NEW YORK -- Critics of affirmative action generally argue that the country would be better off with a meritocracy, typically defined as an admissions system where high school grades and standardized test scores are the key factors, applied in the same way to applicants of all races and ethnicities.

But what if they think they favor meritocracy but at some level actually have a flexible definition, depending on which groups would be helped by certain policies? Frank L. Samson, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Miami, thinks his new research findings suggest that the definition of meritocracy used by white people is far more fluid than many would admit, and that this fluidity results in white people favoring certain policies (and groups) over others.

Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)

When asked about leadership as an admissions criterion, white ranking of the measure went up in importance when respondents were informed of the Asian success in University of California admissions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2335368&forum_id=2...id.#23831441)

it's possible to pervert a 'meritocratic' system, which is exactly what asians have done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2335368&forum_id=2...id.#23831453)

"When informed of that fact [of significant racial disparities], the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- ****apparently**** based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)"

Translation: nobody actually said this, but we're inferring it.

But their conclusion is not at all "apparent" unless the study also included other similar prompts for other races. All this study shows is that, when you cue up racial composition as something that should be considered in assessing a situation, more people will consider it than if you don't. Is this even remotely shocking?

Now, if they had set up a 3rd test group to consider the same question when cuing up the fact that current admissions under-admit blacks and hispanics relative to population, and whites stuck to a staunch "just test scores and GPA" line, now you'd actually have something to talk about. But I'll put a ton of money on the prediction that you'd also see a significant deviation from the non-race-cued results when you tee up the question this way. Which is EXACTLY why this shitlib didn't do it.

The other point to note here is that there are all sorts of inferences about this showing the lack of consistency by white people who oppose AA. But that conclusion in no way flows from the evidence disclosed in this article. Notice that they never state the relative percentages of the two groups. If 90% of group 1 advocated for objective merit-based standards, and only 50% did in group 2 once race was entered into the discussion, all that likely shows is that shitlibs need to be reminded about race before they deviate from their instinct towards strict meritocracy. Nothing stated in this article shows that anti-AA whites are somehow unprincipled because the test wasn't limited to anti-AA whites.

Basically, this is all a bunch of shitlib bullshit meant to trigger exactly the results they got so that they could talk about what it "apparently" shows about people who disagree with them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2335368&forum_id=2...id.#23831571)

All I can really conclude from this is that shitlibs are principled in theory but revert to scum when IRL is mentioned.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2335368&forum_id=2...id.#23837505)

AZNS SCORE HIGHER ON SAT BUT THEY NOT SMARTER THAN CUMSKINS THEY GAME THE TEST LOLOLOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2335368&forum_id=2...id.#48110812)