comment: >
  
  Show us where it fell apart and the thread can be closed.
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.