Trending Content
| +88 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 57 | 19h | |
| +60 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 1d | |
| +51 | How to sound more eloquent? | 20 | 4s | |
| +40 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 2d | |
| +37 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 9 | 14h | |
| +37 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 13 | 20h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 3d | |
| +28 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 11 | 15h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 12 | 19h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
Completely agree.
I come from a very rural background (e.g trailer park) and honestly I didn't have the same privileges as an African American born into upper/middle class. Hell, I didn't know what an Ivy League school was until halfway through Junior year of HS.
I'd love to see more weight put on socio-economic status rather than race, since ultimately thats what people are trying to do with affirmative action (take disadvantaged and get them a chance).
Too be fair - should a poor black kid and a poor white kid get the same benefits even though it is more difficult being poor and black than it is being poor and white?
The blog post oversimplifies the nuances of discrimination.
Source - I grew up poor and I am white - this being white shit is pretty sweet.
Not that you need to answer, but I think a similar question to ask is if you grew up in a predominately white neighborhood or not. If you are all poor as poor can be, but you're the minority race in your area, I would imagine that it is harder to be of that ethnicity than the majority. - Basically, being a poor white kid in a poor black area must suck.
Then again, I got lucky and lived in pretty nice suburbs.
How much further can this analysis go? What if you weren't a minority in the town you lived in, but were in the school you attended? Vice versa? What about if you were the minority in your job growing up, but not the school you attended? Vice versa? What about recreational sports leagues, after school programs? We can analyze those differences to the minutia into oblivion and find reasons to support the claim that you're a minority in some way, all the time.
Thank you.
The biggest hurdle to affirmative action based on income is the fact that it would require schools to get rid of need-blind admissions. This could lead to a host of problems, most notably the already-common practice of schools favoring out-of-state and international students as well as students who will require less aid. Considering the financial trouble many schools are in, this trend would likely become more pervasive.
In a sense, schools already do this. If there is a poor black kid and a poor white kid who both apply to a school, if the poor white kids application shows more grit and hard work they will take him, and vice verse. There's a reason why they ask for income, and your parents and siblings jobs. (Only time it may be the opposite is if a school needs to hit a minority quota. Most of the schools I applied to are literally 3.5-4.5% black, so if they see a black candidate who is slightly under par, but works hard and shows potential then they may take him/her over a white kid because some schools barely have black kids. You may not realize it, but as a black male at a private universit(which I am), you would notice)
I really debated posting this because I know that all that will happen is endless MS will rain down on me, but the article, for all intensive purposes, is extremely poorly written, and the author clearly did no research into the history or intention of affirmative action. Affirmative action is all about race and racism, not income level. Despite common misconception, race is not used as a proxy for income level when it comes to affirmative action.
In a capitalistic society, you will always have poor people. The difference between poor white people and poor minorities is that poor whites are simply the percentage of the white population that are poor. While some percentage of poor minorities are also nothing more than the percentage of their respective populations that are simply poor, many poor minorities are poor because of decades of racism and governmental programs that helped build up the white middle class, but were never given to minorities. What affirmative action says is that schools, employers, etc. level the playing field to make up for the multitude of programs that helped build up the white middle class, but were unavailable to minorities.
Should a poor white be given a hand to make up for the obvious disadvantage he/she has compared to a wealthy white? Yes, of course, But, that has nothing to do with affirmative action, which the author fails to realize.
Affirmative action isn't about race and racism if it's also applied to women and gays, or if it's applied to an historically un-oppressed (by white Americans) racial group, such as (Asian) Indians or even really Hispanics (who didn't face the same kind of systemic, long-term discrimination that black people did), or even black Africans. I think you're conflating the original purpose of AA in the 1960's and how it's applied today.
Of course affirmative action includes non-racial groups. My post focused on race because that is what the article mentioned. Affirmative action has certainly evolved to covering non-racial groups that have been maligned, but it never has been nor is about income level. Race, gender, sexual orientation, never have been and are not proxies for income levels.
Not sure why you're even on this forum. You should be on some political forum considering 99.4% of your posts have to do with some conservative theology.
No question the GI Bill helped WWII vets and built that post war middle class - but shouldn't the Great Society have counteracted part of the problem? Is 50 years not enough, since many legacy programs of that era clearly don't work?
This is one of those things that sounds reasonable in a classroom discussion but is a very, very slippery slope.
Not only did the GI Bill help WWII veterans, it also systematically barred minorities from accessing these benefits. The Great Society made tremendous strides and steps forward, although it was overshadowed by the tremendous cost of Vietnam at the time, and had it's problems as well (some argue that the benefits it made available only to unwed minorities caused a rift in the African-American family structure going forward).
I'm not sure what the implication is of your first point - are you suggesting that we've done all we can to counteract the issues we've let persist from the 18th / 19th centuries all the way until interracial marriage was declared illegal in 1967? Because we instituted a couple social programs and decreased the poverty levels at that point in time, that all the injustices of the past and going forward are now alleviated?
It's a debate that we're still arguing over today, as we still haven't truly found a way to fix these issues. Black people are not intrinsically inferior to white people, and there are very real historical reasons why they face so many inequality issues today, and the problems that stem from those injustices are very apparent even today (stop and frisk, conviction rates for black vs. white people, incarceration rates, crack/cocaine epidemic).
Affirmative action doesn't only look at race, but it's one of the factors in a number of cases for a couple of reasons. The primary one, that most people are more familiar with, is to end the effects of race-based discrimination largely created by exclusion of non-whites from competing economically with whites. The reason we have affirmative action is because white people wouldn't let minorities attend the same schools as them or buy homes in the suburbs. Minorities were then forced to live in worse neighborhoods, attend even worse schools, have lower paying jobs, and repeat the cycles for generations. The results of these policies still exist today.
The issue with focusing on income is that it raises the implication that if you pay someone enough, you can treat them however you want. There's not only a material aspect to the solution, but also a need for justice based on past wrongs we've done as a nation - there's still millions of Americans who grew up not being able to use the same bathrooms as whites. President Johnson put it this way, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair."
The other view, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, gave a new perspective on the reasoning behind affirmative action; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the compelling interest at hand lay in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." If I remember it correctly, the University argued that there was a compelling state interest to ensure a "critical mass" of students from minority groups, which was realized within the student body. Research suggests that, all things held equal, simply ensuring diversity in terms of racial makeup and gender composition improves the experience for everyone involved, whether it's a workplace or a college campus. I believe it was harder to find minority students who had scores on the level of other races of students, so the need to offer differing admissions was apparent to offer a diverse student body.
Now, I do agree with the fact that some sort of income based affirmative action would be useful, as it's quite obvious that disadvantaged kids of all races have a harder time competing with children who come from money, but I'm not necessarily sure that "replacing" the current system is what we should be advocating, as the achievement gap is still very significant between races, even when income is relatively the same for the sample groups
In theory I agree with you, but the problem is that in practice, AA doesn't really end up doing that, but instead provide a HUGE leg up to middle class and wealthy minority kids rather than helping disadvantaged kids. As much as I hate to bring it up, Obama is the perfect example of why AA as it currently stand doesn't work. You have someone who was born into a highly educated family (mom has a PhD, dad went to Harvard), went to a prestigious private high school (on a scholarship, but still) and then ended up gaining admission to some of the best schools in the world despite having terrible stats (by his own admission) just because he ticked the right box on its admission form. There's a zero % chance of a white kid doing the same unless he was from a massively wealthy family with strong legacy support (ie. Bush) and we can all agree that this is equally if not more corrupt and should not be happening.
That's why there must be an income component to AA, wealthy minority kids should get admitted based on merit alone and AA should be reserved for those who truly had lesser resources.
How does that discredit or go against what I said? In the first instance, just because a minority student is wealthy doesn't mean they haven't gone through past injustices or faced racial discrimination at any point in their lives. It doesn't really address the issue that we decided as a nation that people of a certain race were below white people, and due to the way we treated them and the policies we enacted, they suffered for generations and continue to do so today. Post WWII, white Americans were afforded the luxury of cheap FHA loans for suburban homes, assistance with college, greater employment access, and neighborhood development, minorities received project housing, were shunned from GI bill benefits, menial job training programs, and neglect. Even today, I can point out that a wealthy minority student is worse off than a wealthy white student purely for this fact - many college admissions committees give preference to legacy students, and lower admission standards for them. Historically speaking, a black student's ancestors have, arguably, a lower chance of having attended college (for obvious reasons? Including no GI benefits) than his white classmates, even if wealth is held the same.
But all that doesn't even matter because thanks to Grutter v. Bollinger, we don't have to approach AA from the standpoint of existing solely because minorities face discrimination - diversity in the workplace or campus has a lot of benefits that many studies have looked at and determined there was a need for promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural student body that simply couldn't exist without lowering the admission standards for some students to afford this opportunity for the entire community (see: achievement gap). With this in mind, the only goal of AA is to promote a diverse community, but it seems you're trying to make the argument that above a certain income level, a minority student becomes "more white" than white students, which is simply ridiculous.
Also, to your point about Barack Obama's upbringing - you started off your argument against wealthy minorities, then rolled this into Barack's case, even though you mentioned he was on scholarship? So now you have a problem not only against minorities above a certain income threshold, but also if they come from "smart" families? How do you even measure that? In any event, his mother completed her Ph. D. in 1992 after spending nearly two decades in Indonesia. He hadn't seen his father since 1964 after he divorced Barack's mother and moved to Kenya, making only one visit back in 1971. His parents were very intelligent, yes, but it's not as if they had already earned their credentials and were professors in residence by the time he was born, and by your own admission, he needed a scholarship to attend high school (which leads me to believe he wasn't as wealthy as you claim him to be) and then took out massive amounts of loans for school afterwards which he continued to pay off for 10 yrs at monthly rates that were higher than his mortgage. I'd say he's one of the best examples of affirmative action.
Are there any sources to quantify how much of a problem we think this really is? Is there some large subset of ultra-wealthy minorities that are routinely taking the spots of disadvantaged kids and are there studies that prove this is a problem? I only ask because it seems that it's a similar situation to the estate tax - most people are up in arms over something that doesn't really have an effect on a ton of people at all, as there are holes in almost any system and it's impossible to be 100% perfect in every situation. On his grades being "terrible" - I'm not sure we can rule out that he wasn't a good fit for Columbia (or Occidental) after admissions committees reviewed his application holistically. JFK had a notoriously bad high school record, as did Kerry and Bush in college. These issues aren't being raised that they took the spots of more deserving white kids, or minorities for that matter. It feels like a false argument.
I agree with you on the fact that lower income individuals need to have some sort of leg up in the process (aside from all the help they receive currently, which comes in the form of need-blind admissions, pell grants, federal loans to even the playing field), but I believe that needs to happen on a separate level than what already exists, as the two situations are completely different and exist for reasons that go deeper than what most people know at first glance.
Income shouldn't be used as a proxy for AA programs that target black people because at every income level, outcomes(health, education, and wealth) black people always lag whites. Almost all of it is due to 300 years of slavery, another 100 years of Jim Crow, and now de facto racist policies that targeted black people since then.
It's unfair to compare apples to oranges in this respect as if you look at each income level, black people lag behind white people in many factors (wealthy black people vs. wealthy white people, middle class black people vs. middle class white people, lower income black people vs. lower income white people). Sure, the effects will be felt "less" the higher up your income goes as the more opportunities your afforded, but it's ridiculous to say that just because you earn a certain salary you don't face discrimination.
This is actually not true. Adjusted for education levels, black people are fairly on par with white people when it comes to income, and in some instances exceed white people in income levels (again, adjusted for education).
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/47_four-year_collegedegrees.html
The harsh reality is, the terrible, horrible, atrocious primary and high schools that service black children are holding them back (for reasons that I'd rather not comment on right now for fear of over politicizing this conversation). When black people obtain college degrees they excel economically.
It's been long understood that education levels are one of the most influential determinants of wage when discussing racial wage gap in the US, and the debate usually comes in when discussing the reasons why certain races are less educated and historical events that have had an impact on it. Important to note that the wage gaps decrease, but don't disappear completely through higher education (one instance in your source notes that among professional degree holders, blacks earned, on average, 20% less than white counterparts).
It's also interesting to note that just earning a certain income doesn't stop a lot of the disparities and injustices that minorities face today; look at the stir that was caused on a national level arguing that Barack Obama was not a US citizen, or stop and frisk largely targeting black individuals, conviction/incarceration rates for blacks vs. whites and the sentencing imbalances when looking at murder of a black vs. white individual. It's ridiculous to state that just because a minority person earns a certain amount of money, they all of a sudden don't face injustices and imbalances on a greater level than their white counterparts earning the same amount (in one case, it was found that merely possessing a "black sounding" name caused employers to shy away from their resume).
I am not saying AA is the answer, but its also not as clearcut as you are making it. Also I am not sure if the link you have provided actually supports what you are saying.
First the income levels for black males in the link you have sent shows they actually earn less than whites:
"It is clear that the economic opportunities for whites with a professional degree continue to be far superior than they are for blacks with a professional degree. White professionals — lawyers, dentists, accountants, and engineers, to name a few — are far more likely to serve economically well-off and better established white clients and therefore are in a position to charge higher fees and earn greater incomes. On the other hand, many whites are still reluctant to seek out the services of black professionals. Therefore, many blacks with professional degrees perform services for an exclusively black clientele and in all likelihood are not able to charge fees comparable to those of white professionals. These factors may explain to some degree the large and often persisting income gap between white and black professionals. "
It also goes on to say that:
"The statistics showing the strong earnings performance of black women with a college degree compared to white women with a similar educational background are somewhat misleading. The strong performance of black women is largely explained by the fact that black women college graduates are far more likely to hold full-time jobs than white women college graduates. In 2003 only 48 percent of white women college graduates who had some income held full-time, year-round jobs. Nearly 68 percent of black women college graduates worked full-time. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the median income figure for black women college graduates is higher than for white women with a college degree. If we adjust the figures and compare the incomes of white women college graduates who worked full-time with those of similar black women, the traditional racial burden persists. We find from the figures that black women have a median income that is 93 percent that of white women. "
The real question to ask is, at the margin, during the hiring process, are blacks and whites given an even shot?
The thing you are overlooking is that to get to that same level, blacks have to essentially "beat the odds". Consider the following study; holding constant qualifications people with non-white sounding names are not given the same shot in the hiring process:
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
AA is a means (albeit it may be flawed) to try and overcome these frictional issues in the labour market which facilitate the discrimination on the basis of race.
You misunderstood me. I said at every income level, black people lag whites in terms of wealth(not income)
This website reads more and more like reddit every day
I vote affirmative action based on non-targetness. Someone goes to University of Phoenix? Good! They get MS M&A.
Affirmative Action based on Wealth (Originally Posted: 03/01/2017)
This topic really hits close to home with me. When I see peers of underrepresented minority (and yet highly affluent/advantaged) backgrounds around me reaping the benefits of affirmative action, I can't help but think there must be a better way. Perhaps, schools or firms should require copies of tax returns to verify socioeconomic status - which is probably a more equitable screening tool.
I mean....Does the black kid who went to a suburban prep school really deserve admissions / recruiting advantage over the white kid who fought and scratched his way from the backwaters of a Louisiana swamp town (think True Detective territory)?
The major problem with this approach is that there are many need blind schools in which the finance and admissions departments are not allowed to talk with each other. Given that many universities are struggling financially, you could potentially open up a can of worms by making finances an integral part of the admissions process. There are many schools that are not need blind that are already admitting greater numbers of out-of-state and international students, knowing that they'll be paying more overall and have little chance of being classified in-state residents.
I can understand your frustration. There certainly are many beneficiaries of affirmative action that weren't disadvantaged from a financial perspective. I know white people who were born in the US and have white parents yet claimed Hispanic ancestry to get a boost on their applications. The most unfortunate part about this whole situation is how Asians are getting screwed by this entire process. However, I'm not currently aware of a better way of handling this situation. I can't say right now that the solution is to do away with affirmative action completely and have no replacement for it.
I definitely agree that universities subject to financial constraints would have difficulty implementing a "wealth-based AA policy."
However, these problems wouldn't apply to company recruitment. And AA in the job hunt is my main concern; I wouldn't shed too many tears over the white, underprivileged kid who didn't get into HYP when public State U is perfectly fine.
The very fact that Asians are screwed by affirmative action casts doubt on the whole concept of "white privilege." If society were ordered to prop up white people to the detriment of "people of color" then Asians should be disadvantaged.
It's cause AA is about window dressing, not actually creating something that truly helps those in need.
No, it's about helping those in need; unfortunately there are negative unintended consequences.
I agree that there are big problems with AA but this is a flawed comparison:
"Does the black kid who went to a suburban prep school really deserve admissions / recruiting advantage over the white kid who fought and scratched his way from the backwaters of a Louisiana swamp town (think True Detective territory)?"
Why is that a flawed comparison?
Obviously the opposite scenario is statistically more common (underprivileged and black vs. privileged and white), but the fact remains that many URMs come from well-off families.
Socioeconomic disadvantages are vastly more prevalent than racial. Actually in the corporate world I would say age and gender discrimination trump race. AA is well intended but I think it's usefulness is coming to an end. It is just a quota system now.
I went to a top Ivy: the vast majority of URM came from affluent backgrounds. Like commenter above said, it's window-dressing
As a purely non-serious/lighthearted aside, what is stopping some psychopath from falsely claiming to be homosexual - or even better, bisexual? (enjoy preferred status AND can publicly admit/display attraction to the opposite sex)
This will ultimately what brings the house of cards down. What about claiming transgender? Or questioning sexuality?
Their should be no race or sexuality based benefit. If anything, it should be based on income and background.
Bet let's all be honest. What party pushes these policies and what groups of people always vote for that party? This isn't about fairness, this is about power and control.
Also why that same party pretends to not know the difference between legal and illegal immigrantion, even thought illegal immigrants are concentrated in cities, the same place that the other voting group lives and has no money for schools or entry level jobs, both of which are consumed by people not supposed to be here.
You have strong points, and I'd also agree on the fact that good amount of the Black kids at Ivy's do come from some kind of money, but at the same time there is still a lot of competition for these diversity spots. You still have to compete against all of the other 3.6/7+ target school minorities. Just because your black but go to a non-target does not by any means guarantee you a spot in any diversity program. The advantage is a "much smaller" pool that your competing in. I also want to add that if you did recruiting by socioeconomic background you would still find at least 80-90% of the AA pool to be minorities just on the basis that the majority of minorities don't earn the same income as white people. On the note of upper class prep school minorities, there really are not that many. Being a minority who's attended a NY/CT/MA prep school, the majority of us were lower class, and even in college, the majority are either on a good academic or athletic scholarship. Thats just the facts. While yeah It does suck and is unfair that based on AA system now that an upperclass or more fortunate minority can get a role over a white kid from the bottom who's worked hard, a lot of shit has been unfair for a lot of minorities as well. But I am in favor of at least some kind of affirmative action flawed or not, I mean look at the average floor In a BB, still wouldn't say its really 50/50 in terms of representation even with AA.
yea but that's like competing in the special olympics
You may be right on a lot of those points. AA recruiting based on financial need may very well produce results similar to what we see from traditional AA.
But I believe there is a NOT-insignificant number of underprivileged non URMs out there who get fucked in the current process (see Asians).
Just an FYI every black person who gets somewhere is not the product of affirmative action (especially those who went to a prep school). In any case affirmative action hires are usually qualified and represent a very small percentage of the workforce.
i agree with you: the problem is that AA employees will never be respected. If you've worked on a trading floor, it's very clear that a huge portion of women are not treated equal to men, simply because they went through an easier recruitment process and didn't "pay their dues." Behind every promotion, every achievement, there will always be a lingering doubt of favoritism. My best 2 MDs were both female: they were the product of old Wall St. and purer meritocracy. At entry-level, I would however argue that the average female analyst is significantly worse than the average male analyst, because AA programs distort "fair" recruiting.
Is the difference between 'your' and 'you're' hard to discern? By reading this thread, you would think so.
Affirmative action based on wealth is nothing new, at least when it comes to elite college admissions. Low-income applicants already get a "bump"
I grew up in a VERY white middle class Chicago suburb. It was insane the lack of diversity we had. I knew a girl who APPARENTLY was part native american. I knew her parents, I knew her for probably 10+ years, had been to her house a number of times, literally had no clue she was part Native American. I guess when she was younger she took a trip out to their lands and her parents paid some nominal registration fee to keep her part of the tribe.
In high school she was smart, but not top of the class and when most people were talking about what state school they were going to go to she started talking about Duke. SHE GOT A FREE RIDE TO DUKE. We were all floored and it turned out that this was due to her native american heritage. It was total BS. This girl then went on to law school and I have no idea if she even paid for that.
That was my first "affirmative action" experience and it never sat well with me. That being said, as I've gotten older, I have come to realize that we need to find a way to help the disadvantaged. I am no liberal hippy and don't believe in throwing resources after those who dont want it, but we do need to help certain people lift their socioeconomic status. Being born into poverty shouldnt be a guarantee that you stay that way...if you want to make that change.
I'm not saying the current system is perfect or that I even have the answers, but I think it's clear that we need to provide some sort of help to the disadvantaged.
We're not talking about Elizabeth "Squanto" Warren, are we?
hahaha, no. I'm old for this board, but younger than Elizabeth Warren.
This girl now works in Big Law in Chicago
I wish they'd do away with AA but it seems:
-The URM's will always have their accomplishments discounted because of AA.
-The whites will always have their accomplishments discounted because of white privilege.
A sort of tragic comedy, this warped equality we've created.
AA is bad for minorities in the long-run: sure they get in, but they'll never be respected by the FT employees. If they end up washing out after 1 year, it actually does them a disservice by stalling their career.
I have a close friend who comes from extreme wealth (read: father is ranked in the double digits on the Forbes 500) who is currently on a full ride at an MBA business schools">M7 due to being on the Native American rolls despite having no real Native American heritage (I believe he's something like 1/8 Apache). He definitely has the background needed to get in without URM status (3.7 at top UG, BB IB, mid-700s GMAT), but the issue is the money. He clearly doesn't need the money and would have attended this school without any scholarship at all, but because it helps get the school's diversity stats up they give him a full ride at the expense of someone who it owuld actually have a huge impact.
that's not affirmative action. i agree it's shitty but it's not relevant to this discussion
Even a lot of the diversity programs like SEO, which many people here dislike, have a ton of kids from Ivies/other top schools that are targets. A program that's meant to help people break in that wouldn't be likely to otherwise, many (most?) of their spots go to giving kids at Ivies a backdoor in and/or a second crack at breaking in after striking out at their own OCI. Additionally firms prefer these kids as opposed to some kid from a lower ranked school. If you're gonna get some kid wth a resume/background that generally wouldn't get them in, firms at least would rather have the kid from the good school. Instead these spots should be going to deserving minorities who don't have any other opportunities to break in, generally kids from lower ranked schools (generally poorer) who won't get a chance otherwise, and will never get a real look out of a pile of resumes. Because of their school/background they have fewer opportunities to get the experience that will make them competitive in recruiting, etc. You get the picture. So many spots that are supposed to help people with little chance of breaking in go to kids who have the greatest chance of getting in without such a program. Put aside whether you think these type of programs for URMs should exist, but many of the URMs getting the most help aren't even the ones who need it the most. That doesn't mean that AA should be ended like people on here are saying, that's ridiculous. I'm not sure what can be done to make the process better though, it's really tough. Either way some people who don't need help will get it and some who need help won't.
EDIT: I don't think the debate should be that some whites should get some of this help instead (I don't think they should), but rather which URMs should be getting the help vs. which ones actually are.
Completely agree. I play along with SEO but I've been cynical about it for years. I don't claim to have hard numbers, but after the third or fourth asian kid whose parents were (for example) an orthodontist and a CFO, it became pretty obvious that the outfit had become (to put it in finance terms...) an asset gatherer, not an investor.
My two problems with AA based on race are - Advantaging and disadvantaging people just based on race. Based on the race someone is born with they either get a benefit or a disadvantage from the government. Isn't that the definition of racism? - AA is telling minorities (except for asians) that they cannot compete in a free market and need a boost. This reinforces negative stereotypes and decreases the quality of people in a workforce or college when they aren't just selected based on merit. I don't care what race my doctor is, I just want the best doctor possible so I am healthy. But med schools have quotas to fill. Here's an interesting article about an indian guy who faked being black to get into med school. http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/mindy-kalings-brother-explains-why-he-pret…
Partially related to the topic here but...
Wharton's 2nd year class has 24 Black people in it total out of 850 ...
Here's the link to Bain Capital's investment team ...
Here's the list of all 32 Black Venture Capitalists in the entire industry
Those are just 3 examples I can think of off top for highly selective schools/roles that always confuse me when I see discussions on this board about AA or URM stats. The population at these places are still absolutely minuscule. It's like the flakes of pepper in your mash potatoes, but you can't help but notice the color in the sea of white. The whole unfair "advantage" argument also doesn't make sense, cause shouldn't we be seeing way more minorities in any of these front office type roles?
I feel it's easier to pin individual shortcomings on the structure of an institution rather than on you just not being good enough. I've seen the same folks on this board constantly complain about it, yet still haven't stepped their hustle up to do better. Those whopping 2 Latino analysts in the starting class of the BB you got rejected from didn't "wrongfully" take anybody's spot. But again, it's easier to say somebody received preferential treatment than to admit you're not as popping as you thought you were.
Excuse any typos, didn't bother to revisit for grammar.
You have to compare the 24/850 figure to the percent of highest achieving students who are African American.
I suspect that (# of High Achieving African Americans / # High Achieving students) is less than (# of African Americans students / # of total students)
Also, (# of High achieving Asian Americans / # High Achieving students) is probably greater than (# of Asian American students / # of total students)
+1
Affirmative action is not about helping poor black people/historically excluded groups to do better in life. It is about helping ALL black people/historically excluded groups to do better. Blacks for example have been experiencing institutionalized racism throughout most of American history. Look at Jim Crow Laws, Tulsa Riots, Lynchings, harsher prison sentences, the war on drugs which past administrations have admitted was a devised method to imprison blacks, lack of available quality schools up to a few decades ago, segregation, being given inferior jobs up to a few decades ago, voting laws designed to remove black votes and so much more. Some of these policies were still existent, or even implemented, as recently as the 60s/70s. Here is a quote from the Chief Domestic Adviser for President Nixon:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
The quote above happened in a time when your parents were probably kids or teenagers. Think about how recent that is.
All else equal/on average, a rich black family would be even richer/more successful had they gotten a fairer chance at economic prosperity because all else equal/on average EVERY black family in America would be better off had they been given a fair chance throughout the generations.
I don't think the current system is perfect, but its a bit naive to say that it is an "unfair advantage" to blacks or other historically repressed groups. Some people no doubt take advantage of it (eg. the 1/32th black person that you've no doubt heard of). But taking advantage of a program does not mean a program is bad/wrongly intentioned. For comparison many people take advantage of food stamps or unemployment benefits - but that doesn't mean those programs are innately bad.
And before someone assumes it - no, I have never benefited from affirmative action.
.
Et sunt nulla dolores sit fugit culpa et. Sapiente modi qui modi magnam ut et temporibus. Quam illum ad est voluptatem ipsum qui id nisi. Id ut aut esse est perferendis numquam. Quo tempora molestiae error voluptas consequatur esse. Numquam enim vitae explicabo illo odio non dolorem ullam. Qui inventore reiciendis vel ab ullam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Repellendus rem et laborum eius facilis rerum voluptatem quo. Possimus facilis explicabo molestiae consequatur. Accusamus in perspiciatis ut qui dolorem illum. Facere voluptatibus odio atque voluptatibus. Voluptatibus earum consequatur magni possimus optio corporis.
Est qui natus possimus tempora necessitatibus. Sequi hic mollitia rerum expedita unde minus earum quia. Quos ut ullam voluptatem totam reprehenderit. Architecto explicabo hic culpa consequatur sed et. Expedita fugit non quia dolore omnis et. Ullam ipsam beatae beatae et quia quas.
Est repellendus nesciunt est et sint nobis deleniti nam. Laborum eos deleniti aut eligendi sunt. Qui minima quod eaque neque.
Et qui eaque et dolor a. Aut aliquid quo consequatur et. Consequatur eos ipsam ratione.
Qui magni facere excepturi aliquam dolorum quo. Dolorem et corporis eos reprehenderit similique. Enim alias ipsa consequatur aut qui.
Veniam est et cumque. Ut placeat possimus totam sed. Amet voluptas totam quo sapiente.
Illum quod incidunt nihil quisquam voluptatem vitae veniam. Sunt earum modi voluptatibus voluptatum necessitatibus culpa quas. Pariatur voluptas rerum sapiente a possimus. Molestiae doloribus vel quo molestiae in et. Aut repellendus nostrum enim quo quasi sapiente.
Asperiores suscipit vitae laborum consequatur dolores quisquam nobis. Dolores quidem animi cumque excepturi. Velit commodi ut fugiat aliquam.
Voluptatem id nisi corrupti aut dolor. Laboriosam inventore adipisci numquam magni harum sunt qui. Error officia vel vel ut quasi nulla. Corrupti omnis dolores fuga sit.