Princeton Gives Bonus SAT Points to Blacks and Latinos, Penalizes Asians

[saddampbuh]

apparently asians have white privilege now

LA Times:

Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.

http://www.dailystormer.com/princeton-university-gives-bonus-sat-points-to-blacks-and-latinos-penalizes-asians/

[pattu1]

They are forced to enforce diversity.

[WW3]

They are forced to enforce diversity.

http://s3.postimg.org/8oanqg04j/rand_racism.jpg

More like willing to enforce collectivism.

[manis]

One way it is called racism.
The other way it is called affirmative action.

[bryant.coleman]

One way it is called racism.
The other way it is called affirmative action.

Affirmative action will create a generation of fools, who will have their university degree by virtue of their race. These people will be incapable of making new innovations, and eventually other nations will overtake the United States in R&D as well as other sectors.

[username18333]

Attribution theory's fundamental distinction leads quite naturally to its fundamental rule: When a behavior occurs in the presence of a sufficiently strong, facilitative force, an observer should not infer that the actor is predisposed to perform that behavior. Just as one should not conclude that a balloon that rises on a windy day is filled with helium, one cannot make unequivocal inferences about the abilities of an athlete, the convictions of a politician, or the mental health of a student when poor lighting, a roomful of opinionated voters, or sudden bad news may have induced their behaviors. In other words, one should not explain with dispositions that which has already been explained by the situation. This logical rule was first formalized by Jones and Davis (1965) as the law of noncommon effects and later extended and codified by Kelley (1967) as the discounting principle, which warns observers not to attribute an effect to any one causal agent (e.g., a disposition) when another plausible causal agent (e.g., a situational force) is simultaneously present. In other words, when people do precisely what the physical environment or the social situation demands, dispositional inferences are logically unwarranted.

(Red colorization mine.)

Princeton has implemented an ad hoc “correction” for the varying upbringings of its prospective students.

[pattu1]

One way it is called racism.
The other way it is called affirmative action.

Affirmative action will create a generation of fools, who will have their university degree by virtue of their race. These people will be incapable of making new innovations, and eventually other nations will overtake the United States in R&D as well as other sectors.

When you do apply for a job, your university degree is just one aspect they consider.
If employers are smart enough, they will choose only truly deserving candidates.

[deepestfear]

Enforced diversity is good up to a point, question is where to draw the line and let merit take over

[username18333]

Attribution theory's fundamental distinction leads quite naturally to its fundamental rule: When a behavior occurs in the presence of a sufficiently strong, facilitative force, an observer should not infer that the actor is predisposed to perform that behavior. Just as one should not conclude that a balloon that rises on a windy day is filled with helium, one cannot make unequivocal inferences about the abilities of an athlete, the convictions of a politician, or the mental health of a student when poor lighting, a roomful of opinionated voters, or sudden bad news may have induced their behaviors. In other words, one should not explain with dispositions that which has already been explained by the situation. This logical rule was first formalized by Jones and Davis (1965) as the law of noncommon effects and later extended and codified by Kelley (1967) as the discounting principle, which warns observers not to attribute an effect to any one causal agent (e.g., a disposition) when another plausible causal agent (e.g., a situational force) is simultaneously present. In other words, when people do precisely what the physical environment or the social situation demands, dispositional inferences are logically unwarranted.

(Red colorization mine.)

“Merit” (“deepestfear,” 235) (i.e., “dispositional inferences” [Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215]) “[is] logically unwarranted” (Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215) as a criterion for admittance to an unproductive institution to such a degree as a prospect “[does] precisely what [its] physical environment or [its] social situation demands” (Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215) and the institution is, indeed, unproductive.

[BitMos]

Attribution theory's fundamental distinction leads quite naturally to its fundamental rule: When a behavior occurs in the presence of a sufficiently strong, facilitative force, an observer should not infer that the actor is predisposed to perform that behavior. Just as one should not conclude that a balloon that rises on a windy day is filled with helium, one cannot make unequivocal inferences about the abilities of an athlete, the convictions of a politician, or the mental health of a student when poor lighting, a roomful of opinionated voters, or sudden bad news may have induced their behaviors. In other words, one should not explain with dispositions that which has already been explained by the situation. This logical rule was first formalized by Jones and Davis (1965) as the law of noncommon effects and later extended and codified by Kelley (1967) as the discounting principle, which warns observers not to attribute an effect to any one causal agent (e.g., a disposition) when another plausible causal agent (e.g., a situational force) is simultaneously present. In other words, when people do precisely what the physical environment or the social situation demands, dispositional inferences are logically unwarranted.

(Red colorization mine.)

“Merit” (“deepestfear,” 235) (i.e., “dispositional inferences” [Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215]) “[is] logically unwarranted” (Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215) as a criterion for admittance to an unproductive institution to such a degree as a prospect “[does] precisely what [its] physical environment or [its] social situation demands” (Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215) and the institution is, indeed, unproductive.

if their social environment demands them to be slave of men and they prefer to be servant of God, what happens? ahahah arrived the .... , call it the chaos if it makes you feel securer... .

[username18333]

[…]

if their social environment demands them to be slave of men and they prefer to be servant of God, what happens? ahahah arrived the .... , call it the chaos if it makes you feel securer... .

:  an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics :  humanization

You make the god anthropomorphic. What else‽

[grendel25]

I'm all for providing opportunity to those coming up from poor backgrounds but 'penalizing' a student or requiring that they do better based on their ethnicity is sooooooooo wrong.  I feel bad for kids in college these days.

[username18333]

I'm all for providing opportunity to those coming up from poor backgrounds but 'penalizing' a student or requiring that they do better based on their ethnicity is sooooooooo wrong.  I feel bad for kids in college these days.

Regarding one so “penalized” (saddampbuh), the “academic excellence” thereof was, if you will, “over-extracted.”

[TotalShift]

Does Blacks and Hispanics does not have a chance to Asians to be admitted if they are given equal chance?

[username18333]

Does Blacks and Hispanics does not have a chance to Asians to be admitted if they are given equal chance?

What would their “home environment” indicate?

[manis]

I wonder what happens to mixed-race kids. 

[saddampbuh]

Enforced diversity is good up to a point, question is where to draw the line and let merit take over

how could replacing intelligent europeans and asians with stupid blacks and mexicans ever be a good thing?

[jaysabi]

Enforced diversity is good up to a point, question is where to draw the line and let merit take over

how could replacing intelligent europeans and asians with stupid blacks and mexicans ever be a good thing?

How could being a racist asshat ever be a good thing?

[saddampbuh]

How could being a racist asshat ever be a good thing?

which bit exactly is racist, calling blacks and mexicans stupid or disagreeing with the folks at princeton who also think they are stupid but believe this should qualify them for special privileges at the expense of more deserving candidates?

[username18333]

[…]

[H]ow could replacing intelligent europeans and asians with stupid blacks and mexicans ever be a good thing?

How could being a racist asshat ever be a good thing?

[W]hich bit exactly is racist, calling blacks and mexicans stupid or disagreeing with the folks at princeton who also think they are stupid but believe this should qualify them for special privileges at the expense of more deserving candidates?

Attribution theory's fundamental distinction leads quite naturally to its fundamental rule: When a behavior occurs in the presence of a sufficiently strong, facilitative force, an observer should not infer that the actor is predisposed to perform that behavior. Just as one should not conclude that a balloon that rises on a windy day is filled with helium, one cannot make unequivocal inferences about the abilities of an athlete, the convictions of a politician, or the mental health of a student when poor lighting, a roomful of opinionated voters, or sudden bad news may have induced their behaviors. In other words, one should not explain with dispositions that which has already been explained by the situation. This logical rule was first formalized by Jones and Davis (1965) as the law of noncommon effects and later extended and codified by Kelley (1967) as the discounting principle, which warns observers not to attribute an effect to any one causal agent (e.g., a disposition) when another plausible causal agent (e.g., a situational force) is simultaneously present. In other words, when people do precisely what the physical environment or the social situation demands, dispositional inferences are logically unwarranted.

(Red colorization mine.)

“jaysabi” might object to your obvious but arbitrary association of scholarly merit with academic achievement (undoubtedly, a consequence of the culture [“a sufficiently strong, facilitative force” {Daniel T. Gilbert, & Patrick S. Malone, 215}] wherewithin you, and not “stupid blacks and mexicans” [saddampbuh], were raised).