Funny, it seems to me that you tried to use your friend as an illustrative example. I guess I should have realized that your post was, as usual, just pointless.

Thanks for the brilliant insight, as always.

and thanks for yours.

SantaClausowitz, everyone!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

*continues making air jerk motion*

@ bo_sox48

"They need to start basing their "bonuses" on backgrounds instead of race, because in our society, people of different backgrounds will come from different races, religions, nationalities, religions, etc., and their diversity quotas will be filled anyway, only more fairly."

Why have 'bonuses' at all? Nothing should matter beyond GPA, SAT/ACT score, entry essay/writing sample, and recommendation(s). In the event of a tie between two candidates, the tiebreaking factor should be a secondary criteria such as extracurricular activities.

@ Jamiet99uk

"Please let us all know when you've stopped race from mattering."

Don't patronize me. Is it a *bad* thing for me to argue in favor of no longer asking for a candidate's race? It's kind of hard to be racist if you don't know a person's race. The fact that race still matters is simply proof that racism is alive and well.

"Nothing should matter beyond GPA, SAT/ACT score, entry essay/writing sample, and recommendation(s)."

Sure, if you believe in a robotic system that can't have its own beliefs on whether or not diversity is important. It clearly isn't to you. If you run an institution someday, you can decide how to admit students yourself. It's far more complex than you seem to think, and your line of thinking completely ignores a number of issue that most, if not all, admission offices take highly under consideration. Going to school is a big deal, as is admitting a student, and a school ought to put as much effort as possible into knowing their entrants as they can, and with only four or five important criteria, there's no way to actually know who you're admitting.

But why does race matter to that? Or background? I mean, sure, diversity is great. But are you willing to give a *clearly* better candidate a rejection because someone who happens to be less "normal" than him applied as well?

Background matters because privilege is real and I hope I don't need to debate that. I don't know that race necessarily matters, but if one impartially offers perks to those of certain backgrounds over others, he would find a ridiculously close correlation between race and privilege. Regardless, background seems to be the better qualifier as opposed to race.

So you are definitely OK with losing acceptance to a college, grad school, or employment opportunities to someone who is absolutely not as qualified as you and hasn't worked as hard as you, but had a slightly harder life?

I am open to the idea of companies and institutions making their own choices of who to hire on whatever criteria they want, so yes.

bo, don't dodge the question. He asked if you support their using a specific criterion. Nobody is questioning their right to use whatever criteria they want -- but what criteria *should* they use?

To answer the question posed to bo

YES

I am completely fine with the possible occasions that I "lost" (I don't like that word because it assumes I am entitled to whatever position before a decision) placement in jobs, schools, scholarships etc. to people "who is absolutely not as qualified as you and hasn't worked as hard as you, but had a slightly harder life? "

This likely happened when applying to undergraduate institutions and it DEFINITELY happened with jobs due to veterans preference.

The bottom line is that in certain occasions, societal injustice, honorable service, I am happy to attend another school or take another position in order to do what is right.

And I think Cyrus has the unfortunate understanding that someone with a higher score on the SAT or more lines on the resume has "worked harder." This is an untrue generalization based in privilege.

I said yes, semck. If they don't want to hire me because I don't have purple hair, then that's that. If they don't want to hire me because they want to hire someone else, fine. That isn't dodging.

People think life is like a video game. There's not an objective "doctor skills" ranking for a white guy that's manifestly at a 95/100, but some black guy gets to be a doctor instead even though his ranking is only a 90/100, so that white guy has to go be a barista.

In particular, this: "Nothing should matter beyond GPA, SAT/ACT score, entry essay/writing sample, and recommendation(s)." is a terrible idea. These things don't measure the best candidates, "best" is a mostly subjective determination, and their measurements are clearly influenced by the economic and racial inequalities of the US.

If you focus on just SAT/ACT and writing samples, you're going to undervalue candidates from certain backgrounds, and because of America's racist history (and present), a disproportionate percentage of those candidates are going to be black. Affirmative action is a clumsy way of addressing that. That people don't understand this fairly straightforward fact is very confusing to me. If you think affirmative action doesn't work, great. I basically agree. If your solution is "Get rid of it and don't do anything to replace it," then that's worse.

For a handful of programs and institutions (I am thinking of places like MIT), you can probably just focus on test scores. But I teach college history. I don't want that to be the make-up of classes I teach. There's a lot of other things that go into college and life success.

Santa, no I don't. The only thing the SAT measures is how well you take the SAT. When I was talking about "working harder" I genuinely meant that. Work ethic. I don't support only GPA/ACT/SAT. I think interviews are great, you get their people skills, their human interaction. You can tell a lot about a person that way. And that should be taken into account. But someone else getting a position, that I was competing for that I was clearly better suited for, just because their parents paid on a lower tax bracket just irks me.

Ckroberts wins again.

I bet being privileged sucks! I heard the most deprived group in America was upper Middle class straight white males.

Oh, but just wait until someone comes in just a little bit worse off than you SD! Then you lose any semblance of favoritism :)

I am so sick of hearing the whole "privilege" bullshit. You all accuse test scores of being biased? The concept of *privilege* is much more biased!

I have a friend. His dad is filthy rich. His dad's income is probably in the mid-to-high six figures. His dad built his own business from the ground up, but that's beside the point. My friend happens to be a white male, and under most criteria he would certainly fall into the category of "privileged" because of his dad's income. But my friend's dad is a hardass. He hasn't given my friend a damned thing besides food and shelter up to the age of 18. My friend works very hard; 16 hours a day, six days a week in a machine shop. My friend is smart (with the grades, test scores, and writing ability to prove it) and he wants to go to school. You would keep him out of college over a less-qualified candidate just because my friend's dad is wealthy? Without acknowledging the fact that my friend has been completely cut off from dad's money since he was 18?

Now who's being unfair?

GPA, SAT/ACT scores, recommendation(s), and writing samples aren't as objective as the probably should be, but it's still the most objective criteria of anything. Particularly race or "privilege".

@ bo_sox48

"Diversity" [blah blah blah]

Diversity is one of the single most overrated attributes of any given group because it is inherently racist, sexist, and every other kind of -ist. "Oh, no! We have too many white guys in this group! We better bring in a few token black guys so we look diverse!"

Diversity is nothing but left-wing racism/sexism and the word itself makes me sick to my stomach. True diversity is a product of *background*, not race, religion, or gender. Give me ten white guys from all walks of life over five white guys and five black guys with the same background.

"True diversity is a product of *background*, not race, religion, or gender. Give me ten white guys from all walks of life over five white guys and five black guys with the same background."

That's... umm... racist. A lot racist.

If that's not apparent to you, please don't join discussions on the matter.

"You would keep him out of college over a less-qualified candidate just because my friend's dad is wealthy?" He'd get in for the money either way. Colleges take the money first and foremost.
"True diversity is a product of *background*, not race, religion, or gender. Give me ten white guys from all walks of life over five white guys and five black guys with the same background." Though, it's fair to also note that background will partially stem from those attributes. Not much, but at least a little. Regardless, I see your point here, and it's a good point. That's why when I think "diversity", I think of differing cultures and backgrounds.

Wait a second - question. Did you even read what I said? I'm pretty sure I said that diversity is a product of background.

Oh, yeah, I did.

I'm tired of hearing about race. With all of the affirmative action programs we have now, either put up or shut up. We've done all we can to institutionally advantage minority groups. What else is there to be done?

"We've done all we can to institutionally advantage minority groups."

!!!???

bo: I didn't really read the thread, I just commented on what Gunfighter was saying. Looking through now, it seems even he quoted where you said something of that nature regarding background.

Hiring advantages, massive SAT and GPA adjustments for school admissions, etc. No society is totally fair or unprivileged. What other kinds of compensations and adjustments should our culture try to construct?