Study: What Happens When You Get Rid of Affirmative Action?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:06 PM GMT
    "Graduation rates of minorities increased by 4.4%". Interesting no matter which side of the fence you sit on on whether or not we should have affirmative action.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/15/what-happens-when-you-get-rid-of-affirmative-action/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:12 PM GMT
    I don't quite know the semantics of Proposition 209 but it never made sense to me to use race as a judging factor when the real thing you're trying to do is boost people out of lower income classes. Why not just use affirmative action across the board for those who live in certain areas or make only so much money? Again, I'm no genius or expert on affirmative action but this is the way I understand it.

    Seems odd to use a factor such as something that is merely part of our appearance in the purely physical sense to decide where we go in life.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 15, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    Affirmative Action has nothing to do with graduation rates, but it is certainly about entrance rates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:19 PM GMT
    If affirmative action is about raising everyone out of poverty, and not certain targeted audiences, then it should be about class and income only as opposed to including race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:29 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidIf affirmative action is about raising everyone out of poverty...

    It isn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:30 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidAffirmative Action has nothing to do with graduation rates, but it is certainly about entrance rates.

    this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:33 PM GMT
    I prefer the British term "positive discrimination." ... icon_eek.gif ... That would fuck up brains in America. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:40 PM GMT
    IceBuckets saidI don't quite know the semantics of Proposition 209 but it never made sense to me to use race as a judging factor when the real thing you're trying to do is boost people out of lower income classes. Why not just use affirmative action across the board for those who live in certain areas or make only so much money? Again, I'm no genius or expert on affirmative action but this is the way I understand it.

    Seems odd to use a factor such as something that is merely part of our appearance in the purely physical sense to decide where we go in life.

    I think the idea is that Blacks were being discriminated against, while whites weren't. So, the poor whites could take advantage of opportunities not available to Blacks. Therefore, affirmative action had to be legislated to make sure that Blacks had some opportunities that otherwise bigots would withhold from them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 10:48 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    mocktwinkles saidIf affirmative action is about raising everyone out of poverty...

    It isn't.


    Well, there's a reasonable discussion to be had about whether it should be, and if not now, then at what point blacks have reached sufficient socio-economic success overall that it should.

    I do not pretend to have any answers to these questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 15, 2012 11:33 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    coolarmydude saidAffirmative Action has nothing to do with graduation rates, but it is certainly about entrance rates.

    this.


    Please do elaborate on just what you're getting at?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 6:41 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    Upper_Cdn said
    coolarmydude saidAffirmative Action has nothing to do with graduation rates, but it is certainly about entrance rates.

    this.


    Please do elaborate on just what you're getting at?


    Upper_Cdn is taking a short term view of affirmative action. The argument is that the reverse discrimination can/could correct historical wrongs to a given set of minorities. The problem is that when you lower admissions requirements without providing other assistance, it's unhelpful because more flunk out (and this makes sense - lower the bar to get in, but not while you're there, you would expect to see worse results).

    So the study basically looks at this trade off. It's up to policy makers and voters to decide if this trade off is worth it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 7:26 AM GMT
    Yeah, voters of the country it pertains to. Ya know, the United States...where you don't live.

    On another note, I think AA has outlived its use and like every other thing is being abused.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2012 7:42 AM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidYeah, voters of the country it pertains to. Ya know, the United States...where you don't live.

    On another note, I think AA has outlived its use and like every other thing is being abused.


    It's an open question in Canada and most western countries as well.