|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2015 06:46 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner.
Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this. If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine.
Why? University education is rigorous and requires a certain amount of academic ability (and basic intelligence). This would be horribly inefficient, taking away significant resources; 6-year graduation rates are currently only around 60% in this country as it is and classes/campuses would be even more crowded than they already are.
I don't see any moral imperative for universities to automatically admit anyone. There aren't many areas in life where this is the case. The problem you're hinting at is the fact that a lot of lower class people aren't given the resources to succeed when they're young, and because of this, they don't develop and do as well as they could in school, limiting their future. However, it's completely backwards to attack universities for this problem; you should be talking about fixing primary/secondary education in this country (particular for the lower class), instead of just saying, "If they can't have it now, no one can!".
|
University isn't for everyone (and that is perfectly fine if someone has other skills they can use). Universities already dumb down a lot of their courses for the lowest performing students which I think hurts the average and higher performing students in the long run. Part of this is also how under prepared a lot of students come in since their High Schools didn't prepare them at all.
|
On May 21 2015 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:46 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity.
Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this. If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine. Any institution that takes significant government money should be open to anyone. The very fact that this isn't a thing right now is part of the reason why tuition fee's have gotten completely out of control.
Are we talking about literally being open to everyone, like public high school, or being available to everyone by making it free? I think meadbert is saying there should be no screening process whatsoever to get into college, but the reality is it DOES cost money to give people higher education, and people who don't want to take it seriously or who are not smart enough to get into a specific program should not get a free pass.
|
On May 21 2015 06:46 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner. Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Maybe it's just me, but usually college hits the middle class, and upper middle class the hardest. Just rich enough that you don't get any financial assistance outside of low-interest loans. But not rich enough to fully pay off college without loans. If you're poor and going to a top-tier college, you get a large amount of grants and financial assistance. If you're rich, well... you're rich. lol. Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. There are very few people who, without the existence of a severe mental disability, can't get admitted to at least a community college. Free college simply won't mean 'no college'. Making community college free will be life changing for millions of potential students who otherwise would not have been able to gain access to higher education. ehhh, community college is still extremely easily affordable for most people that you're mentioning, the real barrier to entry for community college is still being able to find time to take classes, all while making enough money to sustain yourself. Making it free would help, but not by the magnitude you think it will.
Part of the reason it's hard to find time is, in order to qualify for financial aid, you have to take a certain amount of credits. It is important to consider people who may only be able to take 1 class at a time and make sure the free options don't leave them out. Also employers forcing students to be on-call on days and during hours they have classes doesn't help. Doing something to address all the ways employers have found to work around rules for scheduling is also an important part.
Really again there needs to be an overhaul of the education system all around though so this is only one piece.
|
On May 21 2015 06:55 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 21 2015 06:46 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this. If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine. Any institution that takes significant government money should be open to anyone. The very fact that this isn't a thing right now is part of the reason why tuition fee's have gotten completely out of control. Are we talking about literally being open to everyone, like public high school, or being available to everyone by making it free? I think meadbert is saying there should be no screening process whatsoever to get into college, but the reality is it DOES cost money to give people higher education, and people who don't want to take it seriously or who are not smart enough to get into a specific program should not get a free pass.
Sorry yes I should have expanded a bit more, Not literally everyone but the requirements should be minimal. Not all the additional screening that is often used to weed out those with are not extremely likely to pass.
|
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol.
|
On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol.
I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!".
|
On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!".
this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts.
|
On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts.
If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist.
|
On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist.
What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college.
|
On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist.
Why? If you reformed high school education so it was a lot better for all students and not just those in richer areas then students would be better prepared. it wouldn't have anything to do with race? Unless you are subscribing to the idea that certain races aren't good at academics, which is ridiculous.
|
On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college.
But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced.
TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone.
|
On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone.
You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it.
|
On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts.
Unfortunately, there are a variety of cultural differences that ensure that American primary and secondary educations will not be as rigorous as the Asian counterparts, including the fact that we have longer summer vacations instead of year-round schooling (I once read that because of this difference, American math students already fall an entire year behind Chinese math students by fourth grade) and because there is a level of trust and respect that Asian administrations and parents tend to have of their teachers, whereas here in America that simply doesn't exist. Parents side with their kids all the time during classroom issues, teachers are forced to jump through irrelevant hoops instead of being able to teach, etc.
|
On May 21 2015 07:30 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone. You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it.
Yeah but thats the argument people use to say you're racist. No one said race baiters are reasonable.
|
On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone.
By making sure they are getting quality educations from the start. Which is why Universal pre-k is part of the education overhaul too. The sooner we identify and address people that are struggling for any reason (dyslexia, dangerous home, no resources, etc..) the less far behind they will get. Shifting the system towards educating kids rather than marching them through an assembly line style education and junking the 'defective' ones would go a long way too. The 'letting dumb black people' part is stupid but hell they've been letting dumb white people into college for a while now. Some get average grades and go on to become president even. I'll shit an elephant before a black student with a C average gets to be president.
Both Obama's are smart people and got great grades and are extremely successful yet racist assholes still cry affirmative action got them their accomplishments. Then those same people bitch and moan if someone mentions there is a much more pervasive and effective 'affirmative action' for whites called privilege. Affirmative action isn't even what most people think it is and most people's complaints are about how lazy/stupid people implemented it or used it to defend other dumb shit they did.
|
On May 21 2015 07:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone. You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it. Yeah but thats the argument people use to say you're racist. No one said race baiters are reasonable.
Wanna know what's racist? Black Graduation for college.
|
On May 21 2015 07:57 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone. You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it. Yeah but thats the argument people use to say you're racist. No one said race baiters are reasonable. Wanna know what's racist? Black Graduation for college.
Can you please elaborate more on this? Are there colleges that only support the black students that graduate or something?
|
On May 21 2015 08:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 07:57 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:On May 21 2015 07:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Oh god, my freshman Bio class already had a failure rate of like 30%, if we made it minimal requirements, we'd have idiots thinking they could do pre-med pre-reqs in these classes, the failure rate would rise closer to 90%. lol. I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone. You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it. Yeah but thats the argument people use to say you're racist. No one said race baiters are reasonable. Wanna know what's racist? Black Graduation for college. Can you please elaborate more on this? Are there colleges that only support the black students that graduate or something?
Where I went there was an optional additional graduation for black graduates. I think there was one for Chicano graduates as well, but not quite sure about that.
|
On May 21 2015 08:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 08:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 07:57 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2015 07:24 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 21 2015 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:On May 21 2015 07:10 Slaughter wrote:
[quote]
I had a couple of freshman come up to me after a lecture and say "wow we thought only humans had DNA!". this is why i'm for rigorous screening process for 4 year universities. I still think America has far too many people going to Uni's than there should be, and that basic education in highschool needs to be ramped up closer to their Asian counterparts. If you tried implementing that, you would almost certainly be called a racist. What? trying to get majority of kids up to 1st world country standards for education? IIRC America is like 26th or something for overall education? You fix that by moving up the median with better basic education, not trying to shove more people into college. But lets be frank here how are you going to get more black and poor people going to college if you don't have spots specifically open to them and no one else. granted the black community and white community have similar levels of smart and dumb people but the point is to have more dumb black people being given chances so they can help balance out the generations of poverty they've experienced. TBH I'm all for starting the college track at high school and just making middle school the last nessasary spot for common voter education. make the 4 years in high school either prepare people directly tword higher learning or equp them directly for a valuable trade. no half measures are going to help anyone. You don't. Affirmative action sucks, and the improvement in the UC system ever since it's ban on affirmative action is proof of it. Yeah but thats the argument people use to say you're racist. No one said race baiters are reasonable. Wanna know what's racist? Black Graduation for college. Can you please elaborate more on this? Are there colleges that only support the black students that graduate or something? Where I went there was an optional additional graduation for black graduates. I think there was one for Chicano graduates as well, but not quite sure about that.
Meaning what exactly? Link please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
