|
|
On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race?
Agreed. Although affirmative action is kind of a bandaid for a society that isn't committed enough to fix the underlying socioeconomic problems.
|
On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race?
the girl who brought it up is an idiot...
she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on?
maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw)
i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that.
|
On October 11 2012 08:32 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 11 2012 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that. How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related. We didn't even have a single boot on the ground in a highly unstable country to protect our embassy or ambassador, not one armed marine. It was by intention that we didn't have a single soldier there. Instead, we hired Libyan bodyguards who were ultimately the one's to backstab us and hand over our ambassador to terrorists. And that's to ignore the response to the attack, which was to blame American free speech for an attack instead of admitting it was terrorism, because that might contradict the narrative of an Al-Qaeda on the verge of extinction thanks to Obama. Not sure I care to argue this point, but the state department claims security was adequate and I somehow doubt the consulate would have been undefended. In any case, you're focused on a minor detail while missing the more important context, which is the instability of that region and the general distaste for America. I suppose that's Obama's fault? At what point do you consider the foreign policy of the past 30 years in the Middle East deeply problematic and start considering alternative foreign policy strategies? And I suppose if a consulate gets attacked along the way and the administration lies (not sure if this is even fair), this means the foreign policy is poor and it's back to the drawing board? Are you aware of Romney's general take on foreign policy?
the problem lies in Obama not fixing the problem that exists, or doing enough to fix it. not to mention our apparent difference in opinion over what exactly constitutes a "minor detail". leaving that aside for now, we can still criticize Obama on his overall foreign policy. if you're correct, and i think you are, that our policy with that part of the world has been crap for over 30 (more like 80) years, than we can ask ourselves if Obama has done anything to change it.
let's leave the rhetoric out of this. Obama has basically stuck to the original guidelines for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan. his support for the "Arab Spring" obviously didn't buy us all that many favors, but it did lead directly to the assassination of our Ambassador, and went a long way toward increasing tensions in that area. we can argue whether the revolutionary movements of late 2010-early 2011 will lead toward some eventual benefit to us or not, but as of now, they don't seem to be working out in the favor of American interests. his over-reliance on drone warfare has led to both increasing outrage from the Muslim world, and allows for less chance of gathering valuable intelligence from targets. even the killing of Osama Bin Laden, a very popular move in the US, did us no favors overseas with popular opinion. his treatment of the situation with Israel and Iran has been ineffective to say the least. and we still don't know exactly what his plan is for dealing with the slaughter of the Syrian rebels by Assad.
i don't know about you, but i would say that the results of Obama's foreign policy concerning the Middle East seem to indicate that he hasn't changed a whole lot. in fact, it seems as if it might actually be changing for the worse. the whole thing about Libya is that it's an example of how his weak foreign policy can, and does, lead to tragic and disastrous consequences. this is a pretty widely held perception of the situation by conservatives and Republicans. and to make it worse, he bungled the response to the attack terribly, which does him no good in convincing Independents that he's not a weak leader in foreign affairs.
even if you reject Romney's foreign policy, i don't see how you could support Obama's. i think Romney is going to press basically this narrative, and then provide his own ideas. conservatives know his basic plan and we already approve of it. it comes down to a question of whether Romney can convince enough people to stay home (or vote third party) instead of voting for Obama, and hope that the Republican base and right-leaning Independents come out in high numbers.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that.
I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming.
|
The Supreme Court has expressed increasing hostility towards affirmative action every time that it has been brought up. Basically, the Court wants to get rid of it and declare it unconstitutional, but it won't do so until enough members believe that the ills that affirmative action was enacted to remedy are no longer sufficiently present in society. I haven't looked at the specifics of this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Court comes down hard on affirmative action, particularly with the Court's current composition.
|
On October 11 2012 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
The Supreme Court has expressed increasing hostility towards affirmative action every time that it has been brought up. Basically, the Court wants to get rid of it and declare it unconstitutional, but it won't do so until enough members believe that the ills that affirmative action was enacted to remedy are no longer sufficiently present in society. I haven't looked at the specifics of this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Court comes down hard on affirmative action, particularly with the Court's current composition.
I sure hope so..it is unfair, bullshit, divisive and discriminatory. It has to go.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
The Supreme Court has expressed increasing hostility towards affirmative action every time that it has been brought up. Basically, the Court wants to get rid of it and declare it unconstitutional, but it won't do so until enough members believe that the ills that affirmative action was enacted to remedy are no longer sufficiently present in society. I haven't looked at the specifics of this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Court comes down hard on affirmative action, particularly with the Court's current composition.
Justice Kagan recused herself so affirmative action has a good chance at being shot down. Three conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, and Alito) have been openly against it. The three liberals (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer) are for it. Justice Thomas has had no public comment about it recently, but it's been known he's against it. Justice Kennedy opposed Grutter so it's likely we'll see the same trend here.
That's 5-3 with a slight chance that Justice Kennedy may uphold affirmative action, but I doubt it. If he does it'll be 4-4 and affirmative action would stay for the time being.
|
maddow just shat on romney about "revision" of his policies, was quite good.
|
On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming.
yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school.
I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway.
|
On October 11 2012 08:51 oneofthem wrote:
PBS produces a lot of quality documentaries.
Yeah, Neil Degrasse Tyson has something to say about this bullsssshit... And it aint "Watch out we got a badass over here"
PBS is one of the only places that isn't spewing out shit like hannah montanna on a regular basis or 6teen... Quality kids TV like curious George.
Frustrating, but that's minor I doubt he'd even remember saying it and soon go "No, I fully support PBS"
|
On October 11 2012 10:41 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school. I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway.
lol
people fake tax returns for school already. i picked emory because i got what i thought was a good bit of merit aid-- i dont qualify for any need-based stuff because we're well off enough. still, a girl i know went to wash u and got more money need-based than i did. she's a single child and both her parents work. i doubt my dad, who is just a researcher, makes more than her parents combined.
|
On October 11 2012 09:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 08:32 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 11 2012 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 07:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 06:41 sevencck wrote:On October 11 2012 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 11 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:You mean this is not looking good for Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs. Nordstrom's pleas for additional security ended with her, and it is becoming clear that her negligence alone is likely at fault. For whatever reason, she deemed additional security unnecessary. But then again, don't let the truth get in the way of monolith bashing. Source the State Dept. and the Administration both put forward false narratives of the attack, citing intell that doesn't seem to exist. kinda shady if you ask me. considering that Obama is going to be in a foreign policy debate with Romney soon, this has to be killing him and his campaign team right now. oh and no, i'm not implying a false flag operation at all. i just think Obama, for whatever reason, was either lying about what happened, or possibly worse, was completely uninformed as to what happened. Only because there is a tendency to blow minor issues out of proportion with respect to their intrinsic importance. As if somehow Obama's alleged mishandling of the attack of the American consulate somehow more broadly validates Romney's foreign policy. i will agree that this doesn't validate anything about Romney. but it does (to some degree) invalidate Obama's foreign policy, and to a certain degree it calls into question even further Obama's overall handling of Presidential issues. there was a piece Rush Limbaugh did a while ago where all these figures in the media and on Barack's campaign kept repeating: "now this election is a choice, and not a referendum" or some variation of that. How? Events like this aren't exactly easy to predict and prepare for. There is an element of chaos in human existence that can't reasonably be prepared for. How does an event like this more broadly reflect on Obama's foreign policy? Please explain specifically, I don't see how one can reasonably even contend they are necessarily related. We didn't even have a single boot on the ground in a highly unstable country to protect our embassy or ambassador, not one armed marine. It was by intention that we didn't have a single soldier there. Instead, we hired Libyan bodyguards who were ultimately the one's to backstab us and hand over our ambassador to terrorists. And that's to ignore the response to the attack, which was to blame American free speech for an attack instead of admitting it was terrorism, because that might contradict the narrative of an Al-Qaeda on the verge of extinction thanks to Obama. Not sure I care to argue this point, but the state department claims security was adequate and I somehow doubt the consulate would have been undefended. In any case, you're focused on a minor detail while missing the more important context, which is the instability of that region and the general distaste for America. I suppose that's Obama's fault? At what point do you consider the foreign policy of the past 30 years in the Middle East deeply problematic and start considering alternative foreign policy strategies? And I suppose if a consulate gets attacked along the way and the administration lies (not sure if this is even fair), this means the foreign policy is poor and it's back to the drawing board? Are you aware of Romney's general take on foreign policy? the problem lies in Obama not fixing the problem that exists, or doing enough to fix it. not to mention our apparent difference in opinion over what exactly constitutes a "minor detail". leaving that aside for now, we can still criticize Obama on his overall foreign policy. if you're correct, and i think you are, that our policy with that part of the world has been crap for over 30 (more like 80) years, than we can ask ourselves if Obama has done anything to change it. let's leave the rhetoric out of this. Obama has basically stuck to the original guidelines for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan. his support for the "Arab Spring" obviously didn't buy us all that many favors, but it did lead directly to the assassination of our Ambassador, and went a long way toward increasing tensions in that area. we can argue whether the revolutionary movements of late 2010-early 2011 will lead toward some eventual benefit to us or not, but as of now, they don't seem to be working out in the favor of American interests. his over-reliance on drone warfare has led to both increasing outrage from the Muslim world, and allows for less chance of gathering valuable intelligence from targets. even the killing of Osama Bin Laden, a very popular move in the US, did us no favors overseas with popular opinion. his treatment of the situation with Israel and Iran has been ineffective to say the least. and we still don't know exactly what his plan is for dealing with the slaughter of the Syrian rebels by Assad.
Okay, so much of this is unsubstantiated. For example, saying that Obama's support for the Arab Spring caused the death of our ambassador is like saying Reagan caused 9/11 by allowing funding to go to anti-Soviet Afghan rebels. I mean, you can make the connection, but it's a crazy causal link that requires a long chain of events that couldn't possibly have been predicted.
Similarly, arguing that Obama's support for Arab Spring increased tensions in the area doesn't make sense. I mean, tensions have increased, but that's because of the Arab Spring itself--you have no causal link, no reasoning whatsoever, showing that it was Obama's actions specifically that led to the increase in tension.
Your argument that Obama's over-reliance on drone warfare has lead to increased tensions completely ignores the fact that Al-Qaeda had been greatly weakened in areas where we have used drone strikes, and ignores the effective recent drone-backed anti-Al-Qaeda offensive in Yemen. (AP )
Barring the complete lack of credible plans from anyone to deal with the incredibly complex Israeli and Iranian situations, which no president in the past 40 years has been able to resolve, I hardly think we can fault Obama.
So finally, in response to your claim that Obama's done nothing to improve the situation in the Middle East, I'll list two things that have happened:
1. The routing of Al-Qaeda from the Middle East proper, especially from strongholds in Pakistan and Yemen. While it has regrouped in Mali and Libya, there's no indication that it's as strong there as it once was.
2. Presiding over the creation of democratic governments in Egypt and Tunisia. While the jury's still out on what'll become of these governments, they are democratic (so far) and preferable to the dictatorships they replaced. Libya, especially, is friendly to the US--in what other country would a militia that attacked a US consulate immediately be the focus of (kind of) pro-US riots? I mean, since when has that happened?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 10:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 10:41 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school. I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway. lol people fake tax returns for school already. i picked emory because i got what i thought was a good bit of merit aid-- i dont qualify for any need-based stuff because we're well off enough. still, a girl i know went to wash u and got more money need-based than i did. she's a single child and both her parents work. i doubt my dad, who is just a researcher, makes more than her parents combined.
Maybe you're going to the wrong school or something?  I know that at UC, if your family income is less than $80K you get full tuition covered + pell grant. I don't know how many people cheat the system, but I assume some do and they're a tiny minority. If anything the problem should be addressed but I don't think it should be a reason why affirmative action based on economic status should be scraped off the table.
|
On October 11 2012 10:10 darthfoley wrote:
maddow just shat on romney about "revision" of his policies, was quite good.
maddow is always good, say what you want about how liberal she is(shes REALLY REALLY liberal) she backs up what she says with well founded arguments based on fact
|
On October 11 2012 10:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 10:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 10:41 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school. I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway. lol people fake tax returns for school already. i picked emory because i got what i thought was a good bit of merit aid-- i dont qualify for any need-based stuff because we're well off enough. still, a girl i know went to wash u and got more money need-based than i did. she's a single child and both her parents work. i doubt my dad, who is just a researcher, makes more than her parents combined. Maybe you're going to the wrong school or something? I know that at UC, if your family income is less than $80K you get full tuition covered + pell grant. I don't know how many people cheat the system, but I assume some do and they're a tiny minority. If anything the problem should be addressed but I don't think it should be a reason why affirmative action based on economic status should be scraped off the table.
idunno-- i applied to a lot of places, and emory gave me the most money. well, tulane gave me about the same, but hey, i wasn't going to choose tulane over emory. there were a slew of schools where i could have been essentially paid to go to, but i didn't think those places were good fits for me and didn't even bother applying.
UC system is broke though-- i've heard horror stories from friends who went there about class sizes and not being able to get into classes. besides, that's only in-state-- out of state you're paying ~50K a year (unless you're crazy poor). state schools are a good alternative, but only if your state has a good system.
i'm not sure how thoroughly they vet a lot of things in admissions honestly. people embellish their resumes, get help on essays, get people to take their SAT's and all sorts of things to increase their chances, and you only hear the odd story about this guy doing X. i'm a bit cynical, but i think a lot of schools turn a blind eye to that. theydo read your essay and look at your numbers and such, but they don't seem to check if those are a real measure of the applicant.
EDIT: wow, i actually still care about admissions. im a sophomore now, haha.
|
I am Asian and white, and my goal college is UT Austin.
So yes, I am against affirmative action.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 11 2012 11:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 10:57 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 10:41 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school. I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway. lol people fake tax returns for school already. i picked emory because i got what i thought was a good bit of merit aid-- i dont qualify for any need-based stuff because we're well off enough. still, a girl i know went to wash u and got more money need-based than i did. she's a single child and both her parents work. i doubt my dad, who is just a researcher, makes more than her parents combined. Maybe you're going to the wrong school or something? I know that at UC, if your family income is less than $80K you get full tuition covered + pell grant. I don't know how many people cheat the system, but I assume some do and they're a tiny minority. If anything the problem should be addressed but I don't think it should be a reason why affirmative action based on economic status should be scraped off the table. idunno-- i applied to a lot of places, and emory gave me the most money. well, tulane gave me about the same, but hey, i wasn't going to choose tulane over emory. there were a slew of schools where i could have been essentially paid to go to, but i didn't think those places were good fits for me and didn't even bother applying. UC system is broke though-- i've heard horror stories from friends who went there about class sizes and not being able to get into classes. besides, that's only in-state-- out of state you're paying ~50K a year (unless you're crazy poor). state schools are a good alternative, but only if your state has a good system. i'm not sure how thoroughly they vet a lot of things in admissions honestly. people embellish their resumes, get help on essays, get people to take their SAT's and all sorts of things to increase their chances, and you only hear the odd story about this guy doing X. i'm a bit cynical, but i think a lot of schools turn a blind eye to that. theydo read your essay and look at your numbers and such, but they don't seem to check if those are a real measure of the applicant.
UC system is on the downfall but people are really over-exaggerating with their horror stories. Tuition's gone up, sure. Some facilities may be closed around campus, sure. If you're a freshman it may be hard to get into your preferred classes, but you're a freshman, upperclassmen should have priority. Overall it's still relatively quite cheap (for in-state students) and more than hospitable (of course, this is just what I know/hear from the top three, UCB/LA/SD).
Honestly I'm not sure how universities weigh things either, but economic status is comparatively straight forward. If people are cheating on their tax returns then, well, that's a problem for the IRS. I highly doubt it's that serious of a problem at the university level, but correct me if I'm wrong.
|
I really lucked out with my education. I got out of the UC system before the really big tuition hikes started to hit several years ago, and I got out of law school (CU) literally the year before the big tuition hikes hit there in 2008.
|
On October 11 2012 11:28 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 11:15 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 10:57 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 10:41 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 09:04 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 08:56 Souma wrote:
So the Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action. I'm curious, am I the only lefty here that believes affirmative action should not be based on race? the girl who brought it up is an idiot... she graduated from lsu, yet she's still dwelling on not getting accepted to UT Austin. did she take so little from her college years that she's unable to move on? maybe i should go bitch to harvard for rejecting me. clearly they rejected me because there were people less qualified in all aspects except skin color. (sarcasm btw) i think affirmative action is flawed, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it that isn't ridiculously time consuming. its also hard to evaluate every student's achievements in relation to each other... and of course there's people who just lie. i remember an article awhile ago about many asians (who eventually ended up HYPS) just not putting down their ethnicity on their apps. there's something wrong with that. I don't know, I don't think basing it on economic status as opposed to race would be that much more time consuming. yeah, people already lie about that enough as it is. if admission becomes weighted based on that, people are going to do all shorts of things to get into a good school. I would suppose if it was based on economic status, anyone who would want the university to take it into consideration would have to send over copies of their parents' tax forms. They have to do that for financial aid anyway. lol people fake tax returns for school already. i picked emory because i got what i thought was a good bit of merit aid-- i dont qualify for any need-based stuff because we're well off enough. still, a girl i know went to wash u and got more money need-based than i did. she's a single child and both her parents work. i doubt my dad, who is just a researcher, makes more than her parents combined. Maybe you're going to the wrong school or something? I know that at UC, if your family income is less than $80K you get full tuition covered + pell grant. I don't know how many people cheat the system, but I assume some do and they're a tiny minority. If anything the problem should be addressed but I don't think it should be a reason why affirmative action based on economic status should be scraped off the table. idunno-- i applied to a lot of places, and emory gave me the most money. well, tulane gave me about the same, but hey, i wasn't going to choose tulane over emory. there were a slew of schools where i could have been essentially paid to go to, but i didn't think those places were good fits for me and didn't even bother applying. UC system is broke though-- i've heard horror stories from friends who went there about class sizes and not being able to get into classes. besides, that's only in-state-- out of state you're paying ~50K a year (unless you're crazy poor). state schools are a good alternative, but only if your state has a good system. i'm not sure how thoroughly they vet a lot of things in admissions honestly. people embellish their resumes, get help on essays, get people to take their SAT's and all sorts of things to increase their chances, and you only hear the odd story about this guy doing X. i'm a bit cynical, but i think a lot of schools turn a blind eye to that. theydo read your essay and look at your numbers and such, but they don't seem to check if those are a real measure of the applicant. UC system is on the downfall but people are really over-exaggerating with their horror stories. Tuition's gone up, sure. Some facilities may be closed around campus, sure. If you're a freshman it may be hard to get into your preferred classes, but you're a freshman, upperclassmen should have priority. Overall it's still relatively quite cheap (for in-state students) and more than hospitable (of course, this is just what I know/hear from the top three, UCB/LA/SD). Honestly I'm not sure how universities weigh things either, but economic status is comparatively straight forward. If people are cheating on their tax returns then, well, that's a problem for the IRS. I highly doubt it's that serious of a problem at the university level, but correct me if I'm wrong.
still, UC is a pretty special example of a good public university system. only flagship schools in other states can even compare to the UC's, and there's no system that's even close to as good.
for school, you do your CSS and FAFSA. yes you do look at your tax returns to put numbers on there, but they can change when you're moving them over if you get my drift.
financial aid is kind of a joke as it is-- i'm sure for some people its a great boon, but for a lot of people who just get loans (hey, you can pay more money later) its kind of a slap in the face. 100% financial need met, that's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
