comment: >
  
  
  Yeah, what requirements? And are they so low that basically anyone (rationally) considering applying already meets them? 
  
  For some schools, yeah.
  
  If so, aren’t the requirements for a decent chance of success different depending on the student?
  
  This is always going to be the case.  Different students have different chances of succeeding.
context: The best argument opposing affirmative action is what researchers refer to as ‘mismatch.’ Research on the phenomena is abundant and can be fairly harmful to students of whom affirmative action is supposed to benefit. >
  
  OP I’m glad you mentioned point two. It’s amazing how many people think race or gender are the biggest factors for success. But this has been well studied and financial status of the home you came from is by far the biggest determinant. 
  So in US, a poor white male has much less opportunity than middle class black women.
  (On average of course) >
  
  I've actually read the opposite. That a middle class black woman has less economic mobility than a poor white male. Can you point me to some of the studies? Also what are they measuring (economic mobility, happiness, wealth, admissions)? >
  
  
  That a middle class black woman has less economic mobility than a poor white male.
  
  perhaps that is true, but that is not an accurate measure of advantage.
  Let's say that poor white males are able to become middle-class 10% of the time, and middle-class black women are able to become upper-class 5% of the time. Who has more advantage at the end of the day? Because 90% of the poor white males stay poor white males.
  And at the end of the day, going from middle class to upper class may just be harder than lower class to middle class. >
  
  The problem here is that you are simply assuming that the default method of admitting students is based on scores, and therefore any deviation from that needs to be justified. However, it's not at all obvious why admission based on scores should be the default. In other parts of our society, organizations don't distribute services based on who "deserves" them the most or based on who would make best use of the services (2 reasonable justifications for the score-based admission). Instead, even public services tend to distribute service based on willingness to pay, need, first come first served, the seller's subjective preferences, or some combination of all the above.
  Now I'm not trying to say that pure score-based admission would be a terrible approach to college admissions - there are obviously far worse options - but the fact that affirmative action-based approaches result in different demographic distributions among accepted students than the score-based approach doesn't necessarily mean that the affirmative action-based approach is discriminatory. I think there's an argument to be made that since it results in a distribution more similar to that of the general population in the country, it's actually less racially discriminatory on the whole. >
  
  
  based on who "deserves" them the most or based on who would make best use of the services
  
  from my perspective, those are often the same. the only time they are not the same is when people who don't make the best use of the services or products pay for services or products in voluntary transactions.
  
  doesn't necessarily mean that the affirmative action-based approach is discriminatory.
  
  yeah, it does. if the tables were reversed there would be a common consensus that the colleges or the system was clearly discriminatory in a negative way. in fact, there seems to be a clear consensus now that affirmative action is necessarily causing discrimination from the perspective of all demographics but most white people and asian people (except those who were clearly negatively affected) simply accept it as the price of being forgiven for being innately (based upon their race) evil. it is a very sad thing when the system is designed to punish you based on your family's genetics. >
  
  
  simply accept it as the price of being forgiven for being innately (based upon their race) evil. i
  
  This is not, and never has been the point of affirmative action or its intention. Affirmative action policies are an attempt to "right the ship" due to the extended history of exclusion inflicted upon certain demographics until recent history. To give an example of how recent, I'm in my 30s and I'm the first generation in my direct line to NOT be born under discriminatory law. The entire previous generation of my family was born under Jim Crow law. >
  
  
  To give an example of how recent, I'm in my 30s and I'm the first generation in my direct line to NOT be born under discriminatory law.
  
  if you ignore affirmative action and equal opportunity laws that essentially mandate race and sex-based admissions. you cannot now say that you live under non-discriminatory law because your "righting of the ship" is only effective because it is sinking the right way up.
  you cannot solve a race problem by making more race-based laws. >
  
  
  if you ignore affirmative action and equal opportunity laws that essentially mandate race and sex-based admissions. you cannot now say that you live under non-discriminatory law because your "righting of the ship" is only effective because it is sinking the right way up
  
  Do you think those laws have anywhere near the effect of Jim Crow, cause I was talking about Jim Crow. The racial caste system that governed a good portion of the country for 100 years that allowed us to be MURDERED. 
  Second I would like examples of these discriminatory laws, because by including equal opportunity law you have basically equated mandating fair treatment with JIM FUCKING CROW. That's a hell of an argument to make. >
  
  to stop jim crow laws you just need to remove the jim crow laws from the books. you don't need to mandate "fair" treatment in lieu. if the world were "fair" there would be no public services, welfare nor schools except those which were voluntarily funded. if you want "fair", i am right there with you. >
  
  This is false, segregation and all that came with it was a way of life in the American south, not just law. Mandating equality legally was the only method short of unrestrained violence that was going to result in change. Integration was literally met with harassment and violence. There were literally parts of the south were all black babies were born at home (often with no birth certificate) because the county only had one hospital and it was whites only. Even without Jim Crow many old black code laws could be discriminatorily enforced to render being black in a county almost illegal. Not to mention sundown counties scattered across the south that would just kill you for being there. An entire community could be destroyed because one person tried to vote. >
  
  I have a college counseling company, and I'm actually working on a video about this very topic. So I'd love to discuss it with you more. 
  I think we need to start with how affirmative action works (and when it even applies) in the first place. You've stated:
  
  Affirmative action allows universities to sometimes admit students with lesser scores than other students with higher scores by focusing on the race of the applicants
  
  You are 100% correct. But that word "sometimes" is critical. When are some of those times? 
  It can really be boiled down to one situation: When the university has thousands more applicants than it has available spaces. This only happens at some of the best universities, usually the top 50 or so. Michigan State isn't excluding high-performing Asians to include black students because they've got seats for everybody. Harvard, on the other hand, has over 40x more applicants than available seats. 
  
  admit students with lesser scores than other students with higher scores
  
  I want to go a little deeper here. Generally, there are 4 big factors that universities always consider first: GPA, Academic rigor (how hard your school/courses were), SAT scores, and Extracurricular Activities (ECs). However, it's not a race to the top. Most universities have a minimum number, a cut off of sorts.
  Let's say the Harvard cutoff is 1350 on the SAT. A black student with a 1370 then has just as much right to entrance as the Asian with a 1550. 
  If you want to change the system to say whoever has the highest scores is admitted straight away, we still have a problem: Harvard gets more perfect SAT scores than it has available seats. How will they decide who to take? What do you do when you have thousands of applicants with perfect profiles who are all equally amazing? 
  Affirmative action is essentially a solution to a very rare problem. And the people "hurt" by it are people who didn't get into Harvard but still got into a top-20 school somewhere. The benefits to those who do get into these competitive schools because of affirmative action are far greater than the "losses" of those students who weren't admitted. >
  
  
  equally amazing?
  
  This is a lie. If Asian applicants need to score 300 points higher on the SAT on average to have the same chance of admission, there's fuckery going on, unless you're claiming that all these applicants have subpar extracurriculars or essays for some reason.
  Harvard has a proven track record of rating Asians lower on subjective criteria like "likability" and "courage" even though the admissions committee has never met the applicant, even though alumni interviewers frequently rate Asian applicants equally on those same metrics. It's blatant stereotyping and racism.
  
  Let's say the Harvard cutoff is 1350 on the SAT. A black student with a 1370 then has just as much right to entrance as the Asian with a 1550.
  
  hell no. The chances of anyone White or Asian getting into Harvard with 1370 is very slim. I daresay impossible without legacy or recruitment.
  
  Most universities have a minimum number, a cut off of sorts.
  
  Then they should raise the cutoff. If you can't even get a decent score on SAT math, you have no fucking business going to MIT.
  
  However, it's not a race to the top.
  
  yes, that's exactly what it is. they choose the admits based on who has the most impressive extracurriculars and most moving essays. except now none of that matters because muh racial equality. >
  
  
  If Asian applicants need to score 300 points higher on the SAT on average to have the same chance of admission, there's fuckery going on
  
  I agree. I was giving a hypothetical scenario that explains how affirmative action works. I wasn't saying that Asians don't have to be better, they do. 
  
  Harvard has a proven track record of rating Asians lower on subjective criteria like "likability" and "courage" even though the admissions committee has never met the applicant, even though alumni interviewers frequently rate Asian applicants equally on those same metrics. It's blatant stereotyping and racism.
  
  I would agree with that too. 
  
  hell no. The chances of anyone White or Asian getting into Harvard with 1370 is very slim. I daresay impossible without legacy or recruitment.
  
  Again, 1350 was just a number of the purposes of illustration, not an actual claim. But I also agree with you. 
  
  Then they should raise the cutoff. If you can't even get a decent score on SAT math, you have no fucking business going to MIT.
  
  Here I disagree to some extent. Standardized testing is not for everyone and isn't the best predictor of your college success. CalTech went test blind. 
  
  they choose the admits based on who has the most impressive extracurriculars and most moving essays. except now none of that matters because muh racial equality.
  
  It totally matters still. Race doesn't factor into the equation until you already have a TON of great applicants. Unqualified people are not being admitted. Some qualified people are being rejected. There's a big difference there. 
  I asked:
  
  What do you do when you have thousands of applicants with perfect profiles who are all equally amazing?
  
  And this didn't really get a response. You say they aren't equally amazing, but you're focusing on the high quality Asians that get left out instead of considering everyone else who was also just as good who got in. Not every excellent black or white or Asian student is going to get into Harvard. There just isn't enough space. The people who get rejected are not miles ahead of those who got accepted. 
  My point is, if you remove affirmative action, what do you do when you have 5000+ people with perfect GPAs, 1580+ SAT scores, flawless ECs and rigorous backgrounds? Because that's what Harvard gets every year. 
  Please, explain how you would solve that problem. >
  
  
  Here I disagree to some extent. Standardized testing is not for everyone and isn't the best predictor of your college success. CalTech went test blind.
  
  Maybe for some disciplines, but if you can't do well on an embarrassingly easy test that's mostly Algebra 1 with a sprinkling of geometry, you have no business applying to a prestigious engineering school. It's absolutely ludicrous anyone would even entertain the idea.
  
  what do you do when you have 5000+ people with perfect GPAs, 1580+ SAT scores, flawless ECs and rigorous backgrounds? Because that's what Harvard gets every year.
  
  easy. assign each applicant an ID number. no need to know their race, sex, age, or other immutable characteristics. Then choose those with the most astounding ECs, or the most compelling essays, or overcame the greatest challenges, whatever the committee likes best.
  Because I can tell you one thing, not everyone who gets admitted to these top schools is "equally amazing." I know quite a few dubious choices. >
  
  
  I know quite a few dubious choices.
  
  The process is human, so there's always going to be some margin of error. But they have far more highly qualified applicants than they do seats, that's a fact. 
  
  easy. assign each applicant an ID number. no need to know their race, sex, age, or other immutable characteristics.
  
  Even with anonymization, you have essays to deal with. Essays frequently touch on background and diversity, and you can't ignore those prompts. And even the anti-affirmative action lawyers admit that it would be fine to use race to make decisions if it's brought up in an essay. (you can see that here). 
  And often, overcoming racial barriers or discrimination is precisely what minorities write about! And it makes for compelling essays about overcoming challenges. >
  
  
  And often, overcoming racial barriers or discrimination is precisely what minorities write about! And it makes for compelling essays about overcoming challenges.
  
  of course, it does! and I would never suggest that these essays be banned. but unfortunately, the current policy we live in means that a black person writing about his racial struggles will matter more than an Asian person writing about theirs, for the simple fact that the latter is "overrepresented." >
  
  Correct. So, I think the question comes down to this: Is that so bad? 
  Because the way I see it, we have a group of students upset that they aren't getting into universities that, as it stands, only accept 5-10% of applicants anyway. At worst, a few thousand people are affected in a given year. 
  And they're "affected" by having to what? Settle for a different top-20 school? Cry me a river. 
  Meanwhile, you've got another group of people who are getting a massive upgrade, perhaps from their local state school to an S-tier university. 
  It might not be perfectly fair, but it seems to me to be a net positive. >
  
  
  Meanwhile, you've got another group of people who are getting a massive upgrade, perhaps from their local state school to an S-tier university.
  
  There logically cannot be a net positive. Enrollment at Harvard, T20s, and state schools will not change. Class sizes do not change. The net utilitarian benefit is zero.
  Further, you admitted that these URM candidates are already highly qualified and "on the edge" per se. Why should they settle for the local state school? They can easily make T50s if that's the case. >
  
  
  The net utilitarian benefit is zero.
  
  Only if you measure in terms of admissions at the same university without considering the relative other options available.
  
  Why should they settle for the local state school?
  
  Cost is a major factor here. These top universities typically meet 100% of demonstrated need. Many public schools, even great local ones like the UC system, can't do that, but your local state school is likely the most affordable option. That trend is only going to get worse by the way. We're about to hit peak application numbers in 2023 and from there it will only decline year after year. That means universities will need more students who can pay more. 
  And that's why I see a bigger benefit for the minority that gets a plus than the minority that gets a minus. And it's not a zero-sum game. It's not like one Asian is removed to specifically put one black person. >
  
  
  Only if you measure in terms of admissions at the same university without considering the relative other options available.
  
  except you have already conceded that these applicants are all "equally qualified" to attend top institutions, and thus, the relative other options should be similar.
  Not to mention that this discussion does not exist in a vacuum. Again, the total number of applicants going to each institution big or small, rich or poor, stays the same. Even if the White/Asian applicants have T50s to fall back on, in doing so they displace other students that would have gone there. The end result is the same.
  
  These top universities typically meet 100% of demonstrated need.
  
  many good schools offer aid >
  
  It is, and given the lexicon of your post and the strange use of “affirmative action” in lieu of “positive discrimination” I'm left to assume you're from the U.S.A..
  May I ask why you focus on this before focusing on legacy admissions which are legal in the U.S.A., or in general the U.S.A. system where admission is subjective, rather than objective? >
  
  \^what aboutism >
  
  Which is an excellent argument to point out that someone is being inconsistent.
  People who complain about “whataboutism” are generally those inconsistent, who dislike being challenged on that.
  If o.p. truly cared about “discrimination”, then this person would start elsewhere, starting here betrays caring more about race identity politics than discrimination. >
  
  
  Which is an excellent argument to point out that someone is being inconsistent.
  
  The argument that someone is being in consistent with their stances does not address the premise in the op.  It's being used as a deflection and assume motives.
  Top line comment has to challenge the op and you haven't done that. >
  
  
  you haven't done that.
  
  Considering OP is engaging with the topic (literally didn't even understand it existed). Wouldn't you say this is a potential avenue to change OPs view considering they don't have insight into the process? >
  
  If the point of the whataboutism is to convince op that two wrongs make a right, then sure.  That still doen't challenge the original premise, just that it's all right because there's another wrong.  Has op changed their view because of whataboutism? >
  
  
  Has op changed their view because of whataboutism?
  
  I don't know. It's up to OP to determine what changes their view and what doesn't. >
  
  If whataboutism changes op's stance, then their whole premise falls apart.  Otherwise, the original premise still hasn't been addressed. >
  
  This sub is full of views that fall apart under scrutiny. I think it's one of the main points. 
  Anyway good chat bud. I'm done. >
  
  Show us where it fell apart and the thread can be closed. >
  
  
  Some view AA as correcting historical injustice. If indeed that is the case, then it should not favor Hispanics as disproportionately as it does and should also focus on when the applicant families landed in the country before attempting a brushstroke correction of a historical wrong.
  
  This argument doesn't really make any sense, it's a complete non-sequitur answer to the idea that affirmative action exists to right historical injustice. The problem that affirmative action is trying to fix is not to look at each individual person's ancestors and judge whether that specific person is owed an advantage in college admissions because of some cosmic scoreboard of wrongdoings. That would be absurd and pointless. Rather, when we talk about righting historical wrongs, we're not talking about individuals, but demographics. The problem is the disparity in economic, social, and political power between different races - blacks and hispanics are disadvantaged in virtually every metric. That is what affirmative action would be trying to fix. Not some weird 'sins of the father' bookkeeping where we try to decide if your great-grandfather specifically was mistreated or not, but a direct effort to alter the social and political balance of power in this country. It is not a brushtroke correction of a historical wrong, but rather, it's looking at what real material effects of historical wrongs persist in our society, and trying to change them. >
  
  Your argument appears to be for fairness based on current society state while acknowledging the historical wrongdoings that might have led to current state. 
  I have already addressed that in my second point. I don’t agree that Hispanics as a whole or a vast majority are more discriminated against than Asian community as a whole. Discrimination happens only when you can clearly attribute a person to a certain race that you view unfavorably. But Asians for example are a very diverse set of people, and South Asians are often confused for Blacks or Hispanics and vice versa. Even economically, there is wide disparity between Asian communities. 
  If fairness on the basis of discrimination is what you are arguing for, then certain Asians communities should also qualify for AA favorism. Or if it then becomes a hard math given that everyone’s life circumstances are so unique and different for a variety of reasons, then we should use socioeconomic status as the metric, ie income over race.
  Also, it’s hard to segregate people in brushstroke communities like white or black or Asian in these modern times when we acknowledge that race is a weak concept and every individual or sin society is uniquely different from each other and there are wide differences between two individuals of the same race or community, by appearance, circumstances and even privilege. >
  
  No, that isn't what my argument is. As I explained above, the point of affirmative action is not to address the socioeconomic status of the individuals concerned. The point is to fix demographic power imbalances in our society at large. For example, Blacks and Hispanics are arrested and imprisoned at a much higher rate that people of other races. There are maybe many different ways we could fix that, but one of them is to alter the balance of power overall in our society between black and Hispanic people, and white people. Like, if the problem is that one race has all the power and uses that power to imprison brown people more often, well then maybe the solution is to just give brown people more power, right? And one of the ways you might do that is by admitting more black and Hispanic people to University, as that is proven to influence economic, and thus also social and political, outcomes. So it doesn't really matter who was poor growing up and who wasn't - the point isn't to look at each individual person's background and all the wide differences between two individuals of the same race or community, and decide who was the victim of racism or whatever and who wasn't. The point is to actively try to alter the power balance in our society, by simply making it more likely for black and Hispanic people to accrue economic, social, and political power within their lifetimes. 
  You might be right that some Asian people should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action. There are, no doubt, disempowered communities of Asian people in this country who deserve to be empowered against the privileged white majority. But that's an argument for more affirmative action, not less. So >
  
  Except it doesn’t put the power in their hands. Quite the opposite. It’s disempowering to be ‘placed’ into a college when you’re unqualified solely based on your race, and most the time recipients of AAP do not benefit. For the most part, Black College graduates do not live in the areas where more ‘power’ is needed. >
  
  A public state school should be a reflection of the community.  Historically, without intervention, they haven't been. >
  
  Why must a public school be a direct reflection of the racial makeup of the community? 
  Especially if the only way to achieve that is discrimination. >
  
  
  Especially if the only way to achieve that is discrimination.
  
  If it's not reflective, discrimination has occurred already. Either that or specific demographics are inherently flawed in some manner to exclude them. But I doubt we will say women of the 50's were inherently stupid compared to men while we see similarities today. >
  
  
  If it's not reflective, discrimination has occurred already
  
  Completely untrue. If an area has many Asian immigrants who focus on academics as well as white farmers who don't pursue higher education based off of their culture and goals, a university nearby will obviously have more Asians than white people in that case.
  There has been no discrimination there. If the cultural focuses of different groups result in different outcomes, that is perfectly fine and is, absolutely, not inherently wrong. If you want to force equality of outcome, you're running a Fool's Errand. >
  
  
  cultural focuses
  
  Why does cultural focuses (stereotypes) occur? Are Asians inherently  academically smart and whites are inherently farmers?
  I'm trying to figure how you confirmed equality of opportunity is occurring. Did women in the 50's have equality of opportunity? >
  
  Not at all. Simple difference in location can be enough to cause cultural divergence. You're acting as if the only way anyone can be different is via discrimination, which is, frankly, an absurd notion.
  Of course women didn't have equality of opportunity in the 50s. In that case, anti-discrimination laws and protected classes were hardly even an established concept. Now laws forbid discrimination of any protected class, sex being one of them. >
  
  
  You're acting
  
  Feel free to engage with actual text than fighting a strawman of me lol. 
  
  laws forbid discrimination
  
  How would you prove if women were being discriminated against today? If a law firm hired 100% men, how would it be determined if discrimination occurs (assuming someone is saying "dicks only"). >
  
  
  Feel free to engage with actual text
  
  I am. I addressed the obvious implication. If you'd like to point out how that ISN'T what you're implying I'm more than willing. Questioned why cultural differences emerge, implied that they either don't exist or are only stereotypes, or occur only due to discrimination. Is that what you're arguing?
  
  How would you prove if women were being discriminated against today? If a law firm hired 100% men, how would it be determined if discrimination occurs
  
  Look into hiring practices. Sue if believed to be unfairly turned away. Have an investigation done that can prove that illegal sex-based discrimination is occurring. That isn't really rocket science and is done right now, in real life. I'm not sure why you think this is an impossibility. >
  
  
  Look into hiring practices.
  
  Hiring practices select the best people based on cultural fit and personality. 
  
  Sue if believed to be unfairly turned away. Have an investigation done that can prove that illegal sex-based discrimination is occurring.
  
  What would be the proof look like?
  I'm specifically asking you what proof looks like. >
  
  
  Hiring practices select the best people based on cultural fit and personality.
  
  Hiring practices should, generally, select the person who is most qualified for the work. Culture doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. And I'd still like an answer to how you think cultures come about, since you still haven't given an example of how that happens outside of discrimination.
  
  What would be the proof look like?
  
  Showing a consistent trend of hiring underqualified men and denying qualified women. Remarks disparaging women particularly. Documents indicating to the hiring staff to avoid women.
  All of these are some of the many pieces of evidence that could serve, but I'm not a lawyer. You are free to look up what kinds of material serves as evidence, as well, since you were apparently unaware that discrimination against a protected class is illegal and gets prosecution.
  Given that you're still not addressing some of my other points, though, and just seem like you're arguing for argument's sake while not knowing much of anything about the topic, I don't think it would be beneficial to continue this. Have a good night. >
  
  Is it discriminatory? Yes.
  Is that bad? From the perspective of an individual student who actually lost their place to an applicant with worse scores? Sure (though the vast majority of denied applicants would've been denied regardless, and no individual can easily tell which category they're in).
  But affirmative action isn't about the individual. It's a social tool, aimed at providing a collective benefit. Per John Green:
  
  Public education does not exist for the benefit of students or the benefit of their parents. It exists for the benefit of the social order. We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education.  
  So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.
  
  Affirmative action is aimed at introducing higher education programs and expanding their reach in communities historically excluded from it. Because of structural inequality (e.g., public schools getting their funding from property tax, even in poor communities), without some sort of affirmative remedy, the problem is not something that can be solved with "meritocratic" inaction. The deck is stacked against some people, and we shouldn't just tolerate that.
  But how do we balance the idea that affirmative action displaced some "deserving" students in the process? Isn't that unfair?
  Well, for one, life's not fair. They aren't entitled to admission at their first choice school. So it's not that big of a loss if you can't go to Michigan and have to go to Michigan State. And if you were on the bubble at a bottom tier school, I'm not terribly concerned either. You're honestly better off saving the money and learning a trade.
  And secondly, affirmative action isn't making room for students who are patently unqualified. They're also on the bubble, and college applications aren't all-encompassing or perfectly accurate measures of ability. Two B students with an 1100 and a 1200 on the SAT—which is more deserving? What if the 1100 works 30 hours a week and was up late at their job the night before the test? What if the 1200 had a private tutor? The idea that college applications are precise measures of merit is laughable, so fudging some people around on the cusp of admission isn't objectively wrong.
  Finally, to your concern about socioeconomic factors other than race, well first of all, many colleges do consider that. Texas has (had?) a policy of admitting the top few percent of students from each high school in the state, so the best students in the worst schools are guaranteed a spot at UT, even if their scores wouldn't otherwise qualify them for admission. (That policy is also contested by the anti-affirmative action crowd.) And on top of that, race and poverty are interrelated, with minority families finding it significantly harder to build intergenerational success (e.g., college educated parents sending their own kids to college). So while poverty is worth considering too, it's not something that can wholly displace consideration of race in affirmative action policies. >
  
  
  race and poverty are interrelated
  
  Then college admissions should directly be focusing on socioeconomic status, not race. Because the truth is that wealthy Black kids and Hispanic kids benefit the most when they don’t need it.
  Also, you can’t blame the lack of Black and Hispanic representation in certain fields solely on socioeconomic status. Because look at India. India is a developing country. There are a lot of luxuries that people take for granted in America that isn’t easily available in India, and many people come from much worse backgrounds than the lower class in America. But still many many Indian people manage to study hard and become qualified to come to America and work in lucrative fields. I’m all for improving socioeconomic disparities, but you also have to recognize that that is not the sole factor in why there is little Black and Hispanic representation in high-earning fields. Indian people have a culture of working hard towards becoming doctors and engineers, at the expense of being worse at things like sports and arts. >
  
  I genuinely can't tell what you're trying to say. Because you've taken a fairly straightforward statement, that race and poverty are interrelated, and responded as if I said "unrelated." As if the correlation between race and wealth is coincidence. But it's not, and I gave a quick explanation of that. 
  And then your next paragraph seems to understand completely. You correctly say that economic disparity is not the sole obstacle that minority groups face. Take the next step with that, because if the obstacles are unequal, and tied to race, there's racism at work. And since racism is self-perpetuating, fighting racism requires you take race into account.
  So I see two options here, since you clearly came in disagreeing with me. Either you misunderstood something and haven't quite thought your position through, or you believe that there's something inherent to race that prevents social advancement, and that... well... yikes. >
  
  
  I genuinely can’t tell what you’re trying to say. Because taken a fairly straightforward statement, that race and poverty are interrelated and responses as if is as “unrelated”
  
  I made myself very clear, but I’ll say it again.
  I said that if race and poverty are interrelated, focus just on poverty in college admissions. No need to take a detour through race, because then you’re giving an unfair advantage to non-poor people of that race. 
  
  You correctly say that economic disparity is not the sole obstacle that minority groups face.
  
  I explained my point. Indian people have a culture of working hard in the fields of medicine, tech, and engineering. This is why Indian people excel in these areas at the expense of being worse in other fields. Look at the last Olympics for example and see how few medal India won despite being the second largest country in world. Or the fact that the NFL has almost no Indians players in it. On the flip side, see how black people dominate over sports and music in America. 
  
  you believe there’s something inherent to race that prevent social advancement
  
  I said it’s culture not skill. I never said or implied that Indian people are smarter or more skilled than Black/Hispanic people. I said that, despite the amount of poverty and lack of opportunities, Indian people have a culture of working as hard as they can towards lucrative industries so they can lift themselves and their families out of poverty. And therefore, despite having less opportunities and worse living conditions, they are over represented in these industries. >
  
  You can't divorce minority culture from the majority culture that surrounds them. Unless you believe that "culture" is genetic (which is just racism with more steps), you have to consider what prompted that culture to form. And in the US, a huge part of the origins of "black culture" is slavery, segregation, and economic discrimination.
  Saying "it's cultural" is a deflection to avoid confronting the racism that contributed to that culture. >
  
  Yes but culture is not necessarily discrimination. What I’m arguing is that Indian people really want to succeed in these high-paying industries, and so despite having less opportunities, less wealth, and more barriers, they put in the effort and succeed more. 
  You can definitely argue that racism shaped black culture today, and I wouldn’t even disagree with that. But there is little to no systemic racism against black or Hispanic people today. And in America, there are so many opportunities to pursue your career goals, even if you come from a low socioeconomic status. College is expensive, but there’s also financial aid, grants, loans, and scholarships. If you still can’t afford college, there’s community college, which is cheaper and near home. There are online classes that can save time and money in commuting. If you have to work to support your family because you come from a low-income background, you can work as a part-time student. You can also do an online/hybrid job so that it’s easier to both work and study at the same. Sure, part-time learning would take longer, but it would still get you where you need to career-wise. People who come from lower socioeconomic status generally have less access to educational resources, but in the modern world, there are so many free resources on the internet to supplement learning. In fact, most of my teachers couldn’t teach, so I used free online resources to do better in school. The computer science industry is well-paying, constantly growing, and has a very low barrier to entry so it’s ideal for people who want to come out of poverty faster. Life is just objectively easier in America than it is in a developing country like India, so how can socioeconomic disparity be the sole or main reason by Black/Hispanic people in America are underrepresented in high-paying industries? >
  
  Imagine that you’re a woman
  Maybe you’re traumatized from SA or DV. Maybe you need a gynecologist or OB, and don’t feel comfortable having a man look at your private parts. Maybe you were just victimized and are in an unfamiliar, vulnerable place like the ER. 
  Do you think it would make sense that, you, as a woman, in that scenario, would prefer a female doctor over a male one?
  Due to historical inequities, maybe there are fewer female doctors in your area. There should be a way to increase the number of female doctors in that community, right? To better serve women like yourself?
  So maybe a group of kids are applying to medical school. All of them have passed their classes, all of them have put the work in. 
  A male student has a 4.3 GPA. A female student has a 4.15.  
  You need more female doctors to help serve women better in that community. Both of those students clearly worked hard and are qualified. Should the only thing that matters be that the male student has a higher GPA? What if the entire class is made up of males already? Is it sexist to bring the female student in over the male student even though her GPA is slightly lower than his?
  This same concept applies for racial issues and other protected classes. People who come from the community they’re serving tend to, well, serve the community better.
  A white guy from suburban Florida may not be as effective a provider in Compton as someone who lived there their entire life, knows the people, knows what the struggle is like. And Compton, unlike suburban florida, is an underserved area. Doctors from those communities are needed. But it’s harder for them to get ahead because of their background and the history, hence why they’re underrepresented.
  In my state, there is a cool program the medical school has in place. If you come from a rural community, you are given precedence when applying to medical school, and you can even get school paid for if you enter their program. The caveat is that you have to spend at least 2-3 years as a provider in a rural community.
  Everyone wants to live in the city. The rural communities in my state are severely lacking in doctors by comparison. So the local university has a way to motivate people to work out there where they’re needed. Is this discriminatory to people who live in the city? Maybe. But it works out a lot better for the people who need help the most. >
  
  Using this same logic, let's say you're in a super conservative area where a lot of people don't trust women being doctors and refuse to listen to their medical advice. Would you be fine with local medical schools discriminating against women to get more men to be doctors? >
  
  I think that people should serve the communities that they’re from. A white rural person from a small town would likely be better at serving their town than say, someone from the inner city 
  The issue is there are no shortage of white male conservative doctors. If there were an enormous shortage of them, I would absolutely understand giving them precedence. But they are overrepresented in the medical community. There is no lack of white people in medicine. 
  Meanwhile, black people, native Americans, people from rural communities, and people from disadvantaged backgrounds are underrepresented. Hence why they need the additional boost
  I also want to make something clear. The rules aren’t “no white men allowed.” The rules are- if two qualified people are going for a role, multiple factors should be taken into account. That includes whether a certain community is underserved, and whether more people from that community are needed in the field >
  
  I suppose, but I feel like this is a very contrived solution. If black people don't feel comfortable around white doctors, even if the representation were proportionate, the majority of their accessible doctors would probably still be white. 
  And this only applies to medical schools. I fail to see what benefit comes from having a certain race design your iPhone parts. >
  
  The majority of their “accessible doctors” being white is exactly the problem though
  Black people are at a societal disadvantage. Many weren’t even allowed to attend college. That’s not ancient history, that was in my parents’ lifetimes. Not that long ago, black people weren’t allowed to live in certain neighborhoods or go to certain schools. If your parents weren’t given the opportunity to get an education, it makes it a lot harder for you to climb up that ladder. 
  Because of this, there’s catching up to do. We need more black doctors to get into these positions so the communities can be served better. Until the statistics catch up and are better representative of the American population, we need to keep prioritizing black applicants with similar qualifications. Once black doctors make up 13.5% of doctors, maybe it will no longer be necessary 
  Additionally, it’s not about being made uncomfortable by white people, it’s more about white people struggling to communicate effectively with black communities, resulting in worse medical care.  
  Disparities in maternal and infant health persist even when controlling for certain underlying social and economic factors, such as education and income.
  For instance, a college educated black woman has the same health outcomes as a white woman who was a high school drop out. 
  Even taking socioeconomic status out of the equation shows that there are enormous disparities in how black people are treated. Having more black doctors could solve some of this problem, because they’re more likely to understand the patients at a personal level
  Black Americans are Systematically Under-Treated for Pain. Why?
  Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations
  I use medicine as an example because that was largely my specialty and where most of my experiences come from. I come from a very medical family, worked in the ER for a long time, and majored in biology and public health. So I’m able to lean on that firsthand knowledge. It’s harder for me to speak on other fields because I know less about their inner workings
  But I also believe there need to be more BIPOC lawyers, and politicians, and HR managers, and board directors, because those roles too benefit from more diversity. And those roles are gatekept by higher education, hence why colleges themselves should give precedence to underrepresented communities.
  If there aren’t enough native Americans in college, then there won’t be enough native social workers or lawyers or senators. If there aren’t enough black people in college, there won’t be enough black doctors or teachers. If there aren’t enough women in college, there wont be enough female researchers or governors or professors. 
  Affirmative action is necessary because diversity in the workforce is necessary. Without a diverse workforce many vulnerable communities are worse off >
  
  I'm saying it's not the solution you're pretending it is. Unless you plan on making more than 50% of doctors black, the simple fact of reality is that minorities will often have to choose a white doctor simply because they are a smaller proportion of the population. 
  
  diversity in the workforce
  
  Then it isn't about diversity. It's about proportional representation. If it were really about diversity, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >
  
  We don’t need black doctors in every place in the country, we specifically need them in places where the black population is high and the percentage of black doctors is low.
  For instance, in South Carolina, black people make up 25% of the population but only 6% of doctors. In Louisiana, black people make up 31% of the population but only 8% of doctors. In New York, black people make up 15% of the population and only 5% of doctors. This means that they are currently underrepresented. It means that there aren’t enough to fill the need by A LOT. 
  50% black doctors wouldn’t make sense because then they would be overrepresented. But if they’re fairly represented, the chances of someone from your community serving your community are higher.
  And diversity is kind of at the core of this, no? If your workplace is 90% straight white men, the ideas and methods will be as homogenous as the population. Meanwhile if different subgroups of people were fairly, equitably represented, not only would the workplace more closely resemble the real world, but they would better encompass the cultural attitudes and practices of the broader American populace
  I’ll use an example: Do you think a media company that’s 95% white is going to be as effective at capturing black audiences as a workplace that has, say, 13% black employees? 
  You can apply that logic to many workplaces, not just in medicine, but in any company whose goal is to serve the public or understand their consumers >
  
  
  the ideas and methods will be as homogenous as the population.
  
  But why is race the defining feature of diversity? Take Asia, it's 60% of the human population and has cultures as diverse as anywhere else. But for some reason being overrepresented somehow means that's not diverse.
  
  whose goal is to serve the public or understand their consumers
  
  I question the value of this. How does having black McDonald's execs make their burgers better for black people? What real, practical, impact does being a black lawyer mean when you're arguing in court? I just don't get it. Obviously diverse perspectives are desirable, but I fail to see why exact proportional racial representation is a prerequisite for diversity of thought. >
  
  I feel like I kind of covered this already
  If you’re a black doctor, you have knowledge of the black community that white people do not. Therefore, your method of communication, the way you view your patients, and the way you treat them will be different. We can see from the studies that those patients’ health outcomes improve 
  If you’re a black public defender, your way of explaining concepts to your black clients and building trust will be better than if a white public defender were trying to do the same. This is because most likely you have a better firsthand knowledge of their experiences, how they communicate, and how their background affects their perceptions and understanding of the world.
  If you’re a black advertiser, you’ll be more likely to effectively reach black consumers with your content than a white guy trying to imitate a culture he or she knows nothing about. Your work won’t be an imitation, it will be drawn from real world experience. 
  If you’re a black senator, you will likely have better knowledge of the needs, views, and priorities of your black constituents than your white counterparts. 
  What all of these jobs have in common, is they require higher education. Currently, black people face barriers to accessing higher education. That is why you might see a lot of black people flipping burgers, but very few as CEOs or federal judges.
  “School of thought” on its own is complex and there are many ways to bring diverse perspectives to the work place. A lot of secondary post-baccalaureate schools look for people with different majors in undergrad. My local medical school and law school prioritize students from rural backgrounds, because the rural communities in my state are underserved. There are many scholarships for low-income students or students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
  Race just happens to be one piece of the pie. It’s not the end all be all. But it is certainly important, hence why schools and employers will make efforts to integrate people from all kinds of backgrounds into their spaces that were previously “straight wealthy white male only.” 
  If you have a workforce with diverse perspectives and ideas, you also need people from diverse backgrounds who have diverse experiences. Race is one example, but there are many others that universities and workplaces will take into account. That’s why there’s also personal statements, cover letters, interviews, and past experiences to consider in addition to the person’s identity >
  
  If I am correct, POC with lower scores are not selected over whites & Asians with higher scores. All things being equal, you can use race as a criteria for who is selected. >
  
  I’m currently an Male asian medical student. Every single admissions office in every medical school will tell you you need to be a significantly more competitive applicant as an asian male rather than a black or Hispanic female (both extremes given here with race and sex). The statistics show it and are released at the end of every application cycle. Asians are being hurt by A.A which I think would be more in line w OPs post. >
  
  OP I’m glad you mentioned point two. It’s amazing how many people think race or gender are the biggest factors for success. But this has been well studied and financial status of the home you came from is by far the biggest determinant. 
  So in US, a poor white male has much less opportunity than middle class black women.
  (On average of course) >
  
  If you're talking population level determinants, black women are poorer than white men. So, on average, your point is false, and white males have more opportunity than black women. >
  
  Your premise is incorrect, or at best misleading.
  Affirmative action does not allow unqualified applicants to be admitted to schools. Instead, it allows candidates' backgrounds to be included in the determination of which students, among those who are already qualified to attend, to admit.
  It seems to me to be a no-brainer. >
  
  Is the bar for qualification not different for different students? Using a simple metric like test scores, what counts as qualified? >
  
  
  Is the bar for qualification not different for different students?
  
  There are minimum requirements that in theory all applicants must meet. Whether this happens in practice is a different story, especially where "legacy" applicants are concerned.  The idea that affirmative action is causing unqualified students to be accepted doesn't have much evidentiary basis, though. >
  
  Yeah, what requirements? And are they so low that basically anyone (rationally) considering applying already meets them? If so, aren’t the requirements for a decent chance of success different depending on the student?