BearGoggles;842294177 said:

---

Instead they will be given an advantage because they are rich and politically connected. Much better.

On an unrelated note, some schools do try to focus on socioecomics. The law school I attended in the 1990s had a program where anyone with a disadvantaged background - regardless of race - could seek special admittance (e.g., a white kid who grew up in poverty). The problem was that if you were black, native American, or another underrepresented minority (i.e., not Asian), you were "presumed" to be disadvantaged. They were on the right track . . .

---

This seems to me like a poor application of the kind of "socioeconomic" Affirmative Action we're talking about, like they started off saying they were going to make it based on economics and instead wound up taking it back to race. If you're going to do this kind of economic-based AA then you need to do it right, which means you make your best effort to make it colorblind.

I suspect that if this were done properly the Asian population of most public schools would remain similar to where it is now.

LethalFang;842293906 said:

---

2) really **** off the other team who won fair and square.

---

So what did the kids who were born into rich families do to win that game?

StillNoStanfurdium;842294277 said:

---

Thanks for the one instance which shows that Asians only mostly get the short end of the stick.

---

There was a recent article in the Sunday paper (I believe the Chron) which came to the conclusion that Latino's had made the greatest improvements in education of any ethnic group in recent years. The conclusion by the asian reporter was based upon the improvement in high school and college graduation by children compared to their parents' level of education.

More than children increased by over 200% the graduation rates from HS and College over their parents. The next group: Asians increased graduation rates but not as much.

In summarizing the reporter conculded with a simple sports analogy:
More Latino's started at home plate and made it to 2nd Base.
More Asians (when compared to Latinos) started at 1st base or 2nd Base and made it to 3d base. Even more non-ethnic americans (compared to Latinos or Asians) started at 2d or 3d base and made it to (or stayed at) 3d base.

So as Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke Skywalker, "it all depends on how you look at it."

68great;842294691 said:

---

There was a recent article in the Sunday paper (I believe the Chron) which came to the conclusion that Latino's had made the greatest improvements in education of any ethnic group in recent years. The conclusion by the asian reporter was based upon the improvement in high school and college graduation by children compared to their parents' level of education.

More than children increased by over 200% the graduation rates from HS and College over their parents. The next group: Asians increased graduation rates but not as much.

In summarizing the reporter conculded with a simple sports analogy:
More Latino's started at home plate and made it to 2nd Base.
More Asians (when compared to Latinos) started at 1st base or 2nd Base and made it to 3d base. Even more non-ethnic americans (compared to Latinos or Asians) started at 2d or 3d base and made it to (or stayed at) 3d base.

So as Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke Skywalker, "it all depends on how you look at it."

---

I'm not quite sure why that's really relevant to support affirmative action if that's why you bring it up. The situations we've talking about is how to minimize the impact of enabling truly disadvantaged kids to get into a college. The article you're bringing up compares ethnic groups broadly.

Secondly, if all this improvement in education came in a period of time when the UC system didn't practice it...then it seems like great news right?

sycasey;842294322 said:

---

So what did the kids who were born into rich families do to win that game?

---

If you're going to follow the analogy of privileged education, then "they had coaches and practiced the right way."

sycasey;842294322 said:

---

So what did the kids who were born into rich families do to win that game?

---

Furthermore your microcosm misses the point. Winning and losing that game is not the long term goal-- it is the hope that that the children of the malnutritioned team will not suffer the same lack of nutrition as their parents in part because of the success and opportunity opened up to their family.

You can not have social mobility stagnate. Those so in love with "competition" usually only like to "compete" when the game is rigged. Furthermore you can't cry outrage at social engineering in the form of affirmative action at the same time being completely tone deaf to economic inequality in this country--which most conservatives are.

Quotas and much public policy is flawed in its design and execution, but I do think much more effort needs to be put into tearing down barriers to entry and how upper class favoring politics walls them off in a destructive social engineering of another kind. If you want to be truth teller and free marketer then take off the blinders and end the advantages for ALL (races and rich alike).

Too much focus is put on access to elite universities. There aren't enough slots at Cal, UCLA, Michigan, UVa, UNC, etc...to move the needle. The recent AA case involved a rejected white applicant to Texas with a 3.6 GPA. She didn't get turned down by UT and accepted at Rice. Instead she ended up graduating from LSU. LSU may not be Cal or UT, but it's not like her economic future is doomed.

Shift the burden from race to income or prior family educational opportunities, prepare kids better at an earlier age, and grow matriculation rates at mid-tier universities. If you're admitting less of 10% of applicants or turning down more than 50K applicants annually, a lot of worthy applicants are going to be turned down. Clearly doesn't mean they can't succeed elsewhere or that degrees from elite schools are the only path to economic mobility and security.

BearDevil;842295099 said:

---

Too much focus is put on access to elite universities. There aren't enough slots at Cal, UCLA, Michigan, UVa, UNC, etc...to move the needle. The recent AA case involved a rejected white applicant to Texas with a 3.6 GPA. She didn't get turned down by UT and accepted at Rice. Instead she ended up graduating from LSU. LSU may not be Cal or UT, but it's not like her economic future is doomed.

Shift the burden from race to income or prior family educational opportunities, prepare kids better at an earlier age, and grow matriculation rates at mid-tier universities. If you're admitting less of 10% of applicants or turning down more than 50K applicants annually, a lot of worthy applicants are going to be turned down. Clearly doesn't mean they can't succeed elsewhere or that degrees from elite schools are the only path to economic mobility and security.

---

This makes sense. The really top ones will have no problems-in fact they will be pursued by the Ivies. I have a niece in Mass whose whole job at a University is outreach to poorer districts. They provide a continuing face, mentor ship and tracking from middle school on in an attempt to develop more college ready kids.

LethalFang;842295047 said:

---

If you're going to follow the analogy of privileged education, then "they had coaches and practiced the right way."

---

Right, because they were fortunate enough to be born with those coaches teaching them those things for free. If the uncoached team loses, was that a fairly played game?

blungld;842295079 said:

---

Winning and losing that game is not the long term goal-- it is the hope that that the children of the malnutritioned team will not suffer the same lack of nutrition as their parents in part because of the success and opportunity opened up to their family.

---

+1
I would like to have penned this. Thank you blungld

blungld;842295079 said:

---

Furthermore your microcosm misses the point. Winning and losing that game is not the long term goal-- it is the hope that that the children of the malnutritioned team will not suffer the same lack of nutrition as their parents in part because of the success and opportunity opened up to their family.

---

Of course you are right here -- but even within the faulty parameters of the "winners and losers" idea it seems clear to me that the "game" is not truly a fair contest. In a nutshell, just because you started on third base doesn't mean you hit a triple.

1979bear;842295152 said:

---

+1
I would like to have penned this. Thank you blungld

---

High compliment. Thanks.

To expand, I wrote this elsewhere, maybe not quite as eloquently: "The short term battles distract us all from our long-term plights as we compromise ideals in favor of ego, wallet, class-interests, and the crown of righteousness."

sycasey;842295140 said:

---

Right, because they were fortunate enough to be born with those coaches teaching them those things for free. If the uncoached team loses, was that a fairly played game?

---

It's a fairly played game unless the refs were bribed.
When the game is on, only the score counts. The 16th seed does not get a 10-point head start because their players are on average 2 inches shorter.