Page 5 of 5

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:14 pm UTC
by ivnja
Are legacy admissions a thing at public universities? I don't recall whether there was a question about that on the application for the state university I graduated from.

From a legal/"should the schools be compelled to stop" standpoint, I support private colleges and universities being allowed to do whatever they want with legacies and with affirmative action / overall admissions decisions, but personally I'm not a fan of the practice of giving legacy students preference.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:21 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
They did ask abour my parents' education on the applications, and I went to public university too.

But yes, I'm against legacies being granted anything more than a superficial preference, but I had no idea legacies were a quarter of enrollees rather than some tiny fraction. That's more of a threat to me than affirmative action ever could be... if I didn't have Ivy and Ivy equivalent family.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:06 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
The (public) University of Michigan definitely had legacy points on the same admissions policy that went to SCOTUS.

Also points for being from Michigan and even more for being from an underrepresented county in Michigan.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:57 pm UTC
by ivnja
gmalivuk wrote:Also points for being from Michigan

This part I'm so definitely for. Students shouldn't get beaten out for their own state universities by academically equivalent out-of-staters, even if it does get the school more tuition money.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:41 am UTC
by gmalivuk
I mean, I'm for the race-based affirmative action, too, but it is another thing that goes against the supposed ideal of admitting people based on academic performance alone.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:14 am UTC
by CorruptUser
ivnja wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Also points for being from Michigan

This part I'm so definitely for. Students shouldn't get beaten out for their own state universities by academically equivalent out-of-staters, even if it does get the school more tuition money.

What about out-of-country-ers? Not only does the state get more money, but it reduces the trade deficit while exporting your culture, creates connections with the children of foreign elites, and gives the rest of the world a massive incentive not to bomb your country? And it's not like, long term, there's any real maximum size to the university system. I'm probably one of the more jingoist and xenophobic bastards on here, but even I am wholeheartedly in favor of expanding student visas.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:58 pm UTC
by Dark567
CorruptUser wrote:What about out-of-country-ers? Not only does the state get more money, but it reduces the trade deficit while exporting your culture, creates connections with the children of foreign elites, and gives the rest of the world a massive incentive not to bomb your country? And it's not like, long term, there's any real maximum size to the university system. I'm probably one of the more jingoist and xenophobic bastards on here, but even I am wholeheartedly in favor of expanding student visas.
Fairly certain most schools have an entirely separate admissions process and a number of spots for non-US residents vs. US residents.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:08 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:41 pm UTC
by sardia
CorruptUser wrote:Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

There are other benefits of immigration. Like replacing slow inefficient old dying people with young people with a healthy fear of the law. That labor shortage is just gonna get worse.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:45 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

There are other benefits of immigration. Like replacing slow inefficient old dying people with young people with a healthy fear of the law. That labor shortage is just gonna get worse.


That argument always irked me. Western countries aren't having enough kids because people are deciding there isn't enough money and resources to have enough kids, and solving the problem with immigration squeezes people even further and... didn't we have this argument? I feel like I had this argument.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:55 pm UTC
by Thesh
I don't understand. Is your concern that the immigrants will consume more than before they immigrated, thus reducing total world resources?

It seems to me that all of the problems with unrestricted immigration are ultimately caused by immigration laws increasing inequality, and the people who benefit from inequality don't want to fix problems that they benefit from.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:59 pm UTC
by sardia
We have had this argument before, the premise and the studies haven't changed very much.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin ... rdID=23550
Spoiler:
Among the report’s key findings and conclusions:

When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small. To the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills.

There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants. In addition, recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment levels).

Some evidence on inflow of skilled immigrants suggests that there may be positive wage effects for some subgroups of native-born workers, and other benefits to the economy more broadly.

Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.

In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population.

Over the long term, the impacts of immigrants on government budgets are generally positive at the federal level but remain negative at the state and local level — but these generalizations are subject to a number of important assumptions. Immigration’s fiscal effects vary tremendously across states.
Spoilered since we already discussed all the benefits. The key points you care about is the negative effects new immigrants have. They negatively affect prior immigrants and native born highschool dropouts(or anyone else who shares qualities similar to low skilled immigrants). I mostly see the negatives at the state and local level (which causes pain as they either cut services are raise taxes) to natives and the reduced hours of native workers. This negative effect is mirrored around age 60, as the natives start demanding more than they pay in taxes compared to immigrants.

There's definitely pain being felt by natives here. Mostly in the local/state levels of government affecting how services are distributed and paid for.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:59 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So basically the takeaway is that highly skilled immigrants are overwhelming a net good for the country, but low skilled immigrants are a mixed bag.

Basically, student visas and the H1B (if fixed) are overwhelmingly a net good and should be expanded, but we should be wary about unskilled/illegal immigration?

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:28 pm UTC
by morriswalters
There's definitely pain being felt by natives here. Mostly in the local/state levels of government affecting how services are distributed and paid for.
This is a massive understatement.

Oh yeah, and this is related to race, how?

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:25 am UTC
by CorruptUser
morriswalters wrote:
There's definitely pain being felt by natives here. Mostly in the local/state levels of government affecting how services are distributed and paid for.
This is a massive understatement.

Oh yeah, and this is related to race, how?


Mostly in that immigrants into a country are almost never the same ethnicity as the majority of people already in the country, and so you end up with ethnic tensions?

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:57 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
CorruptUser wrote:So basically the takeaway is that highly skilled immigrants are overwhelming a net good for the country, but low skilled immigrants are a mixed bag.

Basically, student visas and the H1B (if fixed) are overwhelmingly a net good and should be expanded, but we should be wary about unskilled/illegal immigration?


I don't have the wherewithal to check right now, but I was under the impression that a majority of undocumented immigrants to the US were folks who overstayed their legal visas, yes?

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:15 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Technically 0%, since undocumented, not illegal. Hate the newspeak. 40% are on overstayed visas, yes, but there's quite a bit of difference between someone whose visa wasn't renewed and someone who was never even screened in the first place.

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:17 pm UTC
by morriswalters
CorruptUser wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Mostly in that immigrants into a country are almost never the same ethnicity as the majority of people already in the country, and so you end up with ethnic tensions?
Right.