[quote]orion wrote:
Its worse even, if a black kid cannot make it at MIT, he might have at a slightly less hard university.[/quote]
I’m tired so I’ll verify my memory tomorrow. However, I’m pretty sure the re-attempt rate is pretty abysmal. That is, if a kid (adult really) washes out all too often he’ll never re-attempt college again. Not even at a lesser demanding school. He would’ve been better off being turned down, having to accept a less rigorous (but still perfectly fine) school.
I know everyone loves to dwell on race and ethnicity but there is more to AA than that. I read complaints about a white student losing out to a black student (wonder what the odds of that actually happening are) but what about a white male losing out to a white female? A black male losing out to a white female?
How is it possible that a school like Harvard has an almost 50/50 split between men and women? You mean to tell me that every year there is almost exactly an equal number of men and women applicants who meet the standards? You would think that it would vary.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
What about legacy students?
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
I agree.
I think basing these programs on a “push” system rather than a “pull” system is the beginning of the problem at the higher education level. Colleges push these students into the seats through AA, when they would be better off pulling them. What I mean:
As for education before college, this isn’t going to solve the problem. Poorer areas are going to lower funded schools, and due to social and economic factors as well, will likely have a lower quality of education. This takes generations to fix. We are still feeling the effects of Jim Crow, etc, in the south. Such practices as went on in the segregation/slave areas takes generations to fix…
In time, the citizens of this nation will look back on AA and see a set of rules with good intention, and a very emotional set of legislation, that had unintended consequences because it ran too long.
I think a phase out of AA would be much smoother than just dropping it. Particularly if as a culture we can get over ourselves and actually see what is in front of us.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism. [/quote]
In theory the word is overcome, not defy. The problem is not addressing the issue at its starting point.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I know everyone loves to dwell on race and ethnicity but there is more to AA than that. I read complaints about a white student losing out to a black student (wonder what the odds of that actually happening are) but what about a white male losing out to a white female? A black male losing out to a white female?
How is it possible that a school like Harvard has an almost 50/50 split between men and women? You mean to tell me that every year there is almost exactly an equal number of men and women applicants who meet the standards? You would think that it would vary. [/quote]
Sowell addresses this in length in the book I referenced prior to this.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I read complaints about a white student losing out to a black student (wonder what the odds of that actually happening are)[/quote]
Read my first post. It is more likely an Asian student loses out to a White student, and loses out to a Black student. The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
At exclusive schools with reputations to “defend” it is going to happen more often, than a lower tier state school who is more concerned with asses in seats and graduation rates than ethic mix…
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism. [/quote]
In theory the word is overcome, not defy. The problem is not addressing the issue at its starting point.
[/quote]
Not really, SD is caused by an underlying survival instinct within mankind so acting against it would not be overcoming survival insticts but rather defying them.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
I agree.
I think basing these programs on a “push” system rather than a “pull” system is the beginning of the problem at the higher education level. Colleges push these students into the seats through AA, when they would be better off pulling them. What I mean:
As for education before college, this isn’t going to solve the problem. Poorer areas are going to lower funded schools, and due to social and economic factors as well, will likely have a lower quality of education. This takes generations to fix. We are still feeling the effects of Jim Crow, etc, in the south. Such practices as went on in the segregation/slave areas takes generations to fix…
In time, the citizens of this nation will look back on AA and see a set of rules with good intention, and a very emotional set of legislation, that had unintended consequences because it ran too long.
I think a phase out of AA would be much smoother than just dropping it. Particularly if as a culture we can get over ourselves and actually see what is in front of us.[/quote]
Yeah, those undeserving evil rich kids. And those kids from rich parents who cut their kids off and give them nothing, fuck those kids.
Personal merit is the ONLY thing that should ever be considered. ANYTHING else is the polar opposite of judging by the content of their character.
If you personally feel judging on merit is unfair to poor people, you have the right to take your money and make poor people less poor.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
I agree.
I think basing these programs on a “push” system rather than a “pull” system is the beginning of the problem at the higher education level. Colleges push these students into the seats through AA, when they would be better off pulling them. What I mean:
As for education before college, this isn’t going to solve the problem. Poorer areas are going to lower funded schools, and due to social and economic factors as well, will likely have a lower quality of education. This takes generations to fix. We are still feeling the effects of Jim Crow, etc, in the south. Such practices as went on in the segregation/slave areas takes generations to fix…
In time, the citizens of this nation will look back on AA and see a set of rules with good intention, and a very emotional set of legislation, that had unintended consequences because it ran too long.
I think a phase out of AA would be much smoother than just dropping it. Particularly if as a culture we can get over ourselves and actually see what is in front of us.[/quote]
Yeah, those undeserving evil rich kids. And those kids from rich parents who cut their kids off and give them nothing, fuck those kids.
Personal merit is the ONLY thing that should ever be considered. ANYTHING else is the polar opposite of judging by the content of their character.
If you personally feel judging on merit is unfair to poor people, you have the right to take your money and make poor people less poor.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your post, and based on ideals I completely agree with you.
However, I’m trying to look at things from a “world we live in” perspective. That being said, if we were to switch to a 100% merit based system, the current victim mentality in our culture would lose their collective minds. Institutions would be boycotted, dragged down in the press, leftist professors (let’s be honest, this is most of them) would flock to the schools that still discriminated, and the resulting brain drain from the years of turmoil would harm our country more than the merit system helped.
It is like weaning off of drugs. You face the issue, and then you address it. If you’ve been on them too long (alcohol is a good example) the resulting detox can kill you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I hate that they try to treat such a complex issue with such a simplistic, ignorant approach. To tell a college that they must have a certain ratio of students of various ethnicity is to pretend that there are no educational disparities between different races. Nobody should get more or less help because of the color of their skin/the country they are from. [/quote]
I agree.
I think basing these programs on a “push” system rather than a “pull” system is the beginning of the problem at the higher education level. Colleges push these students into the seats through AA, when they would be better off pulling them. What I mean:
As for education before college, this isn’t going to solve the problem. Poorer areas are going to lower funded schools, and due to social and economic factors as well, will likely have a lower quality of education. This takes generations to fix. We are still feeling the effects of Jim Crow, etc, in the south. Such practices as went on in the segregation/slave areas takes generations to fix…
In time, the citizens of this nation will look back on AA and see a set of rules with good intention, and a very emotional set of legislation, that had unintended consequences because it ran too long.
I think a phase out of AA would be much smoother than just dropping it. Particularly if as a culture we can get over ourselves and actually see what is in front of us.[/quote]
Yeah, those undeserving evil rich kids. And those kids from rich parents who cut their kids off and give them nothing, fuck those kids.
Personal merit is the ONLY thing that should ever be considered. ANYTHING else is the polar opposite of judging by the content of their character.
If you personally feel judging on merit is unfair to poor people, you have the right to take your money and make poor people less poor.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with your post, and based on ideals I completely agree with you.
However, I’m trying to look at things from a “world we live in” perspective. That being said, if we were to switch to a 100% merit based system, the current victim mentality in our culture would lose their collective minds. Institutions would be boycotted, dragged down in the press, leftist professors (let’s be honest, this is most of them) would flock to the schools that still discriminated, and the resulting brain drain from the years of turmoil would harm our country more than the merit system helped.
It is like weaning off of drugs. You face the issue, and then you address it. If you’ve been on them too long (alcohol is a good example) the resulting detox can kill you. [/quote]
Seems like the lefties and victims would flock to certain schools leaving the good schools and good students to be productive.
There is no doubt in my mind that this era of AA will, in time, be looked at through history much the same way segregation was. Your “world we live in” talk will be reflected on much the same way the southern segregationists and their “separate but equal” BS is now. Back then the world they lived in demanded keeping races separate and all the rationalizations than come with it, when the ONLY morally straight path was total and complete abolition of the system.
What’s more, I believe that everyone knows it. Those complicit will eventually be held to account in history and in the moral balance left on their children.
I fully condemn any and all racism especially when practiced by the state and there isn’t any worldly plea that will ever change my mind.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Seems like the lefties and victims would flock to certain schools leaving the good schools and good students to be productive.[/quote]
Sure. I just don’t think the consequences of this would be as simple or positive as you describe here.
Like you said, this racism is state sponsored. No politician is going to be “for” eliminating it in the current American Culture, as it would release him or her from a significant number of prospective votes. This means the schools that don’t practice the state sponsored racism won’t get as many grants, research funding, etc. How many schools do you honestly think are going to give up that cash cow for moral standing? I would assume fewer would, but I could be wrong.
Without question this is more likely than not going to be the true outcome, assuming American Culture can “get over itself”. The current state of “Politically Correct” will likely be seen in similar light.
That isn’t what I’m trying to do, and I apologize if my posts read like that.
I was simply offering a solution that would likely be more accepted in today’s world than ending the program. Basically trying to change a “third rail” issue into a palatable one, that is a step in the better direction.
DD,
This kind of sums up what I’m getting at I think:
?Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements,? Scalia said, ?it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.?
From:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
[/quote]
The part that is missing is “if.” If a white person loses out it is more likely to a black person. How often does that if actually happen? What’s more likely: a white person losing out to a black person or a white male losing out to a white female?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that this era of AA will, in time, be looked at through history much the same way segregation was. Your “world we live in” talk will be reflected on much the same way the southern segregationists and their “separate but equal” BS is now.
[/quote]
Minus the lynchings, riot police, fire hoses, church fires, burning crosses, etc., of course.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism. [/quote]
In theory the word is overcome, not defy. The problem is not addressing the issue at its starting point.
[/quote]
Not really, SD is caused by an underlying survival instinct within mankind so acting against it would not be overcoming survival insticts but rather defying them. [/quote]
So that’s why ghettos were created. Thanks.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
[/quote]
The part that is missing is “if.” If a white person loses out it is more likely to a black person. How often does that if actually happen? What’s more likely: a white person losing out to a black person or a white male losing out to a white female? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
The choices should be based on merit and merit alone. (We’re all also ignoring the fact a school will take a total dolt of any race or gender if they are connected to a big enough donor. lol)
I think, and I’m going from memory here, there is a large amount of women in the candidate pool, but I can’t remember if they are over or under represented. I think women to men ratios favor women, which would mean they would get passed over…
I can’t remember. Read the book, it is great.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism. [/quote]
In theory the word is overcome, not defy. The problem is not addressing the issue at its starting point.
[/quote]
Not really, SD is caused by an underlying survival instinct within mankind so acting against it would not be overcoming survival insticts but rather defying them. [/quote]
So that’s why ghettos were created. Thanks. [/quote]
Ghettos are just as much a function of those living in them, as anything else. It isn’t some evil white man conspiracy to keep good folks down…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
AA is just another way modern man wants to defy social darwinism. [/quote]
In theory the word is overcome, not defy. The problem is not addressing the issue at its starting point.
[/quote]
Not really, SD is caused by an underlying survival instinct within mankind so acting against it would not be overcoming survival insticts but rather defying them. [/quote]
So that’s why ghettos were created. Thanks. [/quote]
Ghettos are just as much a function of those living in them, as anything else. It isn’t some evil white man conspiracy to keep good folks down…[/quote]
Redlining.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The White person is more likely to lose out to a Black student, so on and so forth…
[/quote]
The part that is missing is “if.” If a white person loses out it is more likely to a black person. How often does that if actually happen? What’s more likely: a white person losing out to a black person or a white male losing out to a white female? [/quote]
Does it really matter?
The choices should be based on merit and merit alone. (We’re all also ignoring the fact a school will take a total dolt of any race or gender if they are connected to a big enough donor. lol)
I think, and I’m going from memory here, there is a large amount of women in the candidate pool, but I can’t remember if they are over or under represented. I think women to men ratios favor women, which would mean they would get passed over…
I can’t remember. Read the book, it is great. [/quote]
Then why are men complaining?
The point is that AA is not just about race. It’s basically non-handicapped, heterosexual, non-Hispanic white men on one side and everyone else on the other. It’s not the black man that white men should worry about but the black lesbian with no legs.
Having said that I personally don’t agree with AA. I think EO makes more sense. AA addresses our country’s ills (past and even present) on the wrong end but it’s cheaper and easier and shortsighted which are the things that our politicians love.