• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Affirmative action for the rich:' How the privileged legally game the college admissions process

TurtleDude said:
I can see affirmative action working to benefit an institution if the people using it would actually do some investigation rather than seeing certain groups as "disadvantaged" etc

I used to recruit kids to play for a D-1 College when I was a coach while I was a graduate student. And here is how affirmative action should work. Lets suppose I have one more slot for a tennis player. I have two choices-one is a rich kid. He has his own tennis court on his property and a membership to a nearby, top of the line, indoor facility. he has private coach, who takes him to all the big events-Kalamazoo, the Orange Bowl, and some of the ITF events held in the USA. He is ranked in the top 40 in the country.

The second candidate comes from a middle class family. He plays #1 on a very good public school team. That team has a top coach who works with this boy during the season. He also attends clinics at a local public tennis facility. He attends local tournaments but his family cannot afford to send him to the big national events. However, he has played a couple of the USTA sectional events in his state and has a national ranking of 89 or so

Now, if I went purely on rankings, the first kid should get the slot. But I have watched both boys play. I realize that the first kid has maxed out his talent. He has had every advantage-private lessons for years, a coach who travels with him, 24-7 access to indoor courts when the weather is nasty, and since he can afford to enter all the big national events, his ranking is as good as it can possibly be. Now the other boy has far less of those ranking accentuating advantages. Since he cannot play most of the most prestigious tournaments (where the most ranking points are available) his ranking suffers. Plus, only having his father, rather than a trained professional coach, advising him at tournaments, has probably hurt his achievements too. I figure that since my institution has top coaches and facilities, if this boy were to play for me, his athletic talent would -in a year or two-propel him past the other kid-who really has no room to improve. SO I choose the second boy.

Now that is how affirmative action should work.
Click to expand...

The problem is, what you said has nothing to do with affirmative action. It was just a calculation regarding the expected end ranking for these two players. If the rich kid had all these things at his disposition but somehow didn't want to take advantage of everything (say, he preferred to be academically busy at school for the time being) and then you concluded he was the one with the biggest chance at a higher ranking, you'd have selected him. So your selection has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. That's not what affirmative action is. You made a technical decision, not an affirmative action one.
 
TurtleDude said:
No but the overreaching federal government has already interfered with that. But if say Amherst figures it can fund 15 poor smart kids' education by admitting some kid whose family will pony up a million dollars-so be it. That is different than lying on applications, having bogus SAT or ACT scores, or claiming to say be a 4.05 miler or a 27 foot long jumper and getting an acceptance for athletics when one is a couch potato
Click to expand...

This response has nothing to do with mu question nor stance on the matter.

If you just want to ramble, quote someone else.
 
VanceMack said:
Same point I have made previously...

All the folk ****ting themselves over this horribly unfair practice...

Where have you been on Affirmative Action? I think I must have missed the numerous threads of people venting their poutrage over lesser qualified individuals getting preferred treatment.
Click to expand...
I think some posters, unfortunately, were proud of the fact that rich white people got into trouble, like the OP.
 
GreatNews2night said:
The problem is, what you said has nothing to do with affirmative action. It was just a calculation regarding the expected end ranking for these two players. If the rich kid had all these things at his disposition but somehow didn't want to take advantage of everything (say, he preferred to be academically busy at school for the time being) and then you concluded he was the one with the biggest chance at a higher ranking, you'd have selected him. So your selection has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. That's not what affirmative action is. You made a technical decision, not an affirmative action one.
Click to expand...

its called an analogy and it was AA based economic advantages or disadvantages
 
cabse5 said:
I think some posters, unfortunately, were proud of the fact that rich white people got into trouble, like the OP.
Click to expand...

Is there something fundamentally wrong with wanting to eliminate the unfair advantages of money is society?
 
Does anybody here have sympathy for Lori Loughlin's daughters? I've seen people, including comedians, bashing the mother but sparing the daughters.

I don't. Just think of it: they did pose for photos rowing, to contribute to the fake narrative that they were rowing athletes. So, they were *perfectly* aware of what their mother was up to, and were fully on board, pun intended. They helped the mother in the deception, and are just as guilty.

If you experience any sympathy for them, think of the kids who had merit and didn't cheat, but did not get in because they occupied their slots.
 
TurtleDude said:
its called an analogy and it was AA based economic advantages or disadvantages
Click to expand...

Not all analogies are valid or accurate. AA supposes that a *less* qualified minority (or at least equally qualified) will be given preference as reparation for the historical disadvantage. In your "analogy" the disadvantaged kid was in your opinion the best athlete, the one with the biggest potential (you were just better at spotting that potential than the ranking, which was in your opinion artificially inflated regarding the rich kid who had already maximized his position while the poor kid hadn't), so your decision was a technical one, not an affirmative action one. Affirmative action would be, if you firmly believed that the rich tennis player had the biggest potential, but picked the poor one instead. Sorry, but I think that with your analogy, you showed misunderstanding of the spirit of AA.

Your example is one of someone who is a good talent scout and is able to spot the best talent regardless of the ranking, correctly understanding that an athlete who has a lot counting against him but still got a fairly high ranking, is potentially better than someone who has a lot counting for him which over-inflates his ranking. So you simply picked the best athlete. If all that you want to do is pick the best one, you don't need affirmative action, and your decision has nothing to do with race.

What if the poorer and lower ranked but best athlete were white, and the richer and higher ranked but worse athlete were black, and you picked the white one, would it still be affirmative action? See now how your analogy was faulty?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom