Indeed

Decided to share this with those that don't browse that wonderful site.

"Since when does your social status affect your chances on getting into university"

Since always.

Let's do this plot again, except this time show your chances of getting into a university as a function of your parent's income. You want a disparity, prepare to be amazed.

@ Yellowjacket - doesn't it make more sense that rich kids will get into colleges? Rich kids are:
1. More likely to be able to pay the tuition rate
2. More likely to have money donated to the school
3. More likely to donate to the school as they grow up

I don't have an issue with that. I DO have an issue with the image ILN posted. There is no reason a black guy should get into a school just because he's black when compared to a white guy.

It should be illegal for schools to know gender or race when deciding admissions.

No, actually it makes more sense for universities to accept the best students. And yes, there is actually a very good reason to accept that black guy. As someone who has actually worked in university administration, I will tell you that the university's mission is to educate students and produce scholarship. Both suffer if you have dreary homogeneity of thking and approaches. So, if you develop a student body and faculty that have a wide variety of perspectives and approaches, all students benefit.

Also, Chaga, keep in mind that universities are public or non-profit institutions. They aren't out to make a buck, so money isn't that much of a consideration frequently and shouldn't be. If we want soulless mindless dead institutions, we have corporations for that. Universities are trying to accomplish something entirely different.

(Also, keep in mind that places like Ivy Leagues could pay the tuition for the ENTIRE student bodies with a few weeks of interest on their endowments. Also, the tuition is largely paid by loans these days, so the universities get their cuts regardless. )

Wait a second, so it should be illegal to know gender or race to promote diversity, and it should be entirely dependent upon academic performance....

...until money enters the equation. Then its totally OK to pick and choose.

No, it should be illegal for schools to know whether a person can pay their tuition when deciding admissions.


I mean I scored in the top 98% of all my exams. Why does some rich brat who pulled C's get into Harvard and they laugh in my face? It's ALL about academic performance, right?

You've twisted my words. I meant that from the college's standpoint it makes more sense to accept the rich kids.

When deciding admissions, I believe it should all be about academics.

*change social status to ethnicity/religion/culture/sexual orientation.

I notice also that this is for law schools, which are also answerable to the bar associations (I happen to be a lawyer). Thus, the public mission of the public universities has to consider who will be in the legal profession down the line. One thing we know for sure: an all-white bar and judiciary is a disaster. There's plenty of evidence of that.

Also, this "model" is some random dude's notion of things made to drive advertising traffic and NOT anything that is in any way tied to anyone with any experience in actually, you know, law school admissions. This might as well be pulled from Fox News for all its validity is concerned. Really this looks like the numbers/outcomes are pulled out of a clever web programmers rear end. Notice that the realworldmachine site makes ZERO mention of the methodology or who these guys are. That tells you it's a web advertising gimmick, not anything reality based

Chaqa, I do understand what you're saying, but in effect it comes down to saying that with academic performances being equal, it's OK for a colleges to favorably view the rich white kid because he can pay his tuition, but it's not OK to favorably view the poor black kid for the diversity benefits.

I have a problem with that.

I just don't get where you're coming from. If two students are in every single way equal academically, but one is white and one is black (hell, they could both be named John Smith), then you have to decide - do we pick the one more likely to contribute to the long-term health and growth of our school (which could even be the black one if he is more wealthy) or do we go for some quasi-beneficial diversity aim?

There's no such thing as "diversity benefit" - it just doesn't matter what race you are, ever. It's irrelevant and shouldn't even be a discussion in any situation.

"There's no such thing as a "diversity benefit" "

Nice use of scare quotes, Chaqa. Please, tell us, are you white?

In the spirit of the conversation, I won't say, because why would it matter? How can my race in any way affect my opinion on something?

If someone is lazy it isn't because they're white, or black, it's because they're a lazy person.

I don't see any tangible benefit to diversity. I also don't see any harm from it. I just don't see "why"

The fact that you can't seem to understand that diversity is in a very real way beneficial to the very "long term health and growth of a school" speaks loads to your character. It's difficult to be a racist idiot when you're surrounded by competent minorities. For that reason alone it's beneficial, and Ogion has posited several other reasons already.

Um, well a ton of sociological and pedagogical research says you're wrong Chaga. I'm curious, how much have you actually taught? Because in fact a diversity of view points improves the level of intellectual activity and education in a way that high grades (from different schools and different teachers, so god knows what "same" even means) and test scores (where test scores are of very little value in understanding what a student brings) simply do not capture.

At the end of the day, educators are responsible for educating. Having a monocultural, uniform student body simply does not get the job done. It really doesn't. (And yes, I've taught at university level for years.)

In a society in which white people are in a position of privilege, built up over generations, the fact that you are white, if you are, would explain why you would be blind to white privilege.

Privilege is when you think something is not a problem, because it's not a problem for *you*, whitey.

"How can my race in any way affect my opinion on something?"

*snicker*

Well, I don't need any further proof he's white.

"Both suffer if you have dreary homogeneity of thking and approaches."

Bullshit...as a student in college, I sat in lecture halls and listened and took tests. the color of my skin did nothing to change the classroom, not did the color of anyone else's skin. For the record, most of my professors were non-white.

The funny thing about an education, facts are facts regardless of skin color, and this bullshit idea that a university is enhanced becuase of the race of the student body is pure idiocy. Pretty fucking funny, in fact,given that I'm sure Harvard, Princeton, etc were probably **very** white for a a very long period of time...and yet are the top school in the nation. Kind of throws your idiotic "you need diversity of color" to be the best argument right out the door.

Well, yes, Chaga, you don't see why, but then I suspect you haven't given the matter a whole lot of thought or done a lot of reading into the literature on the subject either. I'm afraid that it isn't much of an argument when someone who is mostly ignorant of a topic doesn't understand it. I am reminded of the old creationists fallacy of "evolution can't explain the origin of the eye so it must be wrong." JUst because some fundamentalist doesn't understand the explanation doesn't mean there isn't one, or that it has to be an explanation that primate brains grasp readily for evolution to have resulted in the eye. Same here. If you haven't done any research, then the fact that you don't see the benefit just doesn't carry a lot of weight.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Two students:

John A Smith
3.7 GPA
Applying for Econ major
White

John T. Smith
3.7 GPA
Applying for Econ major
Black

If the decision between these two is made for any reason other than a random coin flip (when they're exactly the same) then how is it fair? Picking the black guy for "diversity" is almost as racist as not picking him because he is black.

How do you know he isn't raised by white foster parents in an all-white town? How do you know if the "white" guy is the most culturally interesting person?

Race doesn't define us. Merits do.

Actually, Yellowjacket, there are plenty of minorities who subscribe to this view. Many Asian Americans do and I'll just mention Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and Allen West to name a few who certain think similarly.

Also, what Chaga is talking about isn't actually about privilege per se. He isn't arguing that white people don't have any hidden advantages, he is arguing that diversity doesn't bring any pedagogical benefit. That's a different argument.

The advantage of privilege enjoyed by white people in countries like the UK and US is hardly "hidden", Ogion.

“It's difficult to be a racist idiot when you're surrounded by competent minorities’ And yet, you advocate admitting *incompetent* minorities in order to meet an artificial quota….*incompetent* because you want kids admitted that otherwise don’t demonstrate the intellectual competence of the school base requirements…i.e. white kid wouldn’t make it with these grades/scores, but <wink wink> that’s competent enough if you are black. It’s actually pretty fucking racist and insulting to lower the standards for those poor little darkies, who just aren’t smart enough to meet white standards…

And then because they have been put in to a university they otherwise were not qualified to get in to, I *guarantee* they have a higher drop-out rate, thus creating…<wait for it…> a perception of racial incompetence!!! Yay for failure!!! Another example of good intentions gone horribly wrong…

http://thedartmouth.com/2013/11/04/news/graduation-rates-differ-significantly-across-race
“What do the 3 percent of white students who don’t graduate look like? Do they have anything in common with the 10 percent of black students?”
No...the white made it to school by merit and competence, whereas some blacks made it out of pity while being incompetent. Yay for good intentions....

race does define us, unfortunately, and it is because it has an impact on how you are treated. being black leaves you disadvantaged, by society, compared to whites, all else being equal, but people don't chck their privilege and understand that (i.e. chaqa)

"race doesn't define us"? Maybe not define, but damn if it doesn't have a huge impact on world view.

I would say that you are hinting at your own answer. YOu have to look beyond the test scores. If our black John Smith is the son of wealthy black parents who live in an exclusive town and went to all private schools and is culturally similar to his privileged white counter parts, while our white John Smith is the son of a poor Appalachian single mom and organized his high school classmates to fight mountain top mining and took on his town and state's power structure, then yeah, the white student brings more diversity (and more indication of leadership too boot).

If however, John T. and John A. are, say classmates at the same privileged school and otherwise identical, the public mission of the institution suggests that you should take the black one anyway (since they're a coin flip), if only so that your other privileged white students get used to the idea of having talented, sharp black colleagues. It will serve them well down the line better than having a culturally and ethnically uniform experience. I guarantee that.

@ Jamie
not to you and I, but to a great many white people, it appears to be utterly invisible. That's what I meant.

"(And yes, I've taught at university level for years.) "

Ummmm...by all accounts, our education system is falling apart in the US...so saying you have been a part of it...that's a strike against you. You are part of the problem, because your libtard idiocy is destroying our schools.

Ogion has more eloquently explained what I was getting at, at least in his second paragraph.

I understand the concept of white privilege, but I think you have to watch out for being "anti-racist" if that makes sense. Giving black, or hispanic, or asian people privileges that whites don't have to "offset white privilege" seems almost worse in some ways.

It's similar to when the Germans were punished for WW1. WW1 wasn't really Germany's fault (not alone at least) but their children were punished for it. Now we talk of white privilege, when no one alive today was involved in slavery, and very few were involved (and going down every day) in the Jim Crow era.

Krellin thinks it's funny to try to insult people by insinuating that they are gay lovers. Don't give him the time of day.

Countless people have been killed and will be killed because they're gay, and yet....

And while we're at it, it's time for you to retire "libtard", because mental retardation is a medical condition and not a character flaw, and your use of that term is disgusting.

I'm done pulling punches with you.