Jonah Goldberg has a terrific column today on NRO about how racial preferences discriminate against Asians.
Among many good points is his observation
that when racial preferences are lifted, whites don
Favored vs. Disfavored Minorities
Say What? (66)
Say What?
Previous Entry: A Purge Of Republicans At Virginia State University?
Next Entry: Diversity Breaking Out At Michigan!
Actually, at least in California, white people would be much better off with strict racial quotas in college admissions than what is in place now. Now, black and Hispanics get covert, back-door preferences (in violation of Prop 209), and whites have to compete almost evenly with far-higher-scoring Asians.
If either one of the following CONSISTENT admissions policies was used: 1. Quotas for all races 2. All applicants judged on academic qualifications……
white students would be about 45% of the UC & UC Berkeley total, since they are about 42% of high school grads, and score just above average in terms of academic qualifications. But… the admissions % for whites ARE under the current system:
36.6 at the UCs overall
35.5 at UC Berkeley.
As for the back-door preferences, look at the average SATs for admitted students by ethnicity in 2004:
UC Berkeley:
Asians: 660/729 – total 1389
White: 662/694 – total 1356
Latino: 578/623 – total 1201
Black: 530/555 – total 1085
UCLA:
Asians: 645/718 – total 1363
White: 652/690 – total 1342
Latino: 586/607 – total 1193
Black: 515/551 – total 1066
link: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/UC_FTF_Averages_Data.ASP
So, basically, whites are at a small advantage compared to asians, but at a HUGE disadvantage compared to Blacks and Hispanics. And at a huge disadvantage overall, since there are far more Hispanics in California than asians.
When you look at those numbers the first thing that comes to your mind is why do they make people take the SATs if they don
“Actually, at least in California, white people would be much better off with strict racial quotas in college admissions than what is in place now.”
That’s assuming that getting as many white people into their college of choice benefits white people. If I had to have brain surgery, I’d rather have either an Asian or black surgeon who got into med school on merit (grades and ability), than a white AA admit; as a white person, I can’t see the benefit of strict quotas here.
Laura,
The 1 of every 4 white students who is qualified for admission to a UC college who is kept out of a UC college because of the current anti-white admissions policies might disagree with your assertion that getting into college doesn’t benefit white people.
Also, with strict quotas, why would you go to a black surgeon over a white one? With strict quotas, the average white doctor will still be way more qualified than the average black doctor. The only difference would be that the average asian doctor would be way more qualified than the average white doctor.
So even with strict quotas, you – as an individual making rational choices – can go to asian doctors if they’re the ones who have to meet the highest standards, just like right now you can choose to only go to white or asian doctors instead of black or Hispanic doctors. You as an individual consumer don’t suffer.
Affirmative action doctors will still have jobs and make money even if you don’t patronize them. Very few consumers actually choose to not hire black/Hispanic CPAs, doctors, lawyers, etc. due to them being less qualified on average due to racial preferences.
Also, due to the Griggs Supreme Court decision, and the 1991 so-called “Civil Rights Act”, companies cannot use qualifications (like Medical school GPAs or MSAT scores) as a factor in hiring if it results in a “disparate impact” – i.e., any non-white job applicant group scores lower on average than white applicants.
Businesses are assumed guilty of discrimination until proven innocent if quotas aren’t met unless they can prove they use standards involving a “business neccessity”.
So hospitals & medical clinics can demand a medical degree as qualifications, but cannot use med school GPA, MSAT, etc as qualifications because they can’t prove that high grades/test scores are a “business neccessity”. And therefore, even if many people refused to patronize “affirmative action” doctors, hospitals and medical clinics would still be forced to hire them – it’s the LAW. So even if white doctors got a bad reputation as being unqualified – like black/Hispanic doctors have now – they would still have the jobs and the income that they are denied right now due to anti-white admissions.
Did you guys read my post about Patrick Chavis? Chavis was the poster boy for medical school preferences for blacks during the Bakke era.You know by now the ignonimous that he led in contrast to Bakke. Furthermore , consider the claim of race preferentialists that increasing the number of favored minorities in a school will increase understanding and harmony among the races, really? Here in LA, there are many high schools where the majority of students are either blacks or Latinos or blacks. If people had been reading the papers lateley, you will see substantial number of racial brawls between blacks and Latinos, between latinos and Armenians etc.. How can people say that increasing the number of blacks or Latinos in a school will decrease this interracial conflict. How you look at other people of different races has more to with you ethical and moral values than any government ukase or order telling a school to increase the number of blacks or Latinos due to the need for “diversity” There were exactly 2 blacks and 14 Mexicans who scored above 1400 SAT who enrolled at Berkeley’s freshman class for fall 2004. Contrasst that to 676 Asians who had the same qualification who enrolled in Berkeley’s freshman class for fall 2004.The level of desperation of schools to enroll even the slightly better performing black or Chicano student can be really tangible. TAke the case of the story that appeared in the LA Times. Brown University accepted a Latino student from Roosevelt HI School with just a a score of 1090 SAT. Her rejection from UCLA did not stop Brown from admitting her. Why did brown accept her? Not because Brown loved Latinos or Chicanos or to help the poor or for any other altruistic reason but because of the need for Brown to fulfill its racial qouta for Latinos.Brown simply did not want to have the label of being called ” racist “.Anybody can tell Ruth Simmons as to what I had just said in this post. If Brown really wanted to help the poor, it could have admitted applicants from Roosevelt HI School with lower SAT scores who are poorer than the aforementioned Latina. I bet that the Brown accepttee with that SAT score of 1090 was more affluent than many of her fellow Roosevelt HI classmates. But of course in the eyes of brown , accepting that Latina would not only raise the average SAT score fo the Brwon freshman entering class but also fulfill its racial qouta for Latinos. Tells you something about the truly very selfish nature of these Ivy and Liberal arts schools admissions policies.
I meant in my previous post that Patrick Chavis led an ignonimous and eventful life in
contrast to that of Alan Bakke who had a quiet and uneventful one after they both got out of medical school.
Will, I think you misunderstand me. I’d rather not have the quota. I’d rather have standards for admission and retention that everyone has to meet, and let the better man win. Even if that means that individual white people don’t get what they want, white people as a whole, and black people and Asians, are better off. I think you’re afraid that the top schools will be 100% Asian. If they’re the best students, so be it. We all still benefit.
This is a fascinating thread on many levels.
On one hand we have Will:
>>>Actually, at least in California, white people would be much better off with strict racial quotas in college admissions than what is in place now. Now, black and Hispanics get covert, back-door preferences (in violation of Prop 209), and whites have to compete almost evenly with far-higher-scoring Asians.”
While Laura states:
>>>I’d rather have standards for admission and retention that everyone has to meet, and let the better man win. Even if that means that individual white people don’t get what they want, white people as a whole, and black people and Asians, are better off.”
This is indeed fascinating. Now I don’t neccesarily agree with either one, but at least Laura has an admirable tone of “equal treatment”, at least to some level, where Will does not.
–Cobra
Cobra, I’m going to ask you a fairly horrifying hypothetical question. I don’t know anything about your circumstances, so if I’m getting into sensitive territory, I apologize.
Suppose that you had a diagnosis of cancer and you had to pick an oncologist totally at random. This is analogous to what happens to people in rural areas or who have very restrictive insurance, who don’t get any choice. Would you hope you got the best black oncologist, or the best oncologist, period?
My point is that in considering whether AA in college admissions is beneficial or not, I don’t think the pro- and con- arguments ought to be restricted to what’s best for prospective college students. I think they ought cover what’s best for all of society, including old folks and people not yet born. If, for example, AA takes any of the pressure off the push to improve our horrible inner city schools, that hurts even little first graders, black and white.
I’m taking a class in microbiology at the local State U. It’s for my job, and it’s my first venture into the classroom since I graduated in 1982. I was a bit trepidatious at first, but I’m actually enjoying the heck out of it. But we started out with a class of 96, and lots of people didn’t get in because it filled up so fast, and now we have between 20 and 30 attending that class. Almost half have dropped out totally, and several who attend probably should. Why? Because they did away with prerequesites for some reason, and you can’t cut it in that class without some chemistry and biology background. So now you have (a) people who possibly could have succeeded but didn’t get in, and for most of them that means a delay getting into nursing school, thus contributing to the severe nationwide shortage in nurses; and (b) people who wasted their time and in many cases their tuition money and have withdrawals or D’s and F’s on their records. I don’t know anything about the race of the people who dropped, and don’t care, but this is no way to run a railroad. It just doesn’t help anyone for admission standards to be based on anything other than “can you cut it in this program”.
Laura says about me: “I think you’re afraid that the top schools will be 100% Asian.” – even though I never said that. I said that with either 1. no quotas for anyone or 2. quotas for everyone – whites would be about 43-45% of the students at the top schools in California, MUCH more than the 35% you have at UC colleges now. Please don’t read anything into my statements.
and Cobra,
Like I said, I prefer no preferences/quotas for anyone, unlike YOU, who adamantly supports discriminating against white kids. I’m just saying that if whites get minimum quotas, just like blacks and Hispanics, then there will be a de facto maximum quota for asians. That’s simple logic, not too hard to understand. Or have you invented a new type of math where you can have minimum quotas for all non-asians without having a maximum quota for asians???
Laura,
If you were choosing between a black/Hispanic and a white/asian doctor and you had no other information about the doctor other than the doctor’s race, would you choose the white/asian doctor over the black/Hispanic doctor, knowing that the standards are so much lower for Hispanic/black doctors?
Will, as far as I know, the lower standards are for getting into medical school. I’m not aware of racial preferences on graduating or obtaining board certification. So I wouldn’t care about the race of my doctor. If I found out that there were preferences on graduating or obtaining board certification, though, I’d be a fool not to care. One of my objections to AA at the admissions level is that people who could cut it in the program might not get a slot because somebody who has less chance of making it did get in. I certainly hope that’s as far as it goes.
Laura,
There is affirmative action (racial preferences) in hiring for doctors. Hospitals and medical clinics must comply with the 1991 Civil Rights act, which disallows any standard that does not result in hiring quotas (aka a “disparate impact”), unless the company can prove a “business neccesity” for those standards. And therefore, hospitals must hire black and Hispanic doctors with worse grades in medical school than whites and asians, since the courts don’t consider hiring based on medical school GPA to be a “business neccessity”. Therefore, less qualified doctors (blacks/Hispanics with lower medical school grades) must be hired.
Do hospitals want to consider medical school GPA in hiring? Should they? Once I graduated (in a non-medical field, of course) I’m not aware of any of my prospective employers caring about my GPA over the years. That I graduated, and that I could get the job done, mattered. I’d like to see board certification, though.
By the way, do you think that hospitals and medical clinics are audited by the federal gov’t on a routine basis to make absolutely sure they aren’t disproportionately hiring medical school graduates with higher GPA’s who are white? I kind of doubt it.
Laura,
Info for medical licensing exam:
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/sept_2001_3.html
“Thus cumulatively, 24% of black medical students at Michigan State failed to complete the first stage of obtaining a medical license compared to only 5% of white students. Among Hispanics the combined rate was 8% and among Asians, 2%.
So, basically, blacks fail the exam far more than others, with Hispanics, whites, and asians clustered fairly close together.
Of course this means that a higher % of blacks don’t become doctors. But also, if MSU is a fairly typical college, and grades follow the normal bell curve distribution, statistically, a lower pass rate would mean a lower average score overall for blacks, and even among those who DO pass and become doctors, blacks will have lower scores on the certification tests.
Well, I do know that all corporations or entities with at least 15 employees have to give affirmative action information to the government to make sure that they have quotas filled, due to the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which disallows hiring criteria like grades on certification exams or medical school, since it results in a “disparate impact” and courts have ruled that such criteria are not a “business neccessity”.
Will, from where are you drawing those “no quotas for anyone” numbers? As I read the John Moores’ report there would be an increase of about 1% for whites at Berkeley and UCLA, and that for the overall UC system whites would actually be admitted at a very slightly lower rate than they currently are.
As I’ve posted before, at least based on numbers the significant story in UC admissions isn’t one of whites, who are admitted at about the expected rate, or of blacks, who are a tiny population within both the state and universities; it’s that spots are being taken from Asians and awarded to Hispanics.
Laura,
My HONEST answer to your question is that I’d want the best oncologist I can afford–but with a caviat. I want an oncologist who had MY BEST INTEREST IN MIND. Unfortunately, I’ve had to recently deal with immediate family illness, particularly with older relatives. At the inner city hospital, there were many doctors on call in the ICU, from foreign trained immigrants from Sri Lanka, to African American women, to orthodox Jews. At no point did I see any of their certifications, test scores, or degree frames.(not saying that I wasn’t allowed to ask for it) All I, or my family had to go on was the quality of care provided, from the explanation of procedures and conditions, to the comforting nature of their bedside manner.
I don’t understand what Will’s issue with this is anyway, because in managed care, HMO America, most of the time you don’t get to CHOOSE your doctor, much less a SPECIALIST, whose cost might not be included in your coverage. Let’s not even discuss, as you alluded to Laura, the poor or uninsured, who have no choice whatsoever.
Will writes:
>>>Like I said, I prefer no preferences/quotas for anyone, unlike YOU, who adamantly supports discriminating against white kids.”
I think what we have here, is a disconnect on terminology.
Where have I ever posted that I am in favor of “quotas?” A preference is NOT a quota. Number two, “white kids” are also beneficiaries of preferences. Take the largest group of white kids…WHITE FEMALES. Why do you fail to acknowlege that millions of white girls have gotten boosts from AA? Maybe you need to RE-READ LBJ’s Executive Order from 1965 on Affirmative Action.
>>>Government also may enforce affirmative action by making it a condition of federal funding. For example, under Executive Order 11246, private businesses that contract with the federal government must demonstrate an effort to attract representative applicant pools for jobs created by their federal contracts. This form of required affirmative action emphasizes procedures rather than results: training for potential applicants, wide advertising, open searches. Affirmative action procedures also include treating the race and/or GENDER of qualified applicants from underrepresented groups as factors in employment or university admissions decisions.”
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wm_000600_affirmativea.htm
You know what I think, Will? I think that America is so FIXATED on race…so color-struck…so INFLAMED, that the gender hook of AA is largely ignored. I think it’s intentionally ignored by the anti-AAA types because they can’t sell that story as well.
–Cobra
Cobra,
You’re right that preferences by gender draw more attention and criticism than ones by race. I’m not sure how extensive preferences for women are, other than in police/fire departments and in medical schools, though.
There’s one obvious reason why people are more affected by racial preferences than gender preferences: A married couple on average will have no net income effect from gender preferences. Man’s income goes down a litte, the woman’s goes up a little, there’s no net average change in total family income.
However….since there are very few black/white marriages, white couples are affected twice with the costs of racial preferences, and get no benefit. And for black couples, they benefit twice. So the effect on family income is huge – for both the black and the white couple.
Cobra,
Apparently you still had not read my posting about the Hartford Courant article. It basically said that among medical schools abroad and local medical medical schools who have graduates who are practicing in America, the 2 schools who have the highest rate of graduates who received medical discipline measures from state medical boards in the form of license revocations and suspensions , residency dismissals were graduates from Meharry and Howard. Should that be a surprise to anybody? The freshman classes of Meharry and Howard have the lowest average MCAT score of any freshman medical class in the country. The better black premeds have opted to attend other medical schools like UM-Maryland College Park or Vanderbilt, leaving the lowest performing black premeds to Meharry and Howard. Contrast these 2 schools to the case of the UNiversity of Ibadan in Nigeria, according to the Hartford Courant, its graduates who are practicing in the United STates have a lower disciplinary rate from medical boards than graduates from Harvard Medical School, Yale medical school etc. In other words , graduates from the University of Ibadan medical school in Nigeria have a lower rate or incidence of being reprimanded by state medical boards or have their licenses suspended or revoked than graduates of Harvard medical school or Yale medical school. Why is that the case? The reason is simple, students admitted to the freshman class of the University of Ibadan Medical school in Nigeria are admitted on the basis of their grades and ability and not because of their race or their tribal affiliation unlike Meharry or Howard. In other words only the best premeds in Nigeria can be admitted to the freshman class of the medical school of the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. That is one damning affirmation that a meritocracy will always trump an admissions system based on preferences. And do read the life of Patrick Chavis, the poster boy of race preferences for blacks in medical school. Contrast his life to the life led by Allan Bakke in Minnesota after he got his medical degree at UC Davis. Shame on you Cobra. Next time you get sick , make sure that you get a doctor who graduated from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria rather than someone who graduated from Meharry or Howard or even Harvard.
Nels,
If you look at the criteria for “UC-eligiblity” on page d-5-20, some of the factors are:
1. “maximum education level of parents”
2. “Income Level”
3. “ELC” – which means in the top 4% of your high school graduation class – not comparing the kids GPA to those in other schools, which benefits kids in low-quality, non-white schools since it’s easier to be in the top 4% of a school if that school has many low-GPA students.
4. “SAT II 3rd exam score” – which gives preferences to immigrants over whites and blacks by allowing them to take a foreign language test and have it count as much as the other 2 SAT II tests (math and english).
When I came up with the “non-quota numbers”, I meant the numbers that would result from race-neutral academic standards. The inclusion of these 4 factors (#1 and #2 which have NO academic relevance and #3 and #4 which have only minor academic relevance and are biased against whites)are the de facto “back door quotas” – or at least “back door preferences” that I mentioned. Look at the HUGE difference in SAT scores for admitted students that I mentioned in the first post in this page:
UC Berkeley:
Asians: 660/729 – total 1389
White: 662/694 – total 1356
Latino: 578/623 – total 1201
Black: 530/555 – total 1085
UCLA:
Asians: 645/718 – total 1363
White: 652/690 – total 1342
Latino: 586/607 – total 1193
Black: 515/551 – total 1066
However….even WITH this biased “UC-eligibility” index, notice that I was right that the % of high school grads in California IS a little over 40% (see pg d-5-7) and that the average white grad has a higher UC-eligible rate than the average grad (12.7 vs. 11.1%) – see pg. (d-5-6). So if white kids WERE represented based on their % of high school grads and their UC-eligibity, why is the total white% not the 45% I predicted, but only the current 35%????
Possibly, one may think that it’s because so many white kids ar getting admitted to private colleges (namely USC and Stanford) that are equivalent academically to the UCs, but at Stanford, the 2004 freshman class is as follows:
African American 12.3%
Asian American 24.6%
International 6.2%
Mexican American 9.2%
Native American 2.2%
Other Hispanic 2.8%
White 37.3%
link:https://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html
and at USC….
African American 8% Latino / Hispanic 13% Native American / Native Hawaiian 1% Asian 20%
Caucasian 50%
International 6%
so…the USC/Stanford total % for whites is about 44%, and the total freshman for each college is barely 2000 students, which is under the 45% that white people should be getting based on population & qualifications. Also with the nearly 100,000 freshman admitted to the UC system, the 4000 total at Stanford/USC wouldn’t even make a difference if the % was 45% or higher.
Leo,
Your observation about blacks who have medical degrees from other countries performing better as doctors than blacks who graduted from Howard, etc in the USA was interesting. I’ve read that many USA-born blacks are upset that a huge % of blacks in the top schools in the USA are immigrants, who they say should not benefit from affirmative action since their ancestors were not slaves in the USA.
Personally, I know a lot of black immigrants, and they all have a very good work ethic, seem to be pretty smart. I think it’s because our immigrants from Africa are almost always here on work visas or college visas.
Okay, Will, I understand now the source of your numbers: admissions based strictly on standardized tests and GPA’s. As a taxpayer my standard for criteria is that they predict future performance, and as this isn’t firefighting or lifeguarding I’m willing to accept some failures in exchange for a few extraordinary successes. It’s advantageous to have wealthy, educated parents, as well as to attend a school with high academic expectations, and therefore I think more of, and am more willing to invest money in, the student who has achieved the same test scores and GPA without these luxuries. I’m not at all concerned that this might disparately impact some racial groups.
In regards to your specific point about the “SAT II Third Exam Score,” unless things have changed much since I was in school, there are a number of non-language SAT achievement tests for math, chemistry, history, etc., and the language ones are intended for, and quite doable by, students with three years of high school foreign language instruction. If there’s an advantage for immigrant students it’s no different from the advantage had by children who learn anything outside of school, and verbal mastery of a foreign language is hardly immaterial to future success in California.
Will writes:
>>>You’re right that preferences by gender draw more attention and criticism than ones by race.”
You meant to say LESS attention.
>>>There’s one obvious reason why people are more affected by racial preferences than gender preferences: A married couple on average will have no net income effect from gender preferences.”
Marriage is not the sole issue. It’s one thing to pidgeon hole an “outsider group” based upon race. It’s another thing entirely to impose sanctions on YOUR OWN sisters, mothers, aunts, nieces, granddaughters, cousins, girlfriends and yes…wives. Then Affirmative Action becomes “personal.”
Jonah Goldberg, a self-admitted recipient of nepotism (another infrequently discussed preference) bemoans the deficit of Asian Americans in higher education because of AA. But does he also bemoan the deficit of Asian Americans in corporate management and leadership positions? Does he bemoan the deficit of Asian Americans on his OWN National Review Online Editorial Staff? Since YOUR apparent believe is that GRADES AND STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES are the ONLY significant standard for measuring “qualification”, why weren’t we watching President Gupta or President Ti-Wong throw out the first ball for the Washington Nationals this week, instead of a C-average Yale legacy student?
–Cobra
WILL,
The ELC preference in reality acts more like a geographical preference in the simple fact that it benefits the more affluent members of a high school whether it is in an urban or rural setting. And it does benefit both whites and blacks. Take the case of an urban minority- majority high school in LA like Southgate, Fremont or Roosevelt, the students who are most likely to be members of the top graduating 4 % of the class are likely to be the most affluent members of the student body. Poverty is relative. The household income on the average of students who go to an inner city high school like Roosevelt Hi is not going to be as high as the average household income of students who go to Beverly high schools. So even in the context of urban high schools, a geograpical preference like the ELC favors the more econ0mically advantaged students and not the real poor. I already cited the case of that student who was accepted by Brown with a score of 1090 SAT. In a rural high school, it is the same story, the most likely members of the top 4 % of the graduating class will be the more economically advantaged members of the graudating class. On the averaage the SAT scores of rural hi schools in California are lower than the SAT scores of suburban high schools ( not urban high schools ). Depending on what part of rural California you come from, the most likely recipient of an ELC eligibility is going to be white or Mexican. I had never favored geographical preferences, be they the 10 % rule in TExas, the 20% rule in Florida or the ELC preference in California. They have the nasty habit of favoring the more affluent members of the graduating high school class. People should realize that all kinds of preferences be they alumni legacy preferences , preferences for the children of professors, the well known or racial preferences have a tendency to favor the more affluent members of our society. Even the athletic preferences practiced in the Ivy schools and liberal arts colleges have the same effect. Preferences are basically an affirmative action program for the more economically advantaged or affluent.
Hey Cobra,
I can deal with the glass ceiling against ASian Americans by whites in the corporate world thru lawsuits or founding my own company. Glass Ceilings do not help anybody, you just lost talent and pay for the economic consequences. AT any rate , glass ceilings cannot be recompensed by any kind of a race preference. As for that mediocrity of a C- average Yale students subbing as the prexy of this country, his term will end in 2008, so you don’t have to worry about him, he can serve as a mascot for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. BTW, have you decided that by the time you get sick you ought to have a University of Ibadan, Nigeria medical school graduate as your primary physician ? After all according to the reports of state medical boards in this country, their graduates had a lower percentage of disciplinary actions compared to graduates of harvard medical school, yale medical school , Columbia medical school, Howard and Meharry etc. Shame on you Cobra.
Leo writes:
>>>I can deal with the glass ceiling against ASian Americans by whites in the corporate world thru lawsuits or founding my own company.”
So you are in favor of trial lawyers and self-segregation? That’s interesting, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard anti-affirmative action types make such proposals.
My honest simple question, and the response to both yourself and Will, is that if Asian Americans score the highest on standardized tests, and you both believe that standardized tests are the ONLY criteria for “qualification”, why aren’t more Asian-Americans at the highest seats of power in industry, commerce, government etc? I’m not saying there aren’t some that are, but your focus against Affirmative Action seems to be EXCLUSIVELY on college admissions. You don’t seem to have a word to say about what happens when they graduate.
It belies a basic tennant of the AAA position, which is, “if underrepresented minorities scored higher on tests, there’d be no need for Affirmative Action.”
“Cobra Argument No. 1” is still in effect.
–Cobra
Nils, even IF the UC “criteria” are academically valid (whigh I don’t concede), what about my last point:
However….even WITH this biased “UC-eligibility” index, notice that I was right that the % of high school grads in California IS a little over 40% (see pg d-5-7) and that the average white grad has a higher UC-eligible rate than the average grad (12.7 vs. 11.1%) – see pg. (d-5-6). So if white kids WERE represented based on their % of high school grads and their UC-eligibity, why is the total white% not the 45% I predicted, but only the current 35%????
Cobra,
Yes you’re right about familial ties other than marriage affecting people’s views on gender preferences. Good point.
Why don’t we have an Asian president if test scores are so important? First of all, we don’t “hire” a President, we vote for one. Besides, the qualities needed to get elected are things like: 1. Willingless to take bribes (aka campaign contributions), and having connections to these people. 2. Ability and desire to lie to people (e.g., tell them that the government will spend more money on them, cut their taxes, and balance the budget). 3. Having a high level of verbal ability (where whites are equal with asians, unlike math SATs). It’s not like we have a “President school” where kids take a PSAT (Presdient SAT) to get in.
I hate to point out the very obvious, but underrespresentation does not imply discrimination. Asians have only been discriminated against at the “National Review” if they have applied for jobs there and been turned down due to their race. If they’ve not applied, then their absence says nothing about NR’s hiring policies.
Cobra says:
…if Asian Americans score the highest on standardized tests, and you both believe that standardized tests are the ONLY criteria for “qualification”, why aren’t more Asian-Americans at the highest seats of power in industry, commerce, government etc?
Reply:
First of all, I didn’t say that jobs should be based on standardized tests, I was talking about college admissions. Hiring, I think, should be based on some race-neutral, quantifiable measure of standardized tests (including physical tests for jobs like firefighter, etc), education, and job experience.
Also,average household income (in 2000) was $55,521 for asians, and $45,904 for non-Hispanic whites. This despite the fact that a lot of Asians are immigrants with limited english language skills.
So overall, Asians are making a lot of money. Why are there not more Asian CEOs or politicians? Well…why ARE asians so successful in getting jobs as doctors, accountants, engineers, etc? Why ARE there so many black people in basketball, football, music, etc? Why were Irish-American more successful in politics than other immigrant groups in the 1800s? Some people have more of an aptitude and interest in certain professions.
Also, if you claim that underrepresentation in politics shows that there is prejudice against the underrepresented group…if Colin Powell or Condi Rice got elected President in 2008, would you change your mind and think that America was no longer prejudiced against black people? Do you think that the white people in Illinois are less racist than white people in other states, since both the Republican and Democrat senate nominees were black in 2004?
As for the issue of minority CEOs, it’s the board of directors, who are appointed by the major stockholders, who choose the CEO. Wouldn’t the major stockholders have a HUGE financial interest in having the most competent CEO?? AND wouldn’t they be pretty knowledgable about who would be the best CEO? As people say, the only color people who run major corporations care about is GREEN (i.e., money). We’re not talking about a HR director or a university admissions officer, who aren’t adversely affected financially by their hiring/admissions affirmative action policies.
Will writes:
>>>3. Having a high level of verbal ability (where whites are equal with asians, unlike math SATs). It’s not like we have a “President school” where kids take a PSAT (Presdient SAT) to get in.”
You had me on the first two, but anybody claiming our CURRENT President has a “high level of verbal ability” is about two hay rides off the farm.
Second, by your other criteria, you’re eschewing the meritocracy argument that many AAA types employ. In fact, your criteria for President of the US is darned near close to criteria for moving up the corporate ladder. It’s true that Presidents are elected(save Nov. 2000), but most people don’t seem to vote on “job qualifications”, but instead on personality, looks and party affiliation. Most major candidates are vetted by the party machines, anyway.
Again, I’m still waiting for a valid answer to my question about the deficit of Asian-Americans at the highest seats of commerce, industry and government.
–Cobra
Will, re “household income,” I’d want to know the average size of household for the groups in question before I compared these numbers.
Cobra, re Asian-Americans in the “upper ranks” (why is that all anyone seems to care about — the ethnic breakdown of the super-rich?), give it a couple decades. Who are the big CEOs and senior politicians now? Baby boomers, mostly, if not older. When was the major wave of Asian immigration? A little later, yes?
Cobra says: ” Again, I’m still waiting for a valid answer to my question about the deficit of Asian-Americans at the highest seats of commerce, industry and government.”
OK, I’ll answer it a 3RD time, but if you only think the “valid” answer is that the evil white people who you hate so much are responsible, you’ll be waiting until hell freezes over. I’ll simply restate what I said before:
Also,average household income (in 2000) was $55,521 for asians, and $45,904 for non-Hispanic whites. This despite the fact that a lot of Asians are immigrants with limited english language skills.
So overall, Asians are making a lot of money. Why are there not more Asian CEOs or politicians? Well…why ARE asians so successful in getting jobs as doctors, accountants, engineers, etc? Why ARE there so many black people in basketball, football, music, etc? Why were Irish-American more successful in politics than other immigrant groups in the 1800s? Some people have more of an aptitude and interest in certain professions.
I’ll repeat the last sentence:”Some groups (including racial groups) have more of an aptitude and interest in certain professions”. That’s been the case in every country throughout history. When there are high paying jobs where certian non-white groups are overrepresented compared to white people, white people don’t cry about it (see above for examples). Can you give me a “valid” reason why blacks are overrepresented at basketball compared to whites, or asians are overrepresented as engineers compared to whites – other than racism against white people? Answer this question, and you’ll answer the question you asked me, they both have the same answer.
Cobra also says: “you’re eschewing the meritocracy argument that many AAA types employ”
But…I also said that for employment, ” Hiring, I think, should be based on some race-neutral, quantifiable measure of standardized tests (including physical tests for jobs like firefighter, etc), education, and job experience”
And again, back to asians or other minorites holding high political office, the obvious answer is that people are NOT “HIRED” FOR THESE JOBS! People VOTE. That’s the reason! Isn’t it obvious? Like I said, there’s no “PSAT” for “president school”. The job of President (even Governor, Senator) is WAY more complicated than college admisssions. There is no direct correlation in high math SAT scores (which asians do very good at) and the job of President.
And as to Bush’s verbal abilities, yes, he’s definitly on the left side of the Presidential bell curve of verbal ability, but Reagan and Clinton were amazing speakers, and in general most politicians are.
Michelle,
Actually, you are right, I looked up the stats for per capita income, off the 2000 census:
Whites: $23,415
Aisan: $22,352
Black: $15,197
Hispanic $12,306
So the asian number is still close to what one would expect from an academically successful group which has a huge # of immigrants and non-English language speakers. per the 2000 census, about 70% of Asian-Americans are foreign-born, mostly from poor countries like China, Phillipines, Vietnam, and India. Not surprisingly, a huge percentage of Asian-Americans are “not proficient in English”: 31% of Chinese-Ams, 40% of Vietnamese-Ams, & 33% of Korean-Ams.
(see excellent link: http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=asian+percent+foreign+born+census+2000&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=11&u=www.aaresearch.net/pdfs/Profile%2520of%2520AAPIs.pdf&w=asian+percent+foreign+born+census+2000&d=0AEA55DA48&icp=1&.intl=us
Something that stands out is the big difference in Asian and Hispanic per capita income. Both have a high % of immigrants (due to massive increases in immigration after the 1965 Immigration bill), both settled largely in California, both had language barriers (other than Asians from India and Phillipines). Both came from mostly poor countries. If anything, in terms of racial bias, Asians would likely have more of it; many Hispanics ARE white or part white. Blacks and whites aren’t really comparable with other groups in terms of their history & characteristics, but Asians and Hispanics are. Why have Asians done so much better than Hispanics seems to be the obvious question – especially to people in California, since they are the demographic future this state.
better? working link for link last post:http://www.aaresearch.net/pdfs/Profile%20of%20AAPIs.pdf
Laura, you write:
Will, as far as I know, the lower standards are for getting into medical school. I’m not aware of racial preferences on graduating or obtaining board certification. So I wouldn’t care about the race of my doctor. If I found out that there were preferences on graduating or obtaining board certification, though, I’d be a fool not to care. One of my objections to AA at the admissions level is that people who could cut it in the program might not get a slot because somebody who has less chance of making it did get in. I certainly hope that’s as far as it goes.
The problem is that this assumes that all licensed doctors are equally competent and qualified.
As far as I know, they don’t race norm the granting of medical licenses (yet), so any doctor, black, white, asian, hispanic, other, is minimally qualified. So if your only standard for choosing a doctor is “Is he/she at least barely competent,” then you wouldn’t care about the race of your doctor.
But don’t most people want the best doctor they can get (considering insurance, geography, waiting lists, etc.)? Given that, what’s the answer to Will’s question from 9:01 PM?
Stop the bus for a second, folks.
Will writes:
>>>I’ll repeat the last sentence:”Some groups (including racial groups) have more of an aptitude and interest in certain professions”. That’s been the case in every country throughout history. When there are high paying jobs where certian non-white groups are overrepresented compared to white people, white people don’t cry about it (see above for examples). Can you give me a “valid” reason why blacks are overrepresented at basketball compared to whites, or asians are overrepresented as engineers compared to whites – other than racism against white people? Answer this question, and you’ll answer the question you asked me, they both have the same answer.”
This is nonsensical, Will. I want you to read back what you’re saying here. First of all, I’m going to overlook your Al Campanis level assertion that some groups don’t have the “aptitude” for leadership positions. In Japan, there are Japanese CEO’s, administrators and captains of industry, etc. In Sri Lanka, there are Sri Lankan CEO’s…et al. Same for Thailand, China, and South Korea. This is the same in Nigeria, India, Kenya, Egypt, Mozambique and darned near every OTHER place in the world where NON-WHITES are the controlling majority. African Americans and basketball? The last time I checked, Argentina won the Gold medal in Olympic basketball.
It’s to my sheer AMAZEMENT that I watch YOU here basically state that once non-whites get to America, they become, somehow, “genetically transmogrified” into people who suddenly don’t have an “aptitude or interest” to lead.
Again…this looks like a question better answered by “Cobra Argument #1”, than revisional, Jimmy the Greek style Darwinism.
–Cobra
“So if your only standard for choosing a doctor is “Is he/she at least barely competent,” then you wouldn’t care about the race of your doctor.”
Are you saying that black doctors are barely competent?
Are you saying that black doctors are barely competent?
I am saying that being licensed is only a guarantee of minimal competency, nothing more.
Will asked you whether, given AA, you would have any preference as to doctors, and your response was that AA only applies to admissions. I’m pointing out that while there’s no AA for doctor licensing (yet), that doesn’t mean it has no effect on the average quality of doctors. The fact that they’re all licensed means they all met the same minimum standards, not that they’re all equally skilled.
Cobra,
You think that ALL racial groups have the EXACT aptitude and interest in EVERY profession? That’s just silly and hopelessly naive.
ONCE AGAIN, you put words in my mouth. Can’t you understand what people say? Campanis said that ALL black people didn’t have the aptitude to be managers. I’m saying that ON AVERAGE, some groups are somewhat more likely to have interest/aptitude in certain jobs.
As for basketball, look at the NBA all-star game. You’ll se about 20 African-Americans and ZERO white Americans. Even thought white people are about 75%, blacks about 12% of the USA population.
So Cobra, you think that ALL races of people are EXACTLY equal in terms of AVERAGE aptitude and interest for ALL types of jobs? Because THAT’S what I was arguing against. I never said – Al Campanis style – that ALL the members of any group lacked the aptitude for anything. Once again, you can win your arguments, as long as they are straw-man arguments.
Uh, and tell me how many white Americans were in this year’s NBA all-star game? Try ZERO, versus about 20 African Americans.
David, I don’t think you can use MCAT scores to determine whether a practicing doctor is qualified.
Laura,
Assuming the logical(and empirically factual) inference that students with high grad school placement tests (MCAT?) scores will tend to get better grades and learn more in medical school…
The average black medical school student will get lower grades (i.e., learn less) in medical school than most medical school students. If all you know about a doctor is his race, the logical choice is to not choose the black doctor, if you want a doctor who was successful in medical school.
Cobra,
I don’t really understand your point. Obviously in Sri Lanka there are Sri Lankan CEOs. In Malaysia I gather that there are a lot of Malaysian CEOs, conceivably more than there would be if the immigrant Chinese population weren’t systematically discriminated against, in a kind of parody of our AA.
Basketball? Within this country it’s obviously a Black-majority sport. But to hell wih basketball; the big sports question this week was whether it would be an Ethiopian or a Kenyan who won the New York Marathon. No other nationalities mentioned, because no other nationalities have been even close to winning for decades.
I believe Ethiopia has it this year.
Will writes:
>>>Uh, and tell me how many white Americans were in this year’s NBA all-star game? Try ZERO, versus about 20 African Americans”
Here we go again. I’m not going to clog up John’s blogspace with the ENTIRE 2005 NBA ALL STAR GAME roster. I would just like you to explain Zydrunas Ilgauskas Cleveland C 7-3 260 Lithuania,
Manu Ginobili San Antonio F 6-6 210 Argentina, MVP Candidate Steve Nash Phoenix G 6-3 180 Santa Clara, Dirk Nowitzki Dallas F 7-0 245 Germany, and *Yao Ming Houston C 7-6 310 China. Now, I’ll GRANT you, they’re not all “white AMERICANS”, but they darn sure aren’t “African Americans.”
>>>So Cobra, you think that ALL races of people are EXACTLY equal in terms of AVERAGE aptitude and interest for ALL types of jobs? Because THAT’S what I was arguing against. I never said – Al Campanis style – that ALL the members of any group lacked the aptitude for anything. Once again, you can win your arguments, as long as they are straw-man arguments.”
These were your exact words, Will.
>>>The average black medical school student will get lower grades (i.e., learn less) in medical school than most medical school students. If all you know about a doctor is his race, the logical choice is to not choose the black doctor, if you want a doctor who was successful in medical school.”
Now, first let’s get the ol’ dictionary out to define the word “average.”
Main Entry: [2]average
Function: adjective
Date: 1770
1 : equaling an arithmetic mean
2 a : being about midway between extremes b : not out of the ordinary : COMMON
– av
That logic reminds me of the internet commenter who once told me that because I am from Mississippi, I am “less likely” to be literate. He commented this to me directly, despite the fact that I couldn’t have engaged in the discussion if I weren’t literate. I thought, what an idiot.
Will and David, let me introduce you to a basic truth about statistics. Let’s suppose that the average MCAT score of black doctors is lower than the average MCAT score of white doctors. When faced with ONE SPECIFIC black doctor and ONE SPECIFIC white one, you have no idea how their MCAT scores relate to each other. None. Zip. You are trying to make the statistics say more than they do.
Also, I continue to argue that the MCAT, valid though it is for helping to decide who will be successful in medical school, has nothing to do with how good a doctor is. I am in on hiring decisions all the time, we only consider college graduates, and we never ask for SAT scores. They don’t matter at that point.
Finally, I want to say that this issue is another big problem I have with The Bell Curve. The book argues that for any given job, the person with the highest IQ is the best prospect; even, the book says, if the job is that of a busboy in a restaurant. That is such a crock, and I say this after over 20 years of experience in the work world. My take is that there’s a minimum amount of intelligence, IQ if you will, that a person would have to have to be able to perform a specific function. Given that it meets that threshold, what that person’s IQ happens to be is less important than other factors: Will he show up every day? Get along with his coworkers? Take direction from the boss? Be flexible to requests that he change the way he does things? Contribute to the success of the group? and so forth. The best busboy might be the kid with Down syndrome who smiles at the customers and doesn’t have one foot out the door because he thinks he’s too good for the job. The doctor with the high MCAT score might be an arrogant jerk who thinks he’s entitled to the sun and the moon and is more interested in his bank account than he is in helping patients.
Laura,
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. Your last post was one of the finest I’ve seen on this blog.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I never said “ALL” black people or “ALL” people in any group lack the ability do do anything.Also, I said:
IF ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT A DOCTOR IS HIS RACE, the logical choice is to not choose the black doctor, if you want a doctor who was successful in medical school.”
I will repeat that first part for you: IF ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT A DOCTOR IS HIS RACE…
OF COURSE you should try to get information on specific individual doctors, if possible.
Laura,
I never said that you can tell that a randomly selected black doctor will DEFINITELY have higher MCAT scores than another, randomly selected white doctor. I just said that it is more likely, using simple statistics, that the average, randomly selected black doctor will have a lower MCAT score than the average, randomly selected white doctor.
Here’s an example:
Say you bet your friend $50,000 on this bet:
You are working at a polling station on election day with your friend. You look at the first person that comes to vote, and guess whether they are a registered Democrat (D) or Republican (R). If you guess (D) and the person is (R), or vice versa, you lose the bet. You know that on AVERAGE, in your voting area, 90% of black people are Democrats, and 60% of women are Democrats. The 1st person to approach the voting booth is a black woman, who in terms of clothes, mannerisms, speech, ect is no different from other people in that area. Do you guess randomly, or do you take all the AVAILABLE information, and guess Democrat?
I don’t KNOW with 100% certaintly, of course, but statistics can tell you, given a specific average difference, sample size, etc …the LIKELY difference between a black and white doctor, with a margin of error, and specific probablity level (e.g., 95% confidence level). I’d apply this to medical school grades, rather than MCAT scores, if you think that med school grades are more relevant to job performance.
Also, you really think that a minimum intellegence/education level is just as good as a really high intellegence/education level? Maybe for a job like a janitor or garbageman, but you don’t want smart doctors? And to say that intellegence doesn’t matter since other factors, like getting along with people, will balance out the intellegence/education factor…that assumes that intellegent people are less likely to meet these other criteria.
Will writes:
>>>I never said that you can tell that a randomly selected black doctor will DEFINITELY have higher MCAT scores than another, randomly selected white doctor. I just said that it is more likely, using simple statistics, that the average, randomly selected black doctor will have a lower MCAT score than the average, randomly selected white doctor.”
Your bottom line is plain to see, Will. You’re simply saying that if you want a good doctor, you’re better off avoiding black ones. As much as you try to dance around your statement, that is your meaning, correct?
–Cobra
Will: “…if you want a doctor who was successful in medical school.”
How can you be a doctor if you aren’t successful in medical school?
Again, supposing that the doctor is intelligent enough to get the job done, I do think other factors are more important than grades or scores. Would you put up with a brilliant doctor whose office staff continually lost your test results because he couldn’t manage his personnel?
I’ll try this one more time. I happen to know my daughter’s IQ because of some testing we had done for school. She’s a white female only child. Look up the statistics and tell me what her IQ is, Will.
“Again, supposing that the doctor is intelligent enough to get the job done, I do think other factors are more important than grades or scores. Would you put up with a brilliant doctor whose office staff continually lost your test results because he couldn’t manage his personnel?”
Not for long, but I would rather then have a choice between the best doctors rather than those “intelligent enough to get the job done”.
Will writes:
>>>IF ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT A DOCTOR IS HIS RACE, the logical choice is to not choose the black doctor, if you want a doctor who was successful in medical school.”
First, I want to commend Laura for being one of the few willing to take this and other statements head on in this thread. Will, and those making comments like him, are undermining nearly every argument anti-affirmative action types have made against my position. I’ve been told I should evolve from the “group think” mentality. I’ve been told that people should be judged based upon their INDIVIDUAL merits, and not by their race or gender. I’ve been told that the principle of color-blindness is the most desirable for school admissions, hirings, promotions and government contracts.
And then along comes WILL, with comments like the one above.
I want to thank you Will, for giving colorful illustration to my root argument for Affirmative Action.
–Cobra
Not for long, but I would rather then have a choice between the best doctors rather than those “intelligent enough to get the job done”.
What do you want? Marcus Welby?
It is astonishing to me, that one of the people who argues that you should assume a random black doctor is unqualified, has no trouble stating this: “Obviously, the children of Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Michael Jordan, etc. need government handouts, but an orphaned white kid, or an Asian refugee from Vietnam, they deserve nothing. Such thinking is the (il)logic of the left, apparently.” So people are to be dealt with in the agregate when it suits you, and as individuals when it suits you. As Cobra observed, you people are making his arguments for him.
laura and Cobra,
I too had been involved in the workplace and I still believe, that the best person suited to do the job is the one who has the best skills for the job. Judging people on the basis of their ” character ” applying to medical school is a hard thing to do. How would you judge an applicant’s character when he/she applies to medical school? His personal essay? There may be 4,200 applicants for 100 slots at UC Davis meical school? Are you going to tell me that the admissions committee will be able to check everything that the applicant says about himself/herself in the application form? Remember the applicants comes from many different undergraduate schools, maybe even up to a hundred specially in a school like Drexel MEdical school. How they are going to see how every applicant interacts with a patient in a health situation. What schools usually do is this they have a cutoff score and include the usual number of “qouta ” or “development ” students. This ” qouta” or “development ” students usually have grades lower than those those admitted to that list purely on academic criteria. I am talking about averages here. From there they proceed to interviewing people on that list ( at least those who come ). In the workplace, you would probably notice that in interviewing people, you are going to encounter problems. Employers just like medical admissions staff can have their own biases and agendas. Choosing applicants just like choosing employees based on an interview can be fraught with mistakes. You might choose somebody who might give a great deal of grief in the future. Can you really say choosing a black applicant based on an interview will guarantee you a doctor that is compassionate? I already cited the case of Patrick Chavis. I am sure that there are doctors who are like Chavis be they black or white.
Okay, now we’ve come full circle.
I do not oppose the use of the MCAT to determine who gets into medical school. I don’t want anyone accepted into medical school who doesn’t have a very good chance of getting through it and becoming a good doctor. I oppose the use of racial quotas and I oppose race preferences. Are we straight now?
What I object to is the idea that a black doctor – who obviously did get though medical school, passed his licensing exams and hopefully his boards – is automatically inferior to a white doctor. I cannot believe that in the year 2005 I am actually having to type this.
It’s amazing how some people are too dumb to comprehend simple statistics, who prefer emotional arguments and don’t even read your statements.
Assuming you know NOTHING else about 2 individuals, except that one of the two people is in a subgroup with a low average score of aptitude on a particular test and the other person is in a subgroup with a low average score in that test, and both subgroups have a normal/standard distribution curve, it is STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY that the person in the high-testing subgroup will have a high test score than the person in the lower-scoring subgroup. THAT IS A STATISTICAL FACT. Nobody’s saying that they can predict EXACTLY what an INDIVIDUAL person’s IQ or test scores, or that ALL people of a particulat subgroup are lower-scorers than ALL people in the higher-scoring subgroup.
People, PLEASE READ THE POSTS YOU ARE RESPONDING TO. IF YOU DON”T HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO COMPREHEND SIMPLE STATISTICS, JUST DON’T READ THE POST AND READ A CHILDREN”S BOOK OR SOMETHING YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.
Cobra says:
Your bottom line is plain to see, Will. You’re simply saying that if you want a good doctor, you’re better off avoiding black ones. As much as you try to dance around your statement, that is your meaning, correct?
Well, if you could comprehend basic grade-school statistics, I wouldn’t have to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over to get it through to you.
I said that IF you know NOTHING else about 2 people who hold a particular job, and you know that the average person in that profession from group (A) had lower qualifications applied to them in getting that job, as compared with the average person in group (B), you would statistically be more likely to get a person who met higher qualifications by choosing a person in group (B). That’s a STATISTICAL FACT.
If you think this is not applicable to white/black doctors, that’s your choice, but statistics regarding probability are not a matter of opinion, they’re FACTS.
Laura says:
“How can you be a doctor if you aren’t successful in medical school?”
Uh…you can barely pass medical school. That’s “just getting by” not being “successful”. Seriously, I hope if you need life saving surgery, you get someone like Patrick Chavis, I just hope you have a lot of life insurance.
Laura also writes:
I’ll try this one more time. I happen to know my daughter’s IQ … She’s a white female only child. Look up the statistics and tell me what her IQ is, Will.
REPLY:I’ve only said in about 7 or 8 posts that I can’t predict the exact score of any individual. Maybe the 9th or 10th time I say it you might actually bother to read what I say.
I’ve got another test for you (although you couldn’t answer my question about the black female voter):
You see a white kid, asian kid, and black kid of the same age, gender, and height. Someone puts a gun to your head and says to pick the child with the highest measured IQ, or you get shot. All you know is that the average measured asian IQ is 103, 100 for white, and 85 for black. If you know probability statistics, and value your life, you’ll guess that the asian kid has the highest measured IQ. (I’m not even saying that the IQ test is a valid measure of intelligence or not. I’m just asking you to pick the kid with the highest measured IQ).OF COURSE you would not be able to know with exact certainty what the IQ is of any of the children. You could guess a range, and there would be a probability percentage for each child being within a certain range, but neither you or I could predict with certainty the exact IQ of any of the children. Nor could we say that ALL the asian kids score higher than ALL the white kids. It’s just simple PROBABILITY, why is it hard to understand?
Cobra,
Well, when people like YOU admit black students to medical school with far lower qualifications than non-blacks, and people like YOU force hospital to hire black med school grads with lower med school grades, YOU create a situation where people are NOT judged by their individual merits.
If you are trying to imply that somehow it’s racist to avoid black doctors if they are statistically less likely to be highly qualified: what about what JESSE JACKSON once said:
again, this is JESSEE JACKSON. He’s BLACK, in case you don’t know.
He said that if he saw two groups of young adults walking on two different sides of the same street – one black group and one white group, he’d walk on the side of the street with the white kids, since the black kids are STATISTICALLY more likely to be violent criminals than the white kids.
Similarily, if I had to choose between a white, blue-eyed, blond doctor with a Hispanic surname, and an Aisian doctor – again, NOT knowing anything about them individually, I’d take the Asian doctor. So, I am white, but I would reject the doctor of my own race, because people LIKE YOU have set up a system where the hispanic white doctor was more likely to have gotten the job with lower qualifications.
So it’s not a matter of not choosing a black person. It’s a matter of individuals making logical choices based on the RACIST, NON-MERIT based preferences that people like YOU (and by “people like you” I mean liberals of all races, not “black” people. I know you’re a pretty paranoid guy, just wanted to make myself clear) have imposed on society.
OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT JESSEE JACKSON IS SOME SORT OF AN ANTI-BLACK “UNCLE TOM” for making his comment? I thought not.
Laura says:
It is astonishing to me, that one of the people who argues that you should assume a random black doctor is unqualified, has no trouble stating this: “Obviously…Such thinking is the (il)logic of the left, apparently.” So people are to be dealt with in the agregate when it suits you, and as individuals when it suits you. As Cobra observed, you people are making his arguments for him.
ONCE agian, people are intentionally lying about what I said. Or maybe just not bothering to read what I say.
I NEVER SAID that I assume that a random black doctor is unqualified (regardless of you definition of “unqualified”). I said that on average, due to racial preferences, the average random black doctor will statistically likely be LESS qualified than the average white doctor.
Since you avoided my prior 2 tests, here’s another one – not using people
Bag #1 has 100 jelly beans, 80 of which are purple jelly beans. Bag #2 has 100 jelly beans, 20 of which are purple jelly beans. You want a purple jelly bean. You can pick one jelly bean from either Bag #1 or Bag #2. You cannot see which jelly bean you are picking. Do you pick a jelly bean from bag #1 or bag #2? Write down your answer.
Now let’s use a less PC-question: Take the prior question, change “bag #1” to “a group of white doctors” and “bag #2 to “a group of white doctors”. Change ” jelly beans” to “doctors”. Change “purple jelly beans” to “doctors who scored in the top half of their med school in terms of GPA”. NOW answer the question.
As for treating people in the “aggregate” when it suits me….
The terms “liberal”, “the left”, etc. are – on the issue of racial preferences at least – a self-defined group. ALL Liberals ARE liberal, by definition. I’m not saying to discriminate against liberals, I’m just saying that LIBERALS adhere to the LIBERAL view on affirmative action. That’s pretty self-explanatory. That’s how THEY describe themseleves. On the other hand, I’ve not said that ALL black, white, asian etc. people are anything. When people like you set different standards for different groups, YOU are the one implementing group-based criteria and keeping OTHER people from looking at people as individuals.
Laura says:
“What I object to is the idea that a black doctor – who obviously did get though medical school, passed his licensing exams and hopefully his boards – is automatically inferior to a white doctor. I cannot believe that in the year 2005 I am actually having to type this.”
reply: Like I’ve said about a dozen times, if the average black doctor scored lower on his/her licensing exam than the average white doctor, then in a comparasin of a random white doctor and a random black doctor, it’s a better than 50% chance that the white doctor will have had higher scores on his/her licensing exam.
Who said that “a black doctor… is automatically inferior to a white doctor”?????? Someone is “making” you type your disagreement with this statement? Who exactly is making this claim?
Oh my. You’ve dug yourself quite a trench there, Will. In the interest of space, I’m not going to do my usual point by point vivisection. I just want to focus on a couple of statements.
>>>So it’s not a matter of not choosing a black person. It’s a matter of individuals making logical choices based on the RACIST, NON-MERIT based preferences that people like YOU (and by “people like you” I mean liberals of all races, not “black” people. I know you’re a pretty paranoid guy, just wanted to make myself clear) have imposed on society.”
Affirmative Action didn’t officially begin till the mid to late 1960’s. America had been around for almost 200 years before that. What was the motivation for “racist, non-merit based preferences” for two centuries? And why do you think liberals had anything to do with it?
>>>You see a white kid, asian kid, and black kid of the same age, gender, and height. Someone puts a gun to your head and says to pick the child with the highest measured IQ, or you get shot.”
First you’d have to determine which one is the “white kid” “asian kid” and “black kid.” As Michelle often asked me (another Anti-affirmative action type), what’s the definition of race to start with? Simply LOOKING “white”, “asian” (especially given the diversity of billions of asians) and “black” means exactly WHAT on the genetic level? You are talking about GENETICS, right Will? You have been walking on the thin borderline of EUGENICS for quite a few posts now. You have every right, of course. So by your logic, a “mulatto” should have a higher IQ score on average than a “pure black” (if there was such a thing). If hispanics (not officially a race) want higher IQ test averages, they should “breed” with Asians?
Are you really going down this road, Will? Your anti-affirmative action allies will drop you like a hot rock.
–Cobra
Cobra, I’m anti-affirmative action, but please don’t call me Will’s ally. One of my major objections to AA is that it perpetuates, legitimizes, and encourages thinking of people as members of a group. I think we’re better letting go of all of that.
Will, the black OBGYN who did all my prenatal care took excellent care of my daughter and me. She ordered extra bloodwork and ultrasounds when she thought it necessary to satisfy herself that we were OK. In contrast, my sister and her son nearly died because her white OBGYN dismissed her symptoms of pre-eclampsia as “you’re pregnant, get over it” until it was nearly too late. You would pick my sister’s doctor over mine because of race. You know what, I don’t care what my doctor’s scores were. She’s pretty sharp, so I’m sure they were just fine, but the scores don’t equal the doctor anyway.
One thing that is overlooked here is the fact that physicians are required to pass boards. Regardless of the fact that the applicant pool to medical schools may be weaker due to discrimination, an applicant must still pass the United States Medical Licensing Examinations USMLE’s. (Less than 25% of graduates from foreign medical schools pass their USMLE’s) Furthermore, there is no racial preference in residency programs for specialties such as Oncology or Obsteterics/Gynecolgy. Simply put, the American Medical Association (AMA) decides the caliber of our nations doctors. ONLY the best physicians, regardless of race, make it into competitive residency programs that allow them to specialize in their training. So if you’re really sick, you’re going to see a specialist at some point, and that doctor is going to be a compitent professional.