/fortunate than the white ones because less federal aid, racist economic structures and Jim Crow era policies. Banks were also notorious for racial profiling of blacks, not giving them loans/financing for their businesses, charging them higher interest rates, etc.

Universities would also outright deny black applicants, even if they boasted incredible credentials, and take in white students. This was how/why the HBCU was started to begin with. In fact, Freedom Schools were created by blacks/for blacks to create a schooling system that didn't necessarily have white supremacist structures in place, so that gifted/academically bright students could flourish. For 90+ years in the United States, blacks were consistently thrown to the bottom of the application pile for college admissions save for a handful of blacks that were able to get in (this was usually due to a white guy who noticed a lot of potential and fought for that particular person).

Continuing on:

So, if we really want to have an honest conversation about Affirmative Action, we have to look at it historically. We have to analyze the history. What stormfags and Sup Forumsfags don't do is actual research into the history; they look at the present, point and say, ''see, this is what is going on.'' They actually don't look into the statistics, the history of their subject and they honestly don't consider the ramifications of their thoughts/actions. What's devastating and scary about this ridiculous investigation is that it's a front, it's a cover for something more insidious.

Besides, let's look at the fact: If a white kid with a perfect 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT/ACT scores, national piano/violin champion, national debate team finalist applies to Princeton, but doesn't get in due to ''muh AA,'' he'll get into MIT/Yale/Harvard/Oxford. In other words, that kid will get into equally (or even more) prestigious universities; he won't be hurting.

There was a court case with some girl who bitched and complained about not getting into some University (she had shitty grades) and blamed AA, when she got into an equally (EQUALLY) ranked University with a full ride.

It's a joke. People complaining about this are neckbeards who haven't even stepped foot in a University. Besides, the way I see it? If those kids who are accepted can't hack it, then they'll be kicked out/dropped anyway. If they can hack it and they're able to stay in, it means that they had the right stuff to begin with.

Also, poor whites benefit a fuckton from Affirmative Action. That's what they don't tell you either. These idiots are going to castrate themselves.

No. Equality should be equal.

i think the controversy is regarding the idea of said policy, which is that particular groups are being given advantages over others--whether it benefits them or not

it's another jew trick to divide the country, just like the election of donald trump. whites get offended and nonwhites get WE WUZ and try to justify it, wrecking any constructive dialogue

Americans believe in 'equal outcome' rather than 'equal opportunity', less black people graduate university than asian so they make it much stricter for asians and much easier for blacks
not sure on the logic people take to see this as a good thing though, it couldn't fit the definition of racism any clearer

If universities were forced to completely get rid of racial categories and only consider students by their academic performance then it would actually mean there would be less whites and more Asians in the top universities

There aren't even comparable numbers of black people in University, much less them graduating.

Blacks generally account for the lowest percentage of matriculated students in 90% of Universities, with the exception of HBCUs. Most of those are in non-STEM fields, to boot.

Statistically, AA doesn't hurt whites at all. The same kid who is bitching about not being admitted to Princeton because of "muh affirmative action" is the same one who is matriculating at MIT with a double degree in Electrical Engineering & Mathematics, riding on a 4.0 GPA. In other words, that kid is doing fucking fine.

There has never been, in history, some white kid denied opportunity because of AA. It's just not happening.

>These idiots are going to castrate themselves.
It kinda seems to be the common thread with the Trump administartion and its support base

But the niggers...

...

...

...

youtube.com/watch?v=LpFm6SeMgM0

Kek. That's just the stupidity of Columbia University, then.
>but muh niggers
I know, man. I know. Might as well kill yourselves now.

Non-jewish whites are severely underrepresented already

yikes I never want a black or hispanic doctor.

>These idiots are going to castrate themselves.
For someone this knowledgeable about AA you're a fucking dumbass. Affirmative Action is the largest racial boogeyman for whites in the entire country, his supporters, and hell even people that don't support him are going to love both him and Sessions for this. If something actually comes out of this he could've single handedly just won re-election right here.

americans don't believe this. congress and most public institutions are dominated by people who don't have the best interests of the american public at heart, so we end up with sjw shit like this

cry more dumb stormfaggots

>for whites
He will win Asian votes and my vote. It's unethical and dangerous to public in the case of med school admissions.

100% asian universities in ~5 years if that shit passes lmao

CHI

theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/07/16/kevin-macdonald-jewish-overrepresentation-at-elite-universities-explained/

Interesting read.

>Affirmative Action is the largest racial boogeyman for whites in the entire country, his supporters, and hell even people that don't support him are going to love both him and Sessions for this.
False.

AA isn't the largest racial boogeyman for whites; it's actually the largest racial boogeyman for Asians, if we want to look at the statistics.

Again, no white kid is going to be denied success because of AA. It's just not going to happen.

If little Tommy doesn't get into Princeton due to AA, he'll get into an equally deserving University.

Hello young man. An African American paediatrician! Your mother must be very proud! Look, no offence, but do you think I could have the high IQ Asian/white who's here on merit please? I'm not racist, but you can't play politics with the health of your child.

so that who passed that bill can get more moves?

i don't knoe if i'm just a butthurt whitey but im pretty sure all the chinese students at my university are engaged in cheating, like having other squinty eyed people show up for exams in their place

ive seen it happen but they literally all look the same how can i prove it - should i even care?

Asians seem to be more discriminated against in terms of acceptance into university, particularly into elite universities.

They (supposedly) excel other groups but have to face unfavorable conditions to get into the university of their choice, particularly, a restrictive number of places available.

Asians cheat a shit ton.

>t. In graduate program with tons of cheating ass fucking Asians.

Infuriating as fuck. One of them actually told me it's almost expected of them, a way of life. The name of the game is to 'get ahead,' period. One of the few, honest Indians I knew.

Aren't you Ukrainian? You're not exactly in a position to criticize others on this forum

Provide examples of how they cheat

you assume all pupils have a level playing field when it comes to pre-university education

I wouldn't really call it a boogeyman for Asians since this DOES actually effect them. Regardless though, that doesn't make it not the biggest boogeyman for whites too. Again, everything you're saying is true but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of whites will blame the fact that they didn't get into their number one school on affirmative action.

t.b.h. diversity quotas are pathetic and shouldn't compensate for racial differences or presumed 'institutional oppression'

When you have Indians, 2nd gen japs from internment camps and practically anyone from a 85IQ country around the world succeeding, blacks and hispanics really have to look at theirselves on this one

by being smarter than burgers by default

it's funny as fuck too, many study in burgerland but most go back to china to work

You sure know how to talk a lot without saying anything.

>There were more blacks in University in the 70s, 80s and even 90s compared to now.
Source.
And are you making a normative argument or one based on "well it's not that many so it's all good", ie one of magnitude?

>There was a court case with some girl who bitched and complained about not getting into some University (she had shitty grades) and blamed AA, when she got into an equally (EQUALLY) ranked University with a full ride.
Abigail Fisher was used as a means to push through a judicial challenge to AA. Her case was funded by a guy who's made abolishing AA his life's mission. She wasn't chosen due to the strength of her individual case.
propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r

All available empirical evidence suggests that blacks who are accepted to top ranking universities have on average much lower scores in every quantifiable metric. You even admit it, so it's pretty brazen of you to say it in the same breath as "AA was designed not to give blacks a "leg up" as racists assume, but to give them an equal playing field"

>Besides, let's look at the fact: If a white kid with a perfect 4.0 GPA, perfect SAT/ACT scores, national piano/violin champion, national debate team finalist applies to Princeton, but doesn't get in due to ''muh AA,'' he'll get into MIT/Yale/Harvard/Oxford. In other words, that kid will get into equally (or even more) prestigious universities; he won't be hurting.
This is completely irrelevant. If that white kid deserved to get into Princeton along with MIT, Yale, Harvard, and Oxford, then he should have. A black kid would have gotten into all of those schools with far less than your hypothetical white kid.

For open book exams,
>They literally write the solutions to every problem in the book in their language. They just write down the solution to a similarly worded problem or change a few things, e.g., numbers.
For closed book exams,
>They actually speak with one another with their language. The Chinese/Indian language allows them to exchange short words, not necessarily enunciate like Americans. I'm sure you've heard how they speak; it sounds like trailing syllables. This is how they get away with it.
>They also sit next to one another, share a piece of paper between them under the desk and write shit down, then exchange.
>If the class allows a calculator, they will literally program their calculator for certain problems.
>Obtain past exams and study using them. I don't consider this cheating if it's obtained legitimately (e.g., the profs have given them out), but a lot of people still do.
Take-home assignments,
>They will actually pay someone to do it for them or work together at all times. They will do pretty much not one part of the assignment by themselves.

The take-home shit I can excuse. It's take-home, whatever; people are prone to cheating and that's not even an Asian thing. It's just I see them take it to an extreme. They literally won't even give pause and say, ''let me figure this part out on my own, you do that part.'' It's just work together 24/7.

Only autists do everything by themselves
t. autist

But the part about people coming for help is true, but they usually pay back the help somehow

>There has never been, in history, some white kid denied opportunity because of AA. It's just not happening.
Are you black or just an idiot? Your reasoning is either clouded by bias or you are just really really stupid. If some applicant gets in because of AA, then some other applicant doesn't. There's obviously no way of telling which rejected applicants would have gotten into a school in an alternate universe where AA doesn't exist, but university spots are by their very nature zero-sum. And because AA has been around for a while, the reality is that these applicants definitely exist, and it's not just a few. Obviously, these students are the ones closer to the margin of acceptance, and not the perfect white applicant you made up.

Why are political or current issues discussion on Sup Forums so much more comfier than on Sup Forums?

Diversity quotas are pretty pathetic but you should know that 'diversity' isn't the sole reason that colleges do that sort of thing, it is also a PR stunt to appeal to certain groups to enroll at that college, so as to say: "this college also accepts your kind and they like it here, so enroll here".
Also, keep in mind, America does have a history behind this of discrimination and etc., so I could see AA having a reason for existing due to that though I'm not sure if it is still necessary nowadays.
Then again, I don't know much about affirmative action to begin with. I'd say it's fine if it's to help low-income people in general rather than just it be only a racial thing.

both sides bring real arguments instead of retarde d infographs

Can you imagine how many people would fail if they returned to a European Apprenticeship-tier educational program, with candidates being examined head-on (oral/vivo)

>complains when minorities are idiots
>complains when people try to educate said idiots to make society a better place
Why tho?

>Are you black or just an idiot? Your reasoning is either clouded by bias or you are just really really stupid. If some applicant gets in because of AA, then some other applicant doesn't.
Not him but most unis accept 5X more students then they have capacity for and enroll. When the number accepted is in the tens of thousands or even just the thousands then no, they are not taking a spot. In larger schools the number accepted each year can vary by over a thousand because of the applicant pool. Trust me when I say these places do not have hard numbers.

But real white americans think reading is for fags and good schools turn kids into homosexual feminists? ?

modern companies want employees asap and interchangably as plausible... the cheapest mass produced way to gauge this is with tests.

But I mean, I "cheat" too if your talking about looking up CCNA test questions and the like, if you genuinely wanted to 100% go seriously with some of the courses provided here your entire 2-3 years in that establishment would just be studying/reading up how to do all the various tasks by hand/skill. Most people want to fit in their social life and other personal goals/interests in that time

Plus alot of companies just want to gauge how fast you can learn things related to your job: their not going to exactly test you on specific things

>Be Black
>High IQ
>Always been academically studious
>Worked hard when others messed about
>Get into a top university

All the hard work paid off, right? Except now everyone just assumes you got in because of the colour of your skin instead of all the talent and hard work. Even though they're too polite to say anything they all think it and treat you in a lesser way as a result. Racism is perpetuated.

I'm white. For the record, I went to a state university on a full ride (muh ACT score/high GPA), though I wasn't accepted into most of my high-end places. I tried to get into a few of my reaches, but I either wasn't admitted or their financial aid package was lackluster.

In other words, I'm one of those students. Now, I'm actually at a top ranked private university in a grad program whilst working as a software engineer. Before getting into the graduate program, I worked FT as a software engineer, making over $80k/yr. Is that bragging? No, it's me saying that my opportunities didn't diminish suddenly because I was rejected from my schools of interest. I was probably even rejected because of AA to some degree, really; it still didn't stop me from actually achieving anything worthwhile with my life or halt my opportunities. I used that as an example example, but I was (most likely) that white kid where AA didn't even fucking impede my life at all whatsoever.

> If some applicant gets in because of AA, then some other applicant doesn't. There's obviously no way of telling which rejected applicants would have gotten into a school in an alternate universe where AA doesn't exist, but university spots are by their very nature zero-sum.
This is true, but let's look at what this is really about: Opportunity.
Is that kid's educational and/or career opportunity going to be significantly stunted for not necessarily getting into one school? Even if we look at statistics, whites outpace blacks and hispanics by absurd margins when it comes to educational attainment, career advancement, wealth creation/development and opportunistic enhancement.

Even the ones closer to the "margin of acceptance" for a given University will get into somewhere relatively decent, at an equally ranked University and obtain a stellar education.
>proof?!
Check collegeconfidential.com and browse the posts. Proof is right there.

The only way your response counters my statement is if schools have 100% acceptance rate. It certainly isn't true for any school that's halfway decent. I can't even think of how low you'd have to go on university rankings lists to start getting to the schools that accept literally everyone to fill enrollment capacity.

Interesting. I used to think that way too, until I kind of thought of it like this:
>If they graduated with a demonstrably high GPA and they do their work almost perfectly, then perhaps they got in on their own merit and they don't deserve to be looked down upon?
Or,
>If they graduated and do the work well, that means that they're clearly ready for the fucking job.

It's not that big of a deal.

You're talking about a select few in terms of academic programs though, the school ranking would be effectively reciprocal to the the number of denied positions

You're indirectly arguing for him as well

What I'm saying though is that there is no hard cap. There's just a general number that they try to aim towards. Because the number is flexible, there aren't spots being taken away because there is no need too.

>trump's election is now jewish trickery
k

Remember, when you sense systemic bias without credible evidence, blame it on the most successful group

Its worked for blacks, hispanics muslims, stormtroopers against jews, it always works

>Check collegeconfidential.com and browse the posts
I like how it you can't even be bothered to type up anecdotal evidence yourself so you tell me to do it for you.

>This is true, but let's look at what this is really about: Opportunity.
Framing issues like this is what sophists and politicians do when they're trying to hide the fact that they can't actually put up a decent argument.
It doesn't even make sense either if you look at it closer. If equal aggregate racial outcomes were all that mattered, you might as well just put every person that applies to university into a lottery that randomly assigns them to one. Or hell, just raise taxes to some point where it doesn't hurt productivity too much and send everyone a check every year. Why assume that individual aspirations simply amount to attaining some median income level?

Education is a business, they can acquire more funding and lure in more impressionable idiots with this quota nonsense, enjoy your realitypill

Money talks brotha

>You're talking about a select few in terms of academic programs though
Define select few.

Even schools up here in Canada don't have close to 100% acceptance rates, though I do realize that there are tons of lower tier educational institutions in the US.

The ones you've selected for your example, ivy leagues and top state universities

Smaller pool of acceptable candidates, ones who get booted for AA will be even smaller

>I like how it you can't even be bothered to type up anecdotal evidence yourself so you tell me to do it for you.
You literally want me to comb through 500+ forum posts from, say, 2010 to now, over a Sup Forums debate? At 2:30am? No, buddy.

They probably have a 20+ page thread titled "Fall 2017 College Acceptance Thread" or something. Check out their safeties/reaches.

Also, you shouldn't discount that evidence. It shows a clear pattern and will one day be mined for statistical research. Probably has already.

>Framing issues like this is what sophists and politicians do when they're trying to hide the fact that they can't actually put up a decent argument.
Not at all. Rather, it's getting to the root of the matter.

>If equal aggregate racial outcomes were all that mattered, you might as well just put every person that applies to university into a lottery that randomly assigns them to one.

I never said this, nor implied this. Mostly every serious student, regardless of race/ethnic background, typically has three main types of schools:
>Reaches/Ultra Reaches
>Safety
>Ultra Safety (you have a higher chance of a tornado thrashing your home in new york city than not being accepted here).

If a kid has stellar everything, he'll write his ticket to his the safeties/ultra safeties and probably one (or more) reaches. That's what I'm implying. His opportunities won't suddenly vaporize because he didn't get into that illustrious University A, but got into University B.

>Why assume that individual aspirations simply amount to attaining some median income level?
Honestly, this is a fantastic question. I assumed that's the metric we were using to define success. Well, that and career opportunity. But how would you define overall success? That's a genuinely good question and I'm glad you brought that up. I assumed that we were using that as a valid metric of success, but if I'm wrong, let's discuss it.

Due to the low ratio of men to women at universities there are actually admission biases towards men (of any race) nowadays, but you don't see people complaining about that now do you.

>ones who get booted for AA will be even smaller
Oh, so your argument is one of magnitude: that it's fine because only a relatively small proportion people in a given population are affected. By that logic, you also can't condemn those same schools for tossing out any black applications a some 5 odd decades ago. Or Jewish applications some hundred years ago. The death penalty killing some innocents every now and then is also fine because it doesn't do it very often!

Appeal to sympathy, its inexcusable but I am pointing out that while trying to portray it as a systematic problem you were indirectly aiding his arguments

>Also, you shouldn't discount that evidence. It shows a clear pattern and will one day be mined for statistical research
Ah yes, eye balling patterns is definitely valid evidence. No way it would invite confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Get real. You keep typing nonsense.

>I assumed that's the metric we were using to define success
You assumed this, and framed the discussion the way you did precisely because it lets you come to a more favourable conclusion. That or you did it subconsciously.
Second, you keep talking about aggregate outcomes - aggregate being the key word. I'm talking about the normatively justifiable processes for selecting which individual applicants get in (which by necessity also means choosing the ones who don't).
But let's go by your logic then: on what grounds could you then oppose just simple and equal redistribution policies as described in my hypotheticals? Why not just assign applicants to random universities? Law of large numbers would mean equal outcomes, as far as university spots are concerned. Again, your logic is that AA is justifiable on grounds that it helps equalize aggregate outcome between racial categories. So would my solution.

>Why not just assign applicants to random universities?
It would invalidate the vetting process, and ignite an even bigger inequality debate dummy

>mfw affirmative action gets removed and only Asians get into universities

I never heard of men quota. Care to share the source?

this
it'll decrease crime

>Again, no white kid is going to be denied success because of AA. It's just not going to happen.

Stop shilling for your lowered academic standards, nigger. Placements available are fixed in number, if someone gets in on affirmative action then by its very nature someone else got left out. It's not like they have their regular number of admissions _and_ extra for affirmative action.

I've read it somewhere that a third of students at UCLA are Asians.

Yeah I don't understand the logic behind his reasoning, there is a finite number of admissions so regardless how you spin it if someone gets in due positive discrimination someone has to be discriminated negatively.

>a rich dumb boi has more chances to go to top university than a poor clever boi
>america

I mean they still have to pass STEP 1, STEP 2 CS, STEP 2 CK, and or COMLEX if they're a DO student, and be accepted to a residency. If they get through all of that, why would you care? At that point they are the same qualified as anyone else

There isn't even a policy or something that controls affirmative action.. these private universities can accept whoever they want. They're going to push for more hispanic/black students no matter what because that is their doctrine. It's no secret that academic is very left wing.

So that we get even easier access to your women of course

Once you go lebanese, you never go back
- every australian woman ever

You go to a trashy school then

Georgetown's MSFS will blacklist you in all the Ivy Leagues and research journals if you cheat.

They're not being educated though if you aren't smart by the time you finish high school you're never going to be academically gifted they're dooming society by making unqualified people in doctors, engineers etc

Affirmative action isn't bad in my opinion it should just be based on income not race.

>A fucking tree
Nice flag Ahmed

but rich black people still commit more crime that poor white people.

How are they unqualified if they still have to pass the same licensing exams as everyone else?

STEP 1 is the equalizer even if Tyrone gets in with a 3.1 gpa and 27 mcat.. he's either gonna hack it or not

Should've stayed ethnically homogenous like Poland.
Here the only thing that matters is your Matura score compared against other candidates.
150 places per year, top 150 results get in, the rest tries again.
Doesn't matter if you're poor or rich.
Being rich just helps you get a decent starting point due to private lessons (I'm poor but I could afford those as well and got into the uni I wanted)
After that you're equal as God intended.
Poor students can apply for financial help and housing, rich students have to take care of themselves because they can afford it.

Because it is easier to become millionaire in china than burgerland. There are more millionaires created in China than in burgerland in the last few years.

Don't worry OP, I understood your joke, even if the rest of the thread didn't.

America was never ethnically homogenous in the first place but I do agree we should have stayed around 88% white like we were in the 40s/50s.
Is that adjusted for their larger population? I wouldn't doubt it though. Opportunity seems to be declining here fast.

It is because California has already ban affirmative action based on race.

That's probably largely due to population size and stage of economic development. You can only have so many millionaires in a given economy. It's also why economic growth is easier for countries in earlier stages: there are only so many peasants available to pull in to the cities for easy GDP growth.

So now it's about the admissions process, which is precisely the logic that drives many arguments against AA. As soon as you switch from the logic of more racially proportionate aggregate outcomes to the logic of looking at the process, you pretty much have to start ceding ground to the anti-AA side. After all, how much "harm" to the process is acceptable? How many metrics irrelevant to academic achievement and other qualifications (ie, race in this debate) should there be? Why shouldn't we eliminate all of them?

>. Placements available are fixed in number,
> there is a finite number of admissions
This is not how it works in the US

>Asian being discriminated
>muh diversity

I would accept it t.b.h.

I uses to harass professors into making examinations more difficult to get As for myself

You really can't differentiate them?

A good chunk of that comes from international students. 14% of UCLA freshmen are international students and look at the top 5 origin countries
dailybruin.com/2014/11/18/ucla-ranks-sixth-in-nation-for-international-student-enrollment/
>The top five countries that UCLA’s international students come from are China, South Korea, India, Canada and Taiwan.
All Asian.

Depends. If it's medical school they should not offer more admission spots than there are residency spots