<p>[Redlining</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining]Redlining”>Redlining - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(As shown by the HOLC map in the article, the federal government actively endorsed and encouraged redlining.)</p>
<p>If racism affects things like black businesses in rich neighbourhoods, can you imagine what the effect is for social/schoolyard relations, parent support networks, etc.?</p>
<p>That is not the case rocket. Sorry</p>
<p>
That’s great. I’m glad to see Yale taking that sort of action. With that said, it’s just one school, and it obviously does not reach out to everyone.</p>
<p>
I feel fine about it. I went to a bad high school and did not have the opportunities that other students had. I am precisely the sort of person who should get a leg up.</p>
<p>
I am in favor of AA like programs that help people who grew up with the advantages of others. That’s fine and I think most people would agree that students from poor areas should receive aid. I scored very on the SAT and the LSAT but I’ll be the first to admit that I had lack luster ecs and still did well in the admissions game. I don’t think I got a boost, but I might have (I doubt it). Do I think it would be bad if I had? No, I don’t.</p>
<p>I’m not interested in emotional rhetoric or your personal anecdotes. I want to see data linking students poor performance to a culture which has itself been proven to lower the scores of people within that culture. I do not see this in this thread. I see personal anecdotes and emotionally charged assertions.</p>
<p>Oh, the work of a Nobel Prize winner in Economics isn’t good enough for you? You think his work is … personal anecdote? I’ve given you books by well-known authors. I’m sorry they don’t happen to be by white authors. I’m sure I can find some if you give me the time.</p>
<p>Sure, the argument may be emotionally charged, but they are based on fact. You respond to evidence-based arguments with one-liners Killbilly. Did you fail rhetoric class? Oh wait, you’re white, of course white people don’t fail, I’m SORRY.</p>
<p>It’s not personal anecdote – it’s a fairly common experience, fairly well-attested to by many minority families who try to move into richer white neighbourhoods. But of course, you have never experienced it yourself, have you? I’m sorry you’re so naive to think that you can simply assume that the effect size of subpopulation living in the same town will necessarily be the same as another subpopulation, when the subpopulations have different cultural and social histories. </p>
<p>Well, you could assume that to be the null hypothesis – and based on social evidence the null hypothesis has been unequivocally rejected. </p>
<p>The burden of proof is now on you!</p>
<p>
His book has nothing to do with intelligence as a psychometric quality, and economics has nothing to do with genetics. When you say have you heard of this book, you don’t support your arguments with evidence in the book- you mention the book and appeal to an authority whose relevance is unexplained.</p>
<p>
Check my posting history. I have posted a huge amount of evidence for my position.</p>
<p>
If you can prove this lowers IQ scores I will care.</p>
<p>No you’ve posted flawed evidence that has been analysed here by others. I’m currently responding to the standing arguments that haven’t been debunked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because every evolutionary biologist and geneticist knows how important economic theorems are to their work. (The classic example of course is Nash equilibria to Evolutionary Stable Strategies.) What bio lab do you work in? Your supervisor needs to know what ridiculous statements you’re making.</p>
<p>Economics is the study of independent self-interested agents, who sometimes associate with each other, form groups or contracts, and subpopulations…</p>
<p>Genetics is the study of independent self-interested agents (replicators – the classic example is Dawkin’s selfish gene but we can go much further than that), who sometimes associate with each other, form groups or genomes, and are linked to the heritable traits of subpopulations. </p>
<p>Surely if you work in genetics, you know of Maynard Smith’s famous paper: <a href=“http://www.jstor.org/pss/77441[/url]”>http://www.jstor.org/pss/77441</a></p>
<p>(And here’s his follow-up book: <a href=“Evolution and the Theory of Games - John Maynard Smith - Google Books”>Evolution and the Theory of Games - John Maynard Smith - Google Books)</p>
<p>Economics, has everything to do with genetics.</p>
<p>Amartya Sen came up with the famous liberal paradox you know – an argument essentially based mathematical proof that uses game theory. The discipline can be applied to both social behaviour (such as social agents dealing with race) and genetics. </p>
<p>Amartya Sen has co-authored papers with geneticists (namely because geneticists use so much of the same von-Neumann-ish mathematics that economists do). </p>
<p>And surprise – Amartya Sen is also one of the contributors to Meritocracy and Economic Inequality:</p>
<p><a href=“http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6818.html[/url]”>http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6818.html</a></p>
<p>Why should we not protest an injustice?</p>
<p>Is this your form of protest? You reference Jim Crow laws, but the key difference is that African Americans actually DID something in response to those unjust laws. So far you have yet to justify the existence of this thread. If you care as much as you say I’d recommend you do something other than whine about in on a message board where 90% of the community already agrees with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except there is clearly still a large crowd on this forum that disagrees with the OP’s sentiments. There are several different forms of protest; there is the activist stance, which strives to directly reform laws, and there is the informative stance, which strives to spread one side of an argument. I see nothing wrong with Killbilly discussing affirmative action on this forum except that this probably should belong in the designated thread regarding the topic.</p>
<p>rocket louise you seriously have not seen AA before.</p>
<p>"I’m sorry, but i support AA(and i’m a lower middle class white girl).
Its not like blacks and Latinos are held to lower standards, it’s just that if a black and white applicant have the same stats, the black one gets preferred…</p>
<p>You people act like a black kid with 24 on his ACT can get into harvard just because he’s black…now THAT’S racist"</p>
<p>they actually are held to lower standards…go to the stanford thread. You obviously dont know how AA works…they dont compare two students(thats not even how normal admission works).</p>
<p>edit: how do i quote</p>
<p>Go back and read the original post. Does it seem informative to you? It is nothing short of inflammatory.</p>
<p>Ugh, we have seen this before. ****ed off asian or white kid goes off about how unfair college admissions are. Seriously, if you care that much, do something! How about instead of wasting your time posting some firey tirade on a website where the majority AGREES with you, you can, I don’t know, put that energy into something productive or unique which can actually help your application. </p>
<p>This is just the beginning of an unnecessary flame war. Both sides have there arguements, and little will be done in discussing it over CC. Write a letter to a politician. Start a petition. Anything is better a series of whiny posts by rich kids who had to find that life is not as fair as they would like. So sad that you had to learn this lesson not by watching endless children in Africa die of disease and malnutition, but by watching an inner-city black kid with 2200 SATs get in over an asian kid with 2300 SATs.</p>
<p>Not every black and lationo “faces difficulties in his/ her life”. But it’s more ridiculous in this country because Asians are more discriminated than white</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you convince the NSF to give me some funding to pursue a follow-up study, OK. </p>
<p>Actually the existing literature is out there most likely (I just need to be more well-read); so for now let me pursue the [Austrian</a> School](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School]Austrian”>Austrian school of economics - Wikipedia) style of debate.</p>
<p>Let’s take redlining, which is evidence of social antagonism between whites and minorities even when the data is normalised for neighbourhood income. Do you expect that social antagonism to be primarily reflected in <em>just</em> business interests? Or do you think it will affect the non-monetary social relations of a minority family too, living in a prosperous neighbourhood?</p>
<p>Shunning of minority families by the white majority families in affluent neighbourhoods is a well-documented phenomenon. (I used an anecdote because you were so incredibly naive about it.) I do not think I need to expound on the implications. </p>
<p>You also have a tenuous grasp of population genetics. Some of the “black” African ethnic groups (particularly the Afro-Asiatic ones) are actually more related to Caucasians than some of the African groups to each other! Or did you not know that mtDNA evidence shows that the origins of the Somali people are from the Arabian peninsula? </p>
<p>You have heard of convergent evolution, right? </p>
<p>You’re the kind of white person who would think that the Chinese ethnicity and the Japanese ethnicity are related. Linguistic and genetic evidence (Y-haplotype, mtDNA) shows that the Japanese ethnicity has a close affinity with groups from the Ural mountains. In fact, Japanese, Finnish and Hungarian have been proposed to be part of the Ural-Altaic family. The dispute rests on the exact mechanism in which they are related – one school argues straight-out descent from a protolanguage, while the more conservative school argues sprachbund.</p>
<p>There’s very good evidence that the Chinese ethnicity had Indo-European gene flow via the more far-flung nomadic groups (Tocharians and their Indo-Aryan ancestors) and are in fact relatively young as an ethnic group. Linguistic evidence is especially compelling (see Sino-Platonic papers, co-edited by UPenn’s Victor Mair – for Indo-European cognates in Old Chinese.) Khmer and Austronesian substrata can also be found in the Southern Chinese languages. Recent gene flow between China and Japan is in fact, comparatively small (except for that time Japan raped China in 1937.) </p>
<p>But the white categorisation of “East Asian” ignores all this genetic and linguistic evidence, because they see some superficial similarity among East Asians, just like whites often see superficial similarity among black Africans. White categorisation is based on white ignorance. And if the categories are mistaken – what does that say for the studies of such categories that argue a strong genetic explanation for the observed effect sizes?</p>
<p>^ No one has ever stated that, nor do college admission officers believe such an hyperbolic statement. </p>
<p>And as for the second part…what? How is the fact that the U.S., founded under the England, is less “racist” towards whites than Asians such a “ridiculous” concept? Not that it is right, but thinking the opposite, that Asians in America would be less discriminated against, would just not be sensical.</p>
<p>AA shouldn’t be based on race because that’s just racist. It was intended and is argued today to be a means of helping students will unequal opportunities in school to take APs, play ECs, get a good education from a good school, etc. get an extra boost–and understandably. But to put so much emphasis on race/ethnicity and not the circumstances of one’s upbringing/schooling is a shame. AA should be just as holistic as college admissions is in general, factoring in anything significant that put applicants at a major disadvantage–but the color of one’s skin alone does not work because then you are taking the spots of other truly deserving students who aren’t minorities. Being based mostly on race has diminished what AA was intended to actually be, which is why it needs to be bettered. When it comes down to it, a poor white kid with equal stats/ecs as a rich black kid should get in over the black kid. </p>
<p>Food for thought: What about a poor black kid with equal stats/ecs as a poor white kid…then who do you pick and why?</p>
<p>Ugh, this is gonna sound awful, despite the pleasant intentions, but do you think that maybe they have AA to take the blacks and latinos, on average not as wealthy or prosperous as others, so that they can mix all the races together? I think maybe all colleges, work places, ect want to abolish the divisions between the races, so by accepting, hiring, ect minorities over majorities with almost equal stats, all the races mesh. Hmm, just a concept, but it is almost like a negative feedback loop. The more AA, the less division of races, more equality, less need for AA? Eh, I am just rambling…</p>
<p>skateboarder, re; "I’m going to start a scholarship for heterosexual, white, middle-upper middle class males. "
If you are targeting those who have no advantage in college admissions, you had better make the group middle class females. Most colleges acknowledge that they get many more qualified female applicants than males, but cut the males some slack because they want the class to be 50/50.</p>
<p>Isn’t AA based on income classist? That seems pretty unfair, too. And what about gender-based AA? Those scholarships intended only for left-handed people aren’t right either–is it my fault that my right hand is better equipped to handle tasks? No, I was born that way. Why can’t I get a scholarship for tall people? So what if I’m only 5’3–it’s genetics, darn it. Waahhhh! </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Sheesh, everybody wants a ‘handout’…</p>
<p>
Good question. I’d go for something arbitrary, like picking whichever kid isn’t from New Jersey, or whichever likes oatmeal as much as I do.</p>
<p>Get rid of Scalia? Rocket6louise, with all due respect, that was the most ignorant comment I’ve seen on CC. Scalis is one of – if not the – brightest minds on the Court. </p>
<p>Did you know that he and Judge Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx and attended public schools there? While Scalia graduated first in his class and summa cum laude Georgetown, she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. He then attended Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Law Review and graduated magna cum laude, she attended Yale Law where she admittedly stuggled. </p>
<p>Your argument really is: “Scalia isn’t as liberal as me, so let’s get rid of him!” If so, that’s a completely facist way of thinking. Fortunately, Ruth Ginsburg, the Court’s most liberal judge, doesn’t follow your lead. Scalia happens to be one of her best friends. </p>
<p>When Judge Sotomayor reaches the Court, and she will, she undoubtedly will become very close with Justics Scalia. This will happen because she, like Justice Ginsburg, are mature enough to realize that someone is not evil just because he or she embraces political opinions that differ from their own. I respectfully suggest you could learn from their examples.</p>