Bad day for AA

[Gulo Blue]

Hope for something better someday does not mean the same thing as saying that something is temporary, not permanent or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Spartanmack]

In the context of our conversation, temporary clearly meant "temporary, until real substantive change occurs" so yeah, it does mean the same thing. My bad, next time I won't assume you're smart enough to figure that out.

I've said my piece about AA and democracy - got no time for stupid arguments over semantics. Have fun.

 

[KAWDUP]

In the context of our conversation, temporary clearly meant "temporary, until real substantive change occurs" so yeah, it does mean the same thing. My bad, next time I won't assume you're smart enough to figure that out.

I've said my piece about AA and democracy - got no time for stupid arguments over semantics. Have fun.

Nonsense - where would be without stupid arguments over semantics? Certainly no closer to a conclusion and not nearly as entertaining.

. . . and by the way - it seems you do have that time - look at the number of posts from you in just this thread alone. Maybe you meant to say I have no more time for stupid arguments over semantics?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :*)

 

[Gulo Blue]

Nonsense - where would be without stupid arguments over semantics? Certainly no closer to a conclusion and not nearly as entertaining.

. . . and by the way - it seems you do have that time - look at the number of posts from you in just this thread alone. Maybe you meant to say I have no more time for stupid arguments over semantics?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :*)

When someone challenges someone's reading comprehension, semantics often follow.

When we say "AA", we're still talking about Ann Arbor, right?

 

[Spartanmack]

Nonsense - where would be without stupid arguments over semantics? Certainly no closer to a conclusion and not nearly as entertaining.

. . . and by the way - it seems you do have that time - look at the number of posts from you in just this thread alone. Maybe you meant to say I have no more time for stupid arguments over semantics?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :*)

The argument went from substantive discussion of what a lovely town AA is to Gulo's semantic nonsense on page 8 - i pulled the ripcord on page 9. Aint nobody got time for that.

 

[KAWDUP]

When someone challenges someone's reading comprehension, semantics often follow.

When we say "AA", we're still talking about Ann Arbor, right?

I couldn't always tell actually. In some cases here it made sense with both meanings.

I concluded people were sometimes using them interchangeably.

Ann Arbor (due to the University of Michigan being there) = Affirmative Action (due to said University's admission standards).

I know maybe too simple for my mind of mush, but hey what do ya want, it is the end of my day. :*)

 

[Sbee]

Although it's completely off topic and irrelevant to the AA discussion, yes my disdain to entitlements does extend to corporate welfare. In fact, I'm far more opposed to it than I am to AA. I was also completely against the bail out of GM and the big banks. But again, it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe you were exaggerating but social mobility in America today is far greater than it was in the European caste system. That's just flat out wrong.

I do agree however, that if AA is to come back, it should be means tested or like others here have suggested, based on underperforming school districts rather than merely race.

http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm

Father is in the BOTTOM 20%: The upward mobility of sons is much less likely in the US. In the US, 42% of sons stay in the bottom 20%. Moreover 66% (or two-thirds) of all sons remain within the bottom 40% of all earners. Outside the US the comparable proportion who remain in the bottom 40% of all earners are: UK (53%), Sweden (50%), Norway (51%), Finland (51%), and Denmark (47%). Put another way, in the US a son whose father was in the bottom 20% of all earners has only a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the top 60%. His odds of ending up in the top 60% would be much higher in Sweden (1 in 2).


england was the main one I am referring to, we'll never have perfect mobility but we should strive for merit to dictate where you end up. that has to start much earlier than the day you apply to college. Allowing the waitress's daughter to have access to the right opportunities is more important.

 

[Spartanmack]

http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm

Father is in the BOTTOM 20%: The upward mobility of sons is much less likely in the US. In the US, 42% of sons stay in the bottom 20%. Moreover 66% (or two-thirds) of all sons remain within the bottom 40% of all earners. Outside the US the comparable proportion who remain in the bottom 40% of all earners are: UK (53%), Sweden (50%), Norway (51%), Finland (51%), and Denmark (47%). Put another way, in the US a son whose father was in the bottom 20% of all earners has only a 1 in 3 chance of ending up in the top 60%. His odds of ending up in the top 60% would be much higher in Sweden (1 in 2).


england was the main one I am referring to, we'll never have perfect mobility but we should strive for merit to dictate where you end up. that has to start much earlier than the day you apply to college. Allowing the waitress's daughter to have access to the right opportunities is more important.

None of those countries currently have a caste system - upward mobility then was virtually 0. I haven't read the study so I'm not familiar enough to comment on it. The link you provided doesn't provide much in terms of the methodology or the data used. I will say I'm skeptical of it given that far more people try to immigrate to the US vs. those other nations.

 

[TheVictors]

In another few decades being white will mean being "minority" so will things change then?

 

[Sbee]

None of those countries currently have a caste system - upward mobility then was virtually 0. I haven't read the study so I'm not familiar enough to comment on it. The link you provided doesn't provide much in terms of the methodology or the data used. I will say I'm skeptical of it given that far more people try to immigrate to the US vs. those other nations.

dispute the data if it doesn't fit your narrative.

My point is that policy that allows the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to better compete will help everyone. AA may not be the best way, it needs to start earlier.

 

[Spartanmack]

dispute the data if it doesn't fit your narrative.

My point is that policy that allows the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to better compete will help everyone. AA may not be the best way, it needs to start earlier.

I didn't dispute the data. I said I was skeptical based on the fact that there isn't enough actual data there. The best way to fool the typical lazy sucker is to start your argument with "a new study shows..." If you're one of those people like michturd that reads an executive summary of a study "that fits your narrative" and takes it as indisputable fact you're being irresponsible. For example, what are the ranges of income for the quintiles of the various countries? What is the range of total income distribution? Can you have an equal % or absolute dollar increase in income and move up 1 or more quintiles in one country but not or fewer in another. What is the standard of living like in each quintile across countries? It's not at all obvious that the results are comparable across countries.

Everyone in this conversation acknowledges that education reform at the primary through high school levels is of paramount importance and the best way to achieve equal opportunity and diversity. The debate is about the constitutionality of a democratic ballot proposal that bans AA and the merits of AA itself.