U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-05-2012, 05:31 PM
 
18,847 posts, read 33,423,991 times
Reputation: 26216

Advertisements

I am against it. Because it sets up some people, ie professors, and subsequent employers. Why? Let's say a kid with a 3.5 GPA, black, is accepted to an Ivy league school, based on Affirmative Action, and this same kid, cannot do the same level of work expected, and then, the teacher is set up, especially a white teacher, for giving the kid a hard time, and being "racist" if the teacher fails the kid, no one needs that type of grief, so...let's the kid slide by with sub standard work. And this continues...

Finally, kid graduates, gets a job...and does sub standard work...employer wants to terminate, and gets an EEOC charge for "discrimination".

Where does it end? At what point can we say, "Look, you are not the brightest bulb on the tree".
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2012, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
28,247 posts, read 31,630,729 times
Reputation: 35277
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
If I went to a HS in St. Louis and applied to Stanford they would know how competitive my HS was? How would they know this? You are telling me Stanford has a database that shows the difficulty of every HS in the country and compares them to each other. I call BS.

They may have an idea regarding schools that they get large numbers of applicants from, but they can not adjust for every applicant like you claim.

There are over 40 thousand different High Schools in the US there is no way they could have data on every HS.
Common Core of Data (CCD) - Common Core of Data

U.S. News Ranks Nation's Best High Schools - US News and World Report

How Does Your High School Impact College Admissions? - AdmitOne

They do not need info on every school, just the ones their applicants attend. If it's not in a database, I suspect that direct contact with the high school will get it.

The private school my son attended has an extensive presentation of the data for the school online.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:34 PM
 
Location: NC
10,002 posts, read 9,418,879 times
Reputation: 3074
Even as a white male who it supposedly "discriminates against" I 100% support it. The fact is almost every decent school is going to have a surplus of qualified applicants and considering diversity goals not only enriches classroom learning via getting a broader view of perspectives, it also aids society as a whole since it ensures that there are going to be some educated people in a broader range of communities. I don't see is as any different from having a preference such as county/high school of origin preferences which no one questions.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 12-05-2012 at 08:43 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 08:56 PM
 
Location: NC
10,002 posts, read 9,418,879 times
Reputation: 3074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2 View Post
But it does mean less qualified.
No it doesn't the fact is for decent schools there are always going to be more qualified applicants then spaces at good schools. The question is among those qualified applicants which ones are you going to accept.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 03:44 AM
 
6,234 posts, read 7,609,443 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
No it doesn't the fact is for decent schools there are always going to be more qualified applicants then spaces at good schools. The question is among those qualified applicants which ones are you going to accept.

Not at the University Of Michigan, which was sued by an applicant who did not get accepted because a less-qualified minority got that admission spot.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 05:29 AM
 
Location: NC
10,002 posts, read 9,418,879 times
Reputation: 3074
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2 View Post
Not at the University Of Michigan, which was sued by an applicant who did not get accepted because a less-qualified minority got that admission spot.
You are thinking about one of the Bollinger cases and neither of them involved "less" qualified applicants. It was a matter of what criteria and methods were allowed in picking between qualified applicants.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 07:40 AM
 
6,234 posts, read 7,609,443 times
Reputation: 3449
There is also a case from a Texas university being heard in the US Supreme Court over this same AA nonsense.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 07:41 AM
 
6,234 posts, read 7,609,443 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
You are thinking about one of the Bollinger cases and neither of them involved "less" qualified applicants. It was a matter of what criteria and methods were allowed in picking between qualified applicants.

If the minority students had equal or better qualifications than the non-AA students, this would not even be up for discussion.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 08:14 AM
 
2,988 posts, read 3,754,025 times
Reputation: 4249
It's not as though AA students and non-AA students have roughly the same level of ability, with admissions people giving a slight edge to AA applicants. Rather, there is an enormous difference between the two groups, often significantly more than a standard deviation (see: Herrnstein and Murray, "The Bell Curve," for numerical data, and also for a brief discussion of how secretive most universities are with this data).

As someone else mentioned, this works to the enormous detriment of legitimately qualified Blacks in the professions. Given the differences in ability fostered by AA, the only reasonable assumption in the absence of any other evidence is that the Black professional is strictly second string. Very unfair to first-string Blacks.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 09:01 AM
 
4,950 posts, read 5,166,917 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
It's not as though AA students and non-AA students have roughly the same level of ability, with admissions people giving a slight edge to AA applicants. Rather, there is an enormous difference between the two groups, often significantly more than a standard deviation (see: Herrnstein and Murray, "The Bell Curve," for numerical data, and also for a brief discussion of how secretive most universities are with this data).

As someone else mentioned, this works to the enormous detriment of legitimately qualified Blacks in the professions. Given the differences in ability fostered by AA, the only reasonable assumption in the absence of any other evidence is that the Black professional is strictly second string. Very unfair to first-string Blacks.

The difference across populations is not the same as the difference among applicants (sub populations). It's not as if the average AA and the average white are applying to the school every time.

I think about it like applying for a job. How do people feel about jobs using strictly cognitive ability testing for hiring? Let's just give every single person a cognitive ability test and select top down. Would that be fair? Yes it would...Is it correlated with performance....yes it is... research shows a correlation of 0.50 between cognitive ability and job performance (actually higher than the .3-.4 correlation between HS grades and college grades). But there is still error in CA scores and there is more that goes into job performance than just CA. Again it only predicts 25% of the variance in job performance.

So the fact of the matter is it is not a completely valid (ie it does not predict even 50% of the variance in performance) predictor. Just because it is fair does not mean it is accurate.

The question is should we be fair or should we be accurate? And I think that is a matter of opinion. I personally think accuracy is more important, especially when "fairness" could lead to systematic discrimination.

This wouldn't be a question if HS GPA and HS test scores were correlated with college GPA at .8-1. But that is not even close to the case and that is my main issue with using a selection criteria that typically systematically eliminates minorities when it barely meets the purpose for which it was made.

I work in selection and assessment and have my PhD in I/O Psychology where most of this research is conducted. A .30 correlation is on the border of what the governing bodies of SIOP and EEOC would consider useful in making a hiring decision, yet many seem to be advocating for a strict top down method. Hell a structured interview is a better predictor of performance than .30 and almost everyone hates those.

People keep saying that AAs with 3.0 are being selected over non-minorities with 3.8s. The burden of proof is on you. I'd like to see evidence that this is the norm and not a once in a while thing. I've heard of people getting into Harvard because their parents donate a lot of money and the kids have terrible qualifications. Does that mean that every family that donates to a school has a child that couldn't get in on his/her own?

The only time I have ever seen anything remotely like that was someone mentioned an AA that got into UNC-CH law school with a 3.3 and a 156 LSAT over a non-minority that had like a 3.6 and a 164 LSAT. Come to find out the AA was a resident of NC and the non-minority was not. Is residency not something that can be considered? I'm fine with a state choosing to educate someone that has funded the university rather than someone who has not.

Admissions considers other things besides grades and test scores. They always have, why do people find this odd. Would you be upset if a school took a white kid that had a 3.4 and a 1200 SAT over another white kid that had a 3.8 and a 1350 SAT. When the former consistently volunteered at food shelters, pantries, etc. and was captain of his HS football team and basketball team and the latter was in the Spanish club at his HS?

If not, why? The latter is obviously the more qualified candidate using your criteria.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education > Colleges and Universities
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top