Did you get accepted by your own merit or because you´re a boy ?

>why would you like to work at this company
>"I have a 7 inch dick and an organized sadpanda collection, with over 300 confirmed ruined socks"
$x.00 starting, any place I want, where x is defined as minimum wage in the state where I work.

I'm so confused...

ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative

>But study after study shows that affirmative action helps white women as much or even more than it helps men and women of color.

holy shit 10k retweets. Don't female brains develop quicker? It shouldn't be news that girls tend to perform better in highschool, if that is even true.

Can't black or brown women pick other fields besides sociology and social studies to seem "smart"?

They mature quicker, yes, yet you can look up SAT score demographics from any year, and observe that male scores are higher than females', especially in math.
If OP's pic was even remotely true, then schools like Caltech that have admissions based solely on merit wouldn't be ~60% male

How can people make claims like this without citing a reliable source and get published? Where is the editor of this paper?

While I agree that it's bullshit, to pretend that identity politics is only a problem on the left is a misrepresentation. If that were true we wouldn't have so many pic relateds.

>mlp shirt
It's actually sad how true this is.
t. /mlp/

>the mlptard manchild pedosexual lgbtards are actually nazis
AHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>defend the west of your hordes of orcs
Here's the context behind that line in case you weren't familiar.

>care to elaborate?

There is nothing to elaborate, women literally have made the biggest gains.

trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/educational-attainment-race-ethnicity-and-gender-1973-2009

nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa13/population-characteristics/p/educational-attainment.html

bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/mobile/women-more-likely-than-men-to-have-earned-a-bachelors-degree-by-age-29.htm

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#Gender

The irony in all of this is that the majority of the arguments against AA has always seem to focus on the racial aspect. Maybe it's because of idiocy or perhaps it's because of cowardace knowing that if they even so much attempt to touch the gender aspect of AA they will have their legs blown off instantly and die from blood loss politically and socially.

in the comments they say the SAT are rigged in favor off boys, because you know...patriarchy and shit

yes, but the tweet didn´t said that women benefited from AA, it said the opposite, that even with AA benefiting boys, girls still have more academic achievements and earn more degrees

How anybody can think that a discriminatory practice based on fulfilling designated racial quotas (aa) is not in and of itself discriminatory, blows my fucking mind

nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html

>ask him to elaborate
>he does
>move goalposts
Never change Veeky Forums

that just says women are more likely to get degrees, not that women benefit from affirmative action, as in women getting scholarships and jobs over better qualified men

this I'd rather live in a society where treating people as individuals is the standard than the one the left wants where everyone is constantly obsessed with race and gender and judging each other, even if it means I don't get special treatment.

I'm not responding to the tweet though. My original post (You) # is in response to this #.

Then my most recent post follows a request for clarification here .

Obviously the pic in op's post is bullshit which is why I don't even bother trying talk about it because it's disingenuous of the data being reported for the last several decades.

Because the original intent of AA was to address the issue of trust. The government told private businesses and schools to stop discriminating. A large amount of occurrences showed they didn't oblige and so you get things like AA and employee protection against racial and sexual discrimination to keep them in check. The intent was never to hand out free money but address economic disparities to make the national economy more cohesive than it previously was.

What a lot of people fail to understand is that AA did not appear in isolation but came about from a wave of demand for more defined civil rights that followed WW2 because it was such a united front on all demographics (large influx of minorities serving in the U.S. military, large influx of women working in production for military industrial complex, etc.). When the immediate aftermath showed respect was not being payed properly on all fronts, movements across the board from Veterans protection, right to access for higher education, housing rights, women in employment, protection against racial discrimination came about.

The non-foundational form of AA (or what the opposition views it to be reverse discrimination) comes from two key components. One related to the extension of the original movement, women's programs and one not related, ivy league sports scholarships built with the intent of having the best athletes represent a school for "institutional competitiveness" bleeding into state schools and increase participation minorities (many blacks) in sports.

yeah that´s my bad, i actually wanted some sources and the user delivered
thank user, i really want to understand a little better AA and you give me some good start

That's fine, just remember that a lot of confounding involving AA has taken place. Assumptions have been tossed around involving why it's fair and why it is not fair. This is being done without investigating the structural history of higher learning piece by piece. Along with the overall purpose of education institutions (k-12 and college) serving the economy and businesses as a whole.