[W:148] Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.

[TurtleDude]

Oh boy... you and turtle are why institutional racism continues. You are simply so set in your bias and stereotypes that you cannot even see how illogical your position is. You even contradict yourself. You and turtle have already admitted that those that score high, and graduate top in the class can be poor in the field. And those that scored low..can be excellent.

And now its "but but I don;t want my doc to be the bottom of their class".

Well you need to think about that for a minute. So lets say that my alma mater graduates 120 doctors. All of course pass the medical exam and are licensed.
Now.. you don;t want to have a doctor that graduated in the bottom of their class. SO.. presumably.. you would not want the doctors that graduated 120 to say 101 because thats the bottom of the class. but maybe student 100 to 1 would be fine.

But what if that school had only admitted 100 students.. and they all graduated? Now all of a sudden..
Student 100 is at the bottom of the class. So the SAME doctor..that would have been FINE having... is NOW at the bottom of the class. so NOW you don;t want to have him/her.

but presumably you might now have student at 50.. since they are in the middle of the graduating class. But what if the school had only admitted 50 people? NOW that SAME DOCTOR.. is now at the BOTTOM of the class?

See where your error in logic is?

Turtledude exposed this further. He thought he was supporting his premise.. but he ended up saying that a black student that "rocks the lower quintile" at harvard...

Well if they went to an EASIER school.. they would be at the TOP of their class? ITS THE SAME PERSON WITH THE SAME ABILITIES!!!

At every turn your premise is being proven wrong and illogical.. and yet it persists.

you're the one who supports INSTITUTIONAL racism. Not I, not the other poster

 

[jaeger19]

you're the one who supports INSTITUTIONAL racism. Not I, not the other poster

Oh please.
You are literally proving my point.

Lets try AGAIN.

Let's say you offered a law class for prospective law students..and you went to the schools and had them submit prospective students based on their performance on an exam you design.
And you find all you get are black students and all women.
No men..no whites no Asians etc..
And you try to figure out why..year after year you only get black women in your class ..
And you discover that the school teachers are discouraging men from taking the test.
That some teachers are taking the black women aside and using the answer key and are giving them extra tutoring to do well on the test. The schools as an institution are purposely having black women an advantage in taking your test..( unbeknownst to the students of course..they just work hard)

This goes on for years and you discover a disturbing trend. There is a plethora of lawyers (again lawyers are mostly black women now), who are in the fields of family law, and divorce law... but very few in criminal law, and corporate law.
In addition, lawyers are a dime a dozen in urban areas.. particularly in large ones... but there is a dearth of lawyers in rural areas.


What would you do? Would you continue to only admit black women to your law class..knowing full well that good male and white candidates were being pushed out?
Please answer.

 

[LessBiased?]

Oh boy... you and turtle are why institutional racism continues. You are simply so set in your bias and stereotypes that you cannot even see how illogical your position is. You even contradict yourself. You and turtle have already admitted that those that score high, and graduate top in the class can be poor in the field. And those that scored low..can be excellent.

And now its "but but I don;t want my doc to be the bottom of their class".

Well you need to think about that for a minute. So lets say that my alma mater graduates 120 doctors. All of course pass the medical exam and are licensed.
Now.. you don;t want to have a doctor that graduated in the bottom of their class. SO.. presumably.. you would not want the doctors that graduated 120 to say 101 because thats the bottom of the class. but maybe student 100 to 1 would be fine.

But what if that school had only admitted 100 students.. and they all graduated? Now all of a sudden..
Student 100 is at the bottom of the class. So the SAME doctor..that would have been FINE having... is NOW at the bottom of the class. so NOW you don;t want to have him/her.

but presumably you might now have student at 50.. since they are in the middle of the graduating class. But what if the school had only admitted 50 people? NOW that SAME DOCTOR.. is now at the BOTTOM of the class?

See where your error in logic is?

Turtledude exposed this further. He thought he was supporting his premise.. but he ended up saying that a black student that "rocks the lower quintile" at harvard...

Well if they went to an EASIER school.. they would be at the TOP of their class? ITS THE SAME PERSON WITH THE SAME ABILITIES!!!

At every turn your premise is being proven wrong and illogical.. and yet it persists.

You don't seem to read carefully, and have inverted reality. Higher ranking in the class is generally better, there's a strong correlation. People near the top of the class who perform poorly, and people near the bottom who perform well, are the exceptions, not the norm!

 

[jaeger19]

You don't seem to read carefully, and have inverted reality. Higher ranking in the class is generally better, there's a strong correlation. People near the top of the class who perform poorly, and people near the bottom who perform well, are the exceptions, not the norm!

Nope.. I understand just fine.

I just pointed out.. according to your premise that you would be fine with number 50 in a class of 100 treating you.. because he was in the middle of the class.
BUT if that same individual had been in a class of 50.. then you would not be okay with being treated by them because they would have graduated last in the class.

There is not a strong correlation between the top performing well and the bottom performing poorly. You do not understand correlation.
I just showed you why such an assumption can be extremely wrong.

Yes.. there is a correlation in scores between say an SAT score of 600 and 1000.

But that predictably wanes as you get past a certain point. Frankly.. you could not tell the difference in clinical ability between number 1 in a class of 50 and number 100. The differences would likely be non discernable to a patient.
Which is why I bet that you have been treated by doctors and other clinicians that were in the lower third of their class.

 

[LessBiased?]

Nope.. I understand just fine.

I just pointed out.. according to your premise that you would be fine with number 50 in a class of 100 treating you.. because he was in the middle of the class.
BUT if that same individual had been in a class of 50.. then you would not be okay with being treated by them because they would have graduated last in the class.

There is not a strong correlation between the top performing well and the bottom performing poorly. You do not understand correlation.
I just showed you why such an assumption can be extremely wrong.

Yes.. there is a correlation in scores between say an SAT score of 600 and 1000.

But that predictably wanes as you get past a certain point. Frankly.. you could not tell the difference in clinical ability between number 1 in a class of 50 and number 100. The differences would likely be non discernable to a patient.
Which is why I bet that you have been treated by doctors and other clinicians that were in the lower third of their class.

Yeah, the cutoff for being a doc is high enough that most (not all) docs are fine, regardless of their class rank. But there's still a correlation and I prefer people who are near the top of the class.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I guess society needs to make a choice in who it disenfranchises and disadvantages.

 

[LessBiased?]

Damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I guess society needs to make a choice in who it disenfranchises and disadvantages.

Ideally, it would all be 'fair', but alas we don't live in a fair world.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ideally, it would all be 'fair', but alas we don't live in a fair world.

If we lived in a fair world, there would be no racial discrimination to correct in the first place.

 

[LessBiased?]

If we lived in a fair world, there would be no racial discrimination to correct in the first place.

Yes, I don't think we'll ever live in a world that has zero racial discrimination, because of birds of feather flocking together, groupthink, effects of history, etc. But things have generally been going in the direction over the past decades and centuries, which is great.

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't seem to read carefully, and have inverted reality. Higher ranking in the class is generally better, there's a strong correlation. People near the top of the class who perform poorly, and people near the bottom who perform well, are the exceptions, not the norm!

he seems to suggest it is worthless to grade or test students.

 

[TurtleDude]

If we lived in a fair world, there would be no racial discrimination to correct in the first place.

we don't make things "fairer" by punishing people who had NOTHING to do with ancient or even recent unfairness

 

[Logician Man]

we don't make things "fairer" by punishing people who had NOTHING to do with ancient or even recent unfairness

Remember that^ the next time you feel compelled to post "It's time to start starving certain people on the government tit." Starve the deadbeats who have children, and the children will be "punished" for something they had "NOTHING" to do with. Intentionally starving human beings has been deemed by civilized societies to be a form of 'torture.'

 

[TurtleDude]

Remember that^ the next time you feel compelled to post "It's time to start starving certain people on the government tit." Starve the deadbeats who have children, and the children will be "punished" for something they had "NOTHING" to do with. Intentionally starving human beings has been deemed by civilized societies to be a form of 'torture.'

ah more obsessive nonsense that has nothing to do with the thread. Do you support affirmative racial discrimination?

 

[Logician Man]

ah more obsessive nonsense that has nothing to do with the thread.

Wrong, yet again. It was 'you' who was crying about "not punishing" others for what they had "NOTHING" to do with. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy, per 'your' own posted words here at DP. Be thankful for the pro bono edification, and own your own posted words.

 

[Slartibartfast]

we don't make things "fairer" by punishing people who had NOTHING to do with ancient or even recent unfairness

Correct, we fix it by promoting those who were harmed.

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah, the cutoff for being a doc is high enough that most (not all) docs are fine, regardless of their class rank. But there's still a correlation and I prefer people who are near the top of the class.

Bingo. You just said it.. regardless of their class rank.

Tell me.. you have a doctor that graduated top in his class at a school that hands out degrees like they are candy.
You have a doctor at the bottom of the class at Harvard medical.

Tell me again the correlation.

Sorry dude.... but it just doesn;t fly.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, I don't think we'll ever live in a world that has zero racial discrimination, because of birds of feather flocking together, groupthink, effects of history, etc. But things have generally been going in the direction over the past decades and centuries, which is great.

And part of the reason for that is things like affirmative action that helps balance the scales to give those that have been discriminated against a better chance to catch up.

 

[jaeger19]

he seems to suggest it is worthless to grade or test students.

Not at all.

Again:

Let's say you offered a law class for prospective law students..and you went to the schools and had them submit prospective students based on their performance on an exam you design.
And you find all you get are black students and all women.
No men..no whites no Asians etc..
And you try to figure out why..year after year you only get black women in your class ..
And you discover that the school teachers are discouraging men from taking the test.
That some teachers are taking the black women aside and using the answer key and are giving them extra tutoring to do well on the test. The schools as an institution are purposely having black women an advantage in taking your test..( unbeknownst to the students of course..they just work hard)

This goes on for years and you discover a disturbing trend. There is a plethora of lawyers (again lawyers are mostly black women now), who are in the fields of family law, and divorce law... but very few in criminal law, and corporate law.
In addition, lawyers are a dime a dozen in urban areas.. particularly in large ones... but there is a dearth of lawyers in rural areas.


What would you do? Would you continue to only admit black women to your law class..knowing full well that good male and white candidates were being pushed out?
Please answer.

 

[jaeger19]

we don't make things "fairer" by punishing people who had NOTHING to do with ancient or even recent unfairness

AGain:

Let's say you offered a law class for prospective law students..and you went to the schools and had them submit prospective students based on their performance on an exam you design.
And you find all you get are black students and all women.
No men..no whites no Asians etc..
And you try to figure out why..year after year you only get black women in your class ..
And you discover that the school teachers are discouraging men from taking the test.
That some teachers are taking the black women aside and using the answer key and are giving them extra tutoring to do well on the test. The schools as an institution are purposely having black women an advantage in taking your test..( unbeknownst to the students of course..they just work hard)

This goes on for years and you discover a disturbing trend. There is a plethora of lawyers (again lawyers are mostly black women now), who are in the fields of family law, and divorce law... but very few in criminal law, and corporate law.
In addition, lawyers are a dime a dozen in urban areas.. particularly in large ones... but there is a dearth of lawyers in rural areas.


What would you do? Would you continue to only admit black women to your law class..knowing full well that good male and white candidates were being pushed out?
Please answer.

 

[TurtleDude]

AGain:

Let's say you offered a law class for prospective law students..and you went to the schools and had them submit prospective students based on their performance on an exam you design.
And you find all you get are black students and all women.
No men..no whites no Asians etc..
And you try to figure out why..year after year you only get black women in your class ..
And you discover that the school teachers are discouraging men from taking the test.
That some teachers are taking the black women aside and using the answer key and are giving them extra tutoring to do well on the test. The schools as an institution are purposely having black women an advantage in taking your test..( unbeknownst to the students of course..they just work hard)

This goes on for years and you discover a disturbing trend. There is a plethora of lawyers (again lawyers are mostly black women now), who are in the fields of family law, and divorce law... but very few in criminal law, and corporate law.
In addition, lawyers are a dime a dozen in urban areas.. particularly in large ones... but there is a dearth of lawyers in rural areas.


What would you do? Would you continue to only admit black women to your law class..knowing full well that good male and white candidates were being pushed out?
Please answer.

your silly hypothetical ignores way too many things to have any validity. we don't need to give slots to under qualified individuals at the really big bucks law schools.

 

[jaeger19]

your silly hypothetical ignores way too many things to have any validity. we don't need to give slots to under qualified individuals at the really big bucks law schools.

Pooh... thats funny. The only thing my hypothetical ignores is the fact that the advantages for those black women in my hypothetical... are way way way less than the ACTUAL advantages of being white particularly a white male.

TO REALLY make it valid. Not only would the black women get an advantage of extra teaching, and white males being discouraged in taking the test.
BUT.. I would have to add a long history of segregated education and at schools that white males attend. I would have to add that there would be very few white lawyers for white men to model. I would have to add that economically white men were disadvantaged in higher rates for loans, etc.. that all effects their ability to pay for extra educational opportunities, etc.
Heck, I would have to add that the test you were using for entrance was NOT made by you but instead was made by black women and was biased toward black women doing well.

Now THAT would make it more valid.

But you cannot even answer a hypothetical with just black women getting more advantage in extra teaching....

Everyone here knows why you will not answer. Because you know that you are completely and utterly wrong... but you just can't admit it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Pooh... thats funny. The only thing my hypothetical ignores is the fact that the advantages for those black women in my hypothetical... are way way way less than the ACTUAL advantages of being white particularly a white male.

TO REALLY make it valid. Not only would the black women get an advantage of extra teaching, and white males being discouraged in taking the test.
BUT.. I would have to add a long history of segregated education and at schools that white males attend. I would have to add that there would be very few white lawyers for white men to model. I would have to add that economically white men were disadvantaged in higher rates for loans, etc.. that all effects their ability to pay for extra educational opportunities, etc.
Heck, I would have to add that the test you were using for entrance was NOT made by you but instead was made by black women and was biased toward black women doing well.

Now THAT would make it more valid.

But you cannot even answer a hypothetical with just black women getting more advantage in extra teaching....

Everyone here knows why you will not answer. Because you know that you are completely and utterly wrong... but you just can't admit it.

why do under qualified individuals need to fill extremely hard to get spots at elite institutions -which mainly exist to supply law professorships and big bucks corporate slots

 

[jaeger19]

why do under qualified individuals need to fill extremely hard to get spots at elite institutions -which mainly exist to supply law professorships and big bucks corporate slots

 

[TurtleDude]

@jaeger19 : you never actually responded to the post of mine you quoted. What is the purpose of going to one of the most elite law schools? or for that matter-medical schools, and why should we waste slots on those who are not the most academically gifted applicants?

 

[trixare4kids]

your silly hypothetical ignores way too many things to have any validity. we don't need to give slots to under qualified individuals at the really big bucks law schools.

When we do it's called discriminating against those who are better qualified. Why do people try to buck the facts?