Serious racism afoot at the University of Wisconsin

[Thunder]

What is the point of posting an argument in a forum based on political debate?...

that's a very self-defeating point of view.

 

[Thunder]

...BalancedPolitics.org - Affirmative Action (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)...

AA should exist as long as Americans suffer from the effects of racism & discrimination, caused by Jim Crow and other methods of racial discrimination in the USA.

As long as their are still millions of black children born & raised in poor neighborhoods set up using racist urban-planning methods, that destine them to poor educations, AA is still needed.

 

[Misterveritis]

Here is what you're trying hard to ignore

Tucker knows statistics.
But Tucker claims to be countering what the author stated. I do believe Tucker. I also believe the authors. The authors reported that the lowest white score equaled the highest score of the black applicants. Since those are raw scores rather than interpreted it is pretty hard to mess up. Tucker chose to select and evaluate 2007 data rather than the 2009 data used in the study.
So I withdraw my claim of lying. I think we are looking at two different sets of data.

 

[Misterveritis]

The proof you request, that AA is not based on race, is that more white people benefit from AA than any other racial group

Let us assume that you are correct.

My claim is that the state is rewarding the less capable over the more capable, without regard to skin color. So it really does not matter to the liberal who divides us into groups in order to set us upon one another. The end result is the same. Chaos.

 

[Misterveritis]

You are reading these data incorrectly. Those numbers correspond to percentiles.

As it is clear you understand statistics I respectfully disagree. Table two gave absolute scores. Not percentiles.
So we may be looking at two different data sets, which I suspect is the case. Or you have made an error. And since you seem to live statistics, you jumped on the opportunity to dive deep into the numbers.

I reviewed your work. It was pretty darned good. So we must be looking at two different sets of data. I was looking at the Wisconsin Undergraduate study.

 

[Misterveritis]

Understanding the data is not lying. you can't even read the study *(hint: you have a piss poor understanding of the data on page 12), so stop pretending to have a clue about which you speak.

I understand quite well, thank you.

I skimmed the study initially and returned to it after seeing your comments. I think we may be looking at two different studies. I reviewed the undergraduate study. The data set was focused on 2009. Your numbers are from 2007.

 

[Misterveritis]

Do you know what a percentile is and what it means?

Yep. so something else is in play here.

 

[Misterveritis]

The term "color-blind society" is offensive to those of us who are actually color-blind.

We can be racist, too, you know.

I am color blind as well.

As far as racism goes, I am coaching an engineer who is black as it is possible to be. I love the man. I think he has very great potential. I hired him about a year ago. I did not make a mistake. He has character.

 

[Aderleth]

The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.

http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/929/119/

Assuming that these stats are true...

You may be surprised that I agree with you on this issue. College (in general) and law school (in particular) really ought to be merit based. If it has anything to do with race, the system has failed. Having said that, there probably ought to be some accounting for the degree to which some of us come from substantially ****tier backgrounds than others. Put another way, education is already not equal in terms of one's access to reasonably competent primary and secondary education for largely economic reasons. That is just as insane (and just as much not merit based) as access to education based on race. There are ways to fix this problem. We have yet to embrace such options. This is one of the many reasons I'm not a libertarian. Libertarianism, in this context, has the effect of promoting oligarchy, not merit.

 

[Misterveritis]

Assuming that these stats are true...

You may be surprised that I agree with you on this issue. College (in general) and law school (in particular) really ought to be merit based. If it has anything to do with race, the system has failed. Having said that, there probably ought to be some accounting for the degree to which some of us come from substantially ****tier backgrounds than others. Put another way, education is already not equal in terms of one's access to reasonably competent primary and secondary education for largely economic reasons. That is just as insane (and just as much not merit based) as access to education based on race. There are ways to fix this problem. We have yet to embrace such options. This is one of the many reasons I'm not a libertarian. Libertarianism, in this context, has the effect of promoting oligarchy, not merit.

I am mostly white. I grew up very poor. I was in a family of eight. My father was wounded in the Korean war. He became, and lived, as an alcoholic. I decided to take a different path. I worked almost non-stop to be different than my father. I succeeded. I had failures along the way. But I never stopped trying to be the very best I could be.

For me Conservatism is home.

 

[Aderleth]

I am mostly white. I grew up very poor. I was in a family of eight. My father was wounded in the Korean war. He became, and lived, as an alcoholic. I decided to take a different path. I worked almost non-stop to be different than my father. I succeeded. I had failures along the way. But I never stopped trying to be the very best I could be.

For me Conservatism is home.

I am mostly white. I attended prep school mostly through primary and secondary education and essentially walked into a top tier university without trying very hard. Is that fair? Is that rational? Is it, to really bring my point home, merit based? If you had my background, and put in the work that you did, would you be in a substantially better position than you are currently in? Yes you would.

By the way, I grew up with people a lot more privileged than myself, and I know firsthand how many opportunities that created for them. See my point?

 

[Misterveritis]

I am mostly white. I attended prep school mostly through primary and secondary education and essentially walked into a top tier university without trying very hard. Is that fair? Is that rational? Is it, to really bring my point home, merit based? If you had my background, and put in the work that you did, would you be in a substantially better position than you are currently in? Yes you would.

By the way, I grew up with people a lot more privileged than myself, and I know firsthand how many opportunities that created for them. See my point?

Sure. But I would not trade places.
I really enjoy what I have because it exists solely because I want it to. You just sleep-walked through life.

 

[Aderleth]

Sure. But I would not trade places.
I really enjoy what I have because it exists solely because I want it to. You just sleep-walked through life.

Well that's not remotely true. I was somewhat lazy at the age of 18, but that didn't last long. Trust me - law school is not for lazy people, and the California Bar Exam is even less so. However, I'd never have gotten to that point without the benefits I accrued by virtue of my background. That's even more true for people whom I know who are more successful than I. These are people whose jobs have a direct impact on the lives of many people.

It's a useful assumption for you to make (that I've sleepwalked through life), but the fact is, a) that's not true (although it might be convenient for you to believe otherwise) and b) I have had a wide variety of opportunities that you have not had, independent of the relative degree to which we have worked for anything. Put another way:

Let's assume that you and I have worked just as hard. I would be (and, to be blunt, probably am) in a better financial and social position than you are. Is that reasonable? Is it logical? From a broad, societal perspective, is it a good thing?

Put another way, conservatives are fond of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, but how can you stand by that notion, if it's the case that lazy people benefit from their backgrounds, while harder working people are stuck with whatever socioeconomic background they come from? Do you honestly not see the problem with that? From the perspective of how education operates in this country?

 

[Misterveritis]

Well that's not remotely true.

Even better. You started out in a better position and found what you needed to do in life.

I was somewhat lazy at the age of 18, but that didn't last long. Trust me - law school is not for lazy people, and the California Bar Exam is even less so. However, I'd never have gotten to that point without the benefits I accrued by virtue of my background. That's even more true for people whom I know who are more successful than I. These are people whose jobs have a direct impact on the lives of many people.

It is true that there are some who begin higher and end higher. Does that matter given the very large numbers of people who begin as I did? The Bell Curve does a reasonably good job of explaining why elites such as you will always end higher than me. And yet I am very happy with what I have done with the crude material I had to play with.

It's a useful assumption for you to make (that I've sleepwalked through life), but the fact is, a) that's not true (although it might be convenient for you to believe otherwise) and b) I have had a wide variety of opportunities that you have not had, independent of the relative degree to which we have worked for anything. Put another way:

Let's assume that you and I have worked just as hard. I would be (and, to be blunt, probably am) in a better financial and social position than you are. Is that reasonable? Is it logical? From a broad, societal perspective, is it a good thing?

You may be better off. I cannot say. I am highly compensated. If I chose to do so I could work my way into a director's position and make even more. But I love life. I love wine. I love my mountain with its wild animals who come to my back door twice each day for food. I am happy where I am.

Put another way, conservatives are fond of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, but how can you stand by that notion, if it's the case that lazy people benefit from their backgrounds, while harder working people are stuck with whatever socioeconomic background they come from? Do you honestly not see the problem with that? From the perspective of how education operates in this country?

I was not stuck. I came from about as poor a background as one can imagine. I did have the good fortune of a high IQ. And, there are moments when I wonder how much better I might have been if I had had better parents and a better school. For me it is a matter of degree. I wish I could serve more. I wish I could provide more protections for the soldier, sailor, airman and marine who give all for us.

 

[Aderleth]

Even better. You started out in a better position and found what you needed to do in life.



It is true that there are some who begin higher and end higher. Does that matter given the very large numbers of people who begin as I did? The Bell Curve does a reasonably good job of explaining why elites such as you will always end higher than me. And yet I am very happy with what I have done with the crude material I had to play with.



You may be better off. I cannot say. I am highly compensated. If I chose to do so I could work my way into a director's position and make even more. But I love life. I love wine. I love my mountain with its wild animals who come to my back door twice each day for food. I am happy where I am.


I was not stuck. I came from about as poor a background as one can imagine. I did have the good fortune of a high IQ. And, there are moments when I wonder how much better I might have been if I had had better parents and a better school. For me it is a matter of degree. I wish I could serve more. I wish I could provide more protections for the soldier, sailor, airman and marine who give all for us.

What I am suggesting, in a nutshell, is that higher education should be afforded to the people who have earned it, and not to the people who have walked into it, by virtue of birth and good luck. I have the strange virtue of having been born relatively privileged, but surrounded by people who are substantially more privileged than myself. I have an abnormally high IQ (low 140s). I have parents who have professional degrees who had the good sense - and the means - to send me to a very good prep school. My father, by the way, is also an alcoholic, but also has a high paying professional job, a high IQ, a background at top tier schools, and a solid work ethic.
Wouldn't it be a good thing if your drive, intelligence, and ambition were the sole factors that limited your ability to succeed in this country? Wouldn't it be a good thing for people who have never worked for anything at all, who have earned nothing, who have inherited wealth and (therefore) influence, to have to earn their position in life?

 

[TurtleDude]

What I am suggesting, in a nutshell, is that higher education should be afforded to the people who have earned it, and not to the people who have walked into it, by virtue of birth and good luck. I have the strange virtue of having been born relatively privileged, but surrounded by people who are substantially more privileged than myself. I have an abnormally high IQ (low 140s). I have parents who have professional degrees who had the good sense - and the means - to send me to a very good prep school. My father, by the way, is also an alcoholic, but also has a high paying professional job, a high IQ, a background at top tier schools, and a solid work ethic.
Wouldn't it be a good thing if your drive, intelligence, and ambition were the sole factors that limited your ability to succeed in this country? Wouldn't it be a good thing for people who have never worked for anything at all, who have earned nothing, who have inherited wealth and (therefore) influence, to have to earn their position in life?

Hmm sounds familiar-did you go to one of the east coast schools or Cate etc on the WC? we are old old NY and Midwest money but everyone worked hard and did well at top schools including a brother who graduated first in his graduate school class at Harvard.

 

[Tucker Case]

I was looking at the Wisconsin Undergraduate study.

As was I. From the undergraduate study, p. 10:

Moreover, the SAT score for black admittees at the 75th percentile in 2007 (1260) was
equal to or lower than the Asian and white scores at the 25th percentile (1280 and 1260,
respectively).

Those were the data I was working with. They directly contradict your comment of:

For blacks the highest SAT score was 1260.
For whites the lowest SAT was 1260.

Now, we can't really guess what teh highest score of the black students was since it wasn't a normal distribution. Theoretically, it could have been 1261 and 25% of the black students got that score.

But since the white students did fall into a normal distribution, though (since the 25th and 75th percentile scores were equidistant from the median), we know that 1260 could not have been the minimum score for white students.

 

[Tucker Case]

I understand quite well, thank you.

I skimmed the study initially and returned to it after seeing your comments. I think we may be looking at two different studies. I reviewed the undergraduate study. The data set was focused on 2009. Your numbers are from 2007.

Odd. I reviewed the undergraduate study as well http://www.ceousa.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,274/ but I found no data form 2009. the other link in the article from the OP was the law school study, which I have not reviewed at all yet.

Do you have a link to the study which uses the 2009 data? It seems odd that there would be such a shift in maximum and minimum scores between 2007 and 2009.

 

[Misterveritis]

Odd. I reviewed the undergraduate study as well http://www.ceousa.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,274/ but I found no data form 2009. the other link in the article from the OP was the law school study, which I have not reviewed at all yet.

Do you have a link to the study which uses the 2009 data? It seems odd that there would be such a shift in maximum and minimum scores between 2007 and 2009.

Well. let me go find what I downloaded...
I am wrong. It is 2007 and 2008 data. The absolute scores are given:
2007
Blacks: 1090 - 1260
Whites: 1260 - 1400
Asians: 1280 - 1440
2008:
Blacks: 1050 -1290
Whites: 1260 - 1410
Asians: 1290 - 1450

So in 2007 there is no overlap of scores.
And in 2008 there is a 30 point overlap.

 

[Misterveritis]

As was I. From the undergraduate study, p. 10:



Those were the data I was working with. They directly contradict your comment of:



Now, we can't really guess what teh highest score of the black students was since it wasn't a normal distribution. Theoretically, it could have been 1261 and 25% of the black students got that score.

But since the white students did fall into a normal distribution, though (since the 25th and 75th percentile scores were equidistant from the median), we know that 1260 could not have been the minimum score for white students.

Okay. I went back and actually read instead of just skimming. You are correct. I admit defeat.

 

[Thunder]

Okay. I went back and actually read instead of just skimming. You are correct. I admit defeat.

admitting to being incorrect, makes you a winner in my book.

 

[Tucker Case]

Okay. I went back and actually read instead of just skimming. You are correct. I admit defeat.

I made a similar error earlier when I just skimmed it (when I reversed the numbers for applied and admitted, which I only caught after I decided to look further into the data).

It's easy to make mistakes, but it's much more difficult to admit to them. Kudos to you for your integrity. :thumbs:

 

[Misterveritis]

I made a similar error earlier when I just skimmed it (when I reversed the numbers for applied and admitted, which I only caught after I decided to look further into the data).

It's easy to make mistakes, but it's much more difficult to admit to them. Kudos to you for your integrity. :thumbs:

I apologize to everyone. I violated one of my foundation rules, to seek to understand before responding. I will not make that mistake again any time soon.

 

[Tucker Case]

I apologize to everyone. I violated one of my foundation rules, to seek to understand before responding. I will not make that mistake again any time soon.

For what it's worth, you've earned a great deal of respect from me.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I apologize to everyone. I violated one of my foundation rules, to seek to understand before responding. I will not make that mistake again any time soon.

Damn. You're a rare breed around here.