Cupcake Discussion

<p>^ But again, socioeconomic affirmative action would still serve as:</p>

<ol>
<li>An excuse to avoid the source of the problem (real education for kids/teens in those groups), instead using college admission last-minute boosts based on appearance, not reality.</li>
<li>Impossible for people in those groups to truly 100% succeed, since you’ll always be labeled as having “cheated”, thanks to the system.</li>
</ol>

<p>Affirmative action of any kind should be banned, and replaced with real, long term solutions. Unfortunately these politicians have neither the brains nor the guts.</p>

<p>Well until they fix the source of the problem, shouldn’t they at least do something to make it up until then? It’s not fair to the poor kids to make them wait forever for a solution that likely is never going to come. It is more or less a fact that often, not being able to get admitted to a good school is not a function of ones intellect but the environment one is placed in. Place a smart kid in a ****ty environment with under-performing schools and they are not going to have much of a shot, some will, but most won’t. And then if they go to a community college and transfer they will then have the “transfers get it easy” label conferred upon them.</p>

<p>@caltanner We benefit from all kinds of “affirmative action” and other types of legal preferences. Can you “claim victory” knowing that you probably “stole” some out of state or foreign kid’s seat?</p>

<p>Guys, guys . . . this isn’t about “poor kids” or “underprivileged kids” . . this is about RACE.</p>

<p>I swear, at elite universities, undeserving WEALTHY urms get preference in admissions over poor Asian students . . . </p>

<p>That’s kind of messed up. I personally have nothing against affirmative action in favour of students from underprivileged backgrounds, but racism is racism, no matter what you call it. Atrocious how in a representative democracy, making a crapton of babies in the previous generations helps you win political favours in the current generation.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>

NO, that relieves pressure and it’s only convenient for lazy politicians who sweep issues under the rug. Affirmative action does nothing in the long run… it’s just a quick fix, like some drug. Politicians would be increasingly forced to deal with the core of the problem if it wasn’t for AA.</p>

<p>

This argument isn’t logical. In CA, we pay taxes to fund the school and it’s chartered for us, the people (and not any certain race). That makes sense. It’s not stealing if we’ve been funding it the entire time, and if its defining mandate mentions its purpose to serve us, not foreigners. Look, if you want all races to be represented equally, make sure all races are fully prepared to compete fairly in college admissions!</p>

<p>The point is that it IS stealing if you get in on ANYTHING other than your academic merit because that is what YOU are arguing except for when it benefits YOU then you want to change your tune. You are not being intellectually honest nor are you being consistent.
If we really went on academic merit, 80% of our students would be Asian instead of the 40% now, a high majority of those coming from out of state and foreign sources.</p>

<p>The highest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white people but there are no protests when they get a leg up (the new 2012 admissions policy) only minorities. Hmmm… think about that.</p>

<p>“Affirmative action does nothing in the long run… it’s just a quick fix, like some drug.”</p>

<p>Interesting analogy. I wonder if there is as much feeling, research, and political action, against other “quick fixes …like some drugs”. Many psychotropics, presumably remedying “a chemical imbalance” come to mind. One of the most intriguing examples of “health disparities” in the US, and maybe elsewhere.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550705/[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550705/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“Stimulant medications represent an important class of psychotropic medication for children and adolescents, given the relatively high prevalence rate (4–12%) of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in school-aged children (Jensen et al., 1999; Szatmari et al., 1989; Wasserman et al., 1998). Several recent studies have reported racial/ethnic differences in rates of stimulant medication prescription patterns and/or care-giver report of use among children with, or at risk for, ADHD (Bussing et al., 1998c; Hoagwood et al., 2000; Safer and Malever, 2000). In a study of special education students in a Florida school district, Bussing et al. (1998c) found that minorities at risk for ADHD were nearly twice as likely to have unmet service needs, including medication treatment. In another study, a statewide school survey of Maryland public school students documented that African-American and Latino students received methylphenidate at approximately half the rate of their white counterparts (Safer and Malever, 2000). A recent report by Rowland et al. (2002) on elementary school children in North Carolina found that compared to white children, the care-givers of African-American (70%) and Hispanic children (30%) were less likely to report use of ADHD medication, even after adjusting for gender, grade, and past diagnosis of ADHD. Hoagwood et al. (2000) found similar discrepancies in medication use in a study on practice patterns using the 1995 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Analyses showed that whites assigned a psychiatric diagnosis were nearly nine times as likely to receive a prescription for stimulant medication compared to others, even when age, gender, length of visit, and insurance coverage were controlled.
These studies identified racial/ethnic disparities in four different samples: children enrolled in Medicaid, special education students, public school students, and participants in the NAMCS. Past research has demonstrated that children served in public sector systems such as child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health are at increased risk for mental health problems and are more commonly from minority backgrounds (Garland and Besinger, 1997; Garland et al., 1998; Leslie et al., 2000). Research on psychotropic medication use among children with high rates of demonstrated need who are served by public service systems offers an important adjunct to prevalence rates of medication use reported in traditional epidemiological studies and allows further focus on possible disparities.
This report focuses on race/ethnicity as a factor in the reported use of psychotropic medications among high-risk children participating in the Patterns of Youth Mental Health Care in Public Service Systems (POC) study, a longitudinal study of the mental health needs of children served in public service sectors (Garland et al., 2001). The prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses in general in the POC sample was high (54%). Our objectives were to describe rates of past-year and lifetime psychotropic medication use in these high-risk children as a function of demographic, clinical, and system-level factors, with a specific focus on race/ethnicity.”</p>

<p>Probably not the right forum, so I will sign off this thread.</p>

<p>Have a good weekend everyone!</p>

<p>MortimerC: Getting into a public university isn’t 100% about academic merit… there is also “ownership” involved, which has to do with taxes and state residency. That’s clearly defined in the law books, so it’s not stealing. On the other hand affirmative action goes against the no-racism laws in this country which were finally enacted after much struggle. Not only do the charters/laws not include mandates for admitting various races, but the laws actually do the polar opposite and state that no decisions should be made based on race. It’s inconsistent and well… uh… racist.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, by that same argument, those students who are admitted to elite schools because of their rich and privileged backgrounds will similarly never be able to claim victory and should therefore ‘hate’ their privileges because their accomplishments will always be doubted. For example, at the Ivies and Stanford, there continue to be plenty of students from legacy families, scions of European royal families, children of prominent political families and whatnot. </p>

<p>As an archetypal example, what are the odds that a family with four children would send all four to Harvard solely on their academic merit? Yet all four of Al Gore’s children went to Harvard. Even if you believe that all four qualified solely by academic merit, rumors will (rightfully) persist that they were admitted only because they just happened to be children of not only a Harvard legacy family, but also one of the most prominent political families in modern American history. But I don’t detect any movement by the Gores or any similar graduates to reform Harvard’s legacy and privileged admissions systems. They don’t seem to care a whit whether others will ‘doubt’ their victory of being admitted to Harvard. They have their Harvard degrees and that’s all that matters to them. </p>

<p>So if rich, privileged legacies don’t seem particularly motivated to abolish admissions policies that favor them, why would we expect URM’s to do likewise?</p>

<p>Fact is, people don’t need an excuse to discredit minorities. People only get hyper-sensitive when they feel that blacks (and to a certain extent Hispanics) are “getting over” on them. When any other group gets favored be it the disproportionately WASP and Jewish ivy elite, asians or any one else, not a peep.</p>

<p>I just can’t take their cries seriously. And this is a reason that a lot of blacks hispanics and natives were perturbed by these actions. It feels like a targeting.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You can also surely be admitted to most flagship state universities (and many private universities) even as an out-of-state student and even if you possess minimal academic merit…if you can throw/catch/run a ball. While that’s undoubtedly merit, it’s not academic merit. </p>

<p>One could therefore say that Cal has affirmative action for athletes. Let’s be perfectly honest: Jahvid Best, JJ Arrington, Marshawn Lynch, DeSean Jackson, Kyle Boller, Bobby Shaw, and Deltha O’Neal were not admitted to Cal for their academic merit (perhaps the only recent star football player who arguably might have been admitted for pure academic reasons is Aaron Rodgers). </p>

<p>In 2004, 95% of Cal football players were considered ‘special admits’: recruits who were subject to lower admissions requirements than regular applicants. I doubt that more recent years would exhibit substantially different figures, nor do I think this is particularly surprising given Cal’s desire to maintain a bowl-contending football team while subjecting regular applicants to some of the highest selectivity requirements in the nation. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, it is undeniable that if schools truly admitted students purely on academically meritocratic criteria, than practically every FBS football team would be decimated. How many current Cal starting football players would have been admitted under Cal’s standard admissions scheme?</p>

<p>[Cal</a> football: A report on the “special admits” | College Hotline](<a href=“http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/09/10/cal-football-a-report-on-all-the-special-admits/]Cal”>Cal football: A report on the "special admits" - College Hotline)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Regarding the WASP’s, I would agree, but about the other groups you named, I don’t know about that. The historical Numerus Clausus (the “Jewish quotas”) were implemented by many top private universities during the early 1900’s precisely because alumni and benefactors of those universities felt that they were admitted ‘too many Jews’. Those quotas also targeted other undesired minorities as well, such as Catholics, Southern/Eastern Europeans (especially Italians and Poles), and - yes - African Americans. </p>

<p>Perhaps even more importantly, the influx of Jews in the Ivies instigated the implementation of legacy admissions to ensure that children of WASP’s would continue to hold a powerful admissions advantage over the undesirable minorities such as Jews who could rarely invoke any legacy advantage of their own. Similarly, many people within the Asian community feel directly targeted by legacy preferences.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem with that argument is that the laws provide no basis for stating that no decisions should be based on race. In fact, the opposite is true: Federal law specifically sanctions affirmative action. Grutter v. Bollinger, the most recent Supreme Court case that adjudicated affirmative action policies within higher education, specifically upheld the ability of public universities to enact affirmative action policies. </p>

<p>Now, to be clear, just because the law and the Supreme Court legalizes a particular practice doesn’t make it just: the Court had upheld slavery in Dred Scott, endorsed the principle of separate but equal in Plessy v. Ferguson, and sanctioned the internment of Japanese-Americans in Korematsu v. United States. Nobody is arguing that Federal law is a perfect arbiter of morality. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, the fact remains that the law as it stands today does in fact allow for affirmative action whether we like it or not. Whether affirmative action is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it is legal. Plenty of morally repugnant acts such as slavery and wife-beating were once legal.</p>

<p>@ sakky, I mean today not in history. Both groups are overrepresented in college admissions, and in the case of Asians would be even more so if it wasn’t for all the whites taking up their spots through policies that work in a much more insidious way than affirmative action. But no one cares about that till the almighty 3% of AA’s come for “their spots” then people start bringing out the pitchforks.</p>

<p>

Those kids are already rich and privileged, they’re not fighting upwards like minorities are trying to do…</p>

<p>

Yes, but that’s still merit of some sort, even if it’s not academic! Sports are a major testing ground for another system of merit, and the successful are carried by their raw accomplishments. (Should we also have race-balancing within sports teams?! No!)</p>

<p>

Well you’re right on this one. I agree; legality doesn’t mean it’s right.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But it’s not academic merit. We’re talking about universities, which are supposed to be primarily academic institutions after all. Obviously the NFL should ‘admit’ people based on their football skills, but it’s never been clear to me why universities should do the same. </p>

<p>I’ve also often times wondered: if Cal should implement special admissions for athletes based on their athletic merit, why only with the specific sports that Cal actually runs within the athletic department? Why not other sports in the world? Video gaming is a sport, I suppose, as some people, particularly in Asia, can become wealthy by becoming top video game players. So is chess, arm-wrestling, tiddly-winks, heck, even [extreme ironing](<a href=“Extreme ironing - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ironing&lt;/a&gt;), and [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_carrying]wife-carrying[/url”>Wife-carrying - Wikipedia]wife-carrying[/url</a>]. Yet I highly doubt that Cal would admit any mediocre student who just happened to be the world’s best wife-carrier. {Cal might provide a small fillip for extracurricular activities, but they certainly won’t plumb the depths of the admissions pool to recruit the world’s best wife-carrier, and even offer him a full-ride athletic scholarship}. Yet being the world’s best wife-carrier is a type of athletic ‘merit’, is it not? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which would seemingly make the behavior of the rich and privileged all the more morally repugnant. URM children are at least trying to improve their (on average) downtrodden status. We may disagree with their tactics, but we can still sympathize with their goals. They were born into a disadvantaged position through no fault of their own. But rich privileged children are born with advantages that they never earned, and they continue to defend those privileges? </p>

<p>In other words, whose admission is more morally objectionable: a URM who is admitted to Harvard by affirmative action, or a rich privileged legacy admit to Harvard? If I had to choose one, I would say the latter. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, I still think they do care about it now. To this day, there is incessant (albeit disguised) resentment within elite private universities’ alumni associations that their alma maters are admitting ‘too many Asians’. Recall the firestorm of publicity that accompanied the publication of ‘The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom’, where white parents would (subtly) complain that Asian children ‘study too hard’ and are therefore ‘stealing’ the admissions seats that ostensibly should be going to their (white) children.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, it’s a targeting. That’s why I think that the BCR would have had a more equitable (albeit admittedly less compelling) strategy if they had targeted all deviations from the academic meritocratic admissions ideal. For example, perhaps they could give cupcakes to football players for free…or even pay them to take cupcakes (in the same manner that Cal provides full-ride athletic scholarships to football players). Or perhaps they could charge more for cupcakes to out-of-state students or foreign nationals…as long as they are undergrads or professional grad students. {Cal PhD programs provide no admissions advantage for state residents, and indeed, certain Cal PhD programs in certain years will matriculate zero state residents as new students.} </p>

<p>But the BCR successfully made their point, and achieved national news exposure. Perhaps it’s the job of other groups to detail the other inequities that I mentioned.</p>

<p>

Well, the sports they focus on correspond to the local (US) market. You can’t really get rich here off video game “athletics”, but football players go on to become professionals worth millions of dollars. Perhaps these “academic institutions” shouldn’t be labeled as such anymore. Instead they have become credentialing funnels into society’s major money-making and prestige-oriented circles.</p>

<p>

Yes, I agree. But I also forgot to mention that I dislike legacy admissions as much as I dislike affirmative action.</p>

<p>People say that, but I don’t see the same anger and vitriol directed at legacy’s as I do when any sort of racial affirmative action is mentioned. Also note, the bill in question is not affirmative action in the regular sense of the phrase.</p>