I actually like warpus's point. It's fine to blame everything around you since that is part of the problem, but its foolish to think that the community and the persons in question don't shoulder any responsibility.
So after reading this whole thread, I see you repeatedly stating (oversimplifying here) that its a 50/50 nature nurture problem, as in equal fault on exterior factors environment, society whatever... and equal fault on the individuals, presumably the "Black-community-at-large" (again to make it simple).
But the
content of your arguments suggest that you actually believe its not 50/50 at all, but personal responsibility is primary.
So I would first like to ask for reference which are you saying?:
1. "Its over 50% nurture, ie Black people need to get their act together b/c their own failings/social pathologies are more to blame for their economically disadvantaged position"
2. "It's really 50/50 nature/nurture and neither factor is more of a cause than the other."
If its the former, then I have a better basis to understand where you are coming from and respond. If its the latter, then I need to ask the follow-up question...
- Then what percentage values would you attribute to other races/ethnicities economic failures/success? Would you say the cause of their median/mean/average economic status is more or less attributable to their own culture/behaviors etc or imbedded societal advantages? Is it also 50/50, or is it different for other races/ethnic groups?
I understand comparative advantage but it honestly isn't that strong of an argument in this case especially when there's affirmative action involved and schools have quota of how many of each rave they must let in and different standards for test scores and grades.
This is false. There is no quota. I have some anecdotal evidence on this. I worked in a University admissions department for my Law School. The way it works is the University has a number of acceptances/waitlists they will grant as a multiple of the spaces available (b/c they assume that not all accepted will attend). Applications are first sorted into 'Yes', 'No' and 'Maybe' piles. Then all the 'Yes' applications are admitted. Then, minority applicants' applications are marked as such (if they identify themselves as minorities). Then, if there are spaces left the admissions officers begin adding up the virtues and detriments of the "Maybe" applicants (grades, extracurriculars, LSAT scores, references, recommendations, interview performance, connections to alumni etc). During this process, a new set of clear 'Yes' applicants will emerge based on the preponderance of their positive attributes v. negative ones. Then, those folks are admitted. Then, if there are still a few spaces left after that, admissions officers are
permitted (not required) to consider minority status as a sort of +1 modifier for these remaining borderline applicants.
This means that in the utterly impossible hypothetical situation that there are two identical applicants (one white, one minority) who are borderline (ie bottom of the barrel in terms of what the University would admit) and the quality of the applicant pool is such that there is still space for "borderline" applicants, then the minority applicant
will probably edge out the white one because of being a minority.
I also interviewed an admissions officer for an Ivy League undergraduate University, and he informed me that "By far the single most important factor in admission to this or any major, particularly any Ivy League school is
legacy. All things being equal, legacy gives you an essentially insurmountable advantage." In other words, people whos relatives, particularly parents and grandparents attended a school are shoe-ins over everyone else to be admitted, assuming their grades etc are comparable to what the University requires.