|
|
On October 11 2012 14:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:43 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:41 oneofthem wrote:
aa is a complicated policy issue. repealing it requires another outcomes based test in place to level the playing field.
for some a class based rather than race based system also is ideologically abhorrent. There already is income based affirmative action in place at many universities. That's not what the supreme court is ruling on so it's not going to play a part in this ruling. many factors go into a decision like this. the scope itself is the most contentious issue. but as we've repeatedly seen, when there's a policy issue you like, the law also tends to say that it is relevant.
If anything, the presence of income based affirmative action will strengthen the case against race-based affirmative action. I can't see it reinforcing the other side at all.
|
On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to
but when you start to talk about the alternative...
I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA.
I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem.
|
On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem.
this is very true, i dated a asian who went to Berkeley and had the teacher who was the lawyer who argued for AA in front of SCOTUS. She HATED that class because of how unfair she though AA was. It really should be based on economic indicators, there no reason a minority should get in based on AA if they come from a well off neighborhood but were just lazy, but if one comes from a low income area its fine to give them a leg up
|
On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem.
Asians suffer the most from race based affirmative action policies. Why? Because there are so many Asians applying to universities, despite only representing 4.8% of the US population (compared to whites at 72% and blacks at 12%). So the problem is that certain minority groups are not statistically applying to college nearly as often as other groups. This problem needs to be addressed at the root, the public education system, rather than at the top. The color of one's skin shouldn't be a criteria used by universities to determine whether or not you are suitable for education there.
|
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.
People are exaggerating the horror stories, but I can understand why people are bitter that they have to pay 8x the tuition from people who went to UC schools a decade ago. People are taking bigger loans for worse job prospects. Although in fairness, the low tuition at a school like Berkeley (my alma mater, btw) was always a joke. It's a direct transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the future rich. It's also a luxury of a state with a healthy, growing economy, which California had in the 90s and early 2000s but not any more as it becomes increasingly clear the state has squandered every possible blessing anyone could ever have.
The other problem with rising tuition is the economic incentive. If I had a child preparing to go to Berkeley, I might do the math on cheating on my taxes. The penalties to the IRS are surely less than the benefit of getting financial aid I don't deserve. Although I would agree that I don't think fraud is that widespread, there is something to be said for cleanliness of the soul and maintaining trust with society by not cheating even if it's rational.
Although if tuition and taxes are going to continue rising, people may get fed up enough to consider it.
|
The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.
Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html?hpid=z7
Reminds me something of the Robert Novak/Valerie Plame scandal. Not a good thing to be a CIA operative in an election year when you're working somewhere of political importance, when you have a political party that's convinced itself that winning the election is of such critical importance, so as to keep the wealthiest tax bracket down a couple percentage points, that they'll blow your cover and risk your life, just to create a new talking point for the vast C-SPAN viewing audience.
Granted, it turns out the CIA probably are the ones who screwed up the most in this embassy fiasco (which was definitely not the point the Republicans were trying to make, go figure), but it just goes to show where this party's priorities are at.
|
This is why I support voter I.D. laws:
A woman makes it clear to the Obama campaign that she can vote in either Texas or Florida and wants to do so in both. Instead of telling her it is illegal, they seem to encourage her behavior. Reporter: And there's no way they'd be able to cross reference the ballots? Obama Campaign: If you voted twice? Reporter: Yeah. Obama Campaign: I don't know this. That's not my expertise. Reporter: Yea I don't want to get in any trouble but like I said if no one's gonna know Reporter: I don't have a problem with it. Reporter: Yea, so anyway - But - Obama Campaign: Oh my God this is so funny. It's cool though! Reporter: But I was gonna see as far as all the registering for Florida - Obama Campaign: Mhm Reporter: Where do I get the forms to do that? Reporter: Or not registering but voting in Florida for the absentee - Obama Campaign: So what you'll have to do is you're going to call in to Florida. Reporter: Okay. Obama Campaign: And call - Let me see. Obama Campaign: Are you going to do what I think you are going to do? Reporter: Well I mean if no one's gonna know - Obama Campaign: Laughter Obama Campaign: You're so hilarious! Obama Campaign: Come up with like - If anyone checks say "I don't know". Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121010008-obama-campaign.html#z7HJAwZ5fCgGH24L.99
|
I'm a little disappointed that no noteworthy third-party candidates have emerged. I'm not terribly excited about either Obama or Romney, both of them are far too conservative and don't indicate major change on the issues I consider to be actually important. Maybe one of them will pleasantly surprise me at the foreign policy debate, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to
The people on the left that like AA are basically the social justice/political correctness types who represent groups which benefit from AA. The rest of the left don't like it, but those in positions of political power defend it due to a need for political solidarity against the right.
I'm curious to see what will happen when AA is used to favor men, who are now outnumbered by around 50% (a bigger gender gap than when Title IX was implemented to favor women). Will America do what Sweden did and immediately strike down Title IX as gender discrimination when it's used to help men?
On October 11 2012 15:00 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem. Asians suffer the most from race based affirmative action policies. Why? Because there are so many Asians applying to universities, despite only representing 4.8% of the US population (compared to whites at 72% and blacks at 12%). So the problem is that certain minority groups are not statistically applying to college nearly as often as other groups. This problem needs to be addressed at the root, the public education system, rather than at the top. The color of one's skin shouldn't be a criteria used by universities to determine whether or not you are suitable for education there.
Not to mention that the data shows affirmative action actually hurts the minority students that it purports to help.
|
On October 11 2012 22:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to The people on the left that like AA are basically the social justice/political correctness types who represent groups which benefit from AA. The rest of the left don't like it, but those in positions of political power defend it due to a need for political solidarity against the right. Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 15:00 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem. Asians suffer the most from race based affirmative action policies. Why? Because there are so many Asians applying to universities, despite only representing 4.8% of the US population (compared to whites at 72% and blacks at 12%). So the problem is that certain minority groups are not statistically applying to college nearly as often as other groups. This problem needs to be addressed at the root, the public education system, rather than at the top. The color of one's skin shouldn't be a criteria used by universities to determine whether or not you are suitable for education there. Not to mention that the data shows affirmative action actually hurts the minority students that it purports to help.
In my first year of law school, there was this black girl in one of the classes ahead of me who apparently got admitted as a result of affirmative action. It turned out that she wasn't really cut out for it, which she figured out. She then proceeded to write a scathing email that she circulated to everybody (students, teachers, admins, staff), blasting the school's affirmative action policies and blaming the school for setting her up for failure. I'm not exactly sure what happened afterwards, other than that the student was gone and the school's email policy changed such that one couldn't email everyone anymore.
|
I've already called Romney's sudden and new claim that he will not reduce taxes on the rich adding another constraint to an already impossible math problem.
But it seems that the Washington Post has an even simpler and easier way to explain it:
[Romney says]:
“Well, I’ve made it pretty clear that my principles are, number one, simplify the code; number two, create incentives for small businesses and large businesses to grow; number three, don’t reduce the burden on high income taxpayers; and number four, remove the burden somewhat from middle income people.”
[...]
For some people, Romney says he’ll keep taxes the same. For everyone else, he’ll lower them.
I’ll repeat that just to make sure everyone gets it. Some have the same taxes; some have less. I’ll even put Romney’s pledge in equation form, for those mathematically inclined:
0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0
That simply can’t work. Romney can’t do what he says and yet keep revenues the same.
The full article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romneys-tax-mythology-made-simple/2012/10/10/6f09c24a-1306-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_blog.html
|
On October 11 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 22:56 sunprince wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to The people on the left that like AA are basically the social justice/political correctness types who represent groups which benefit from AA. The rest of the left don't like it, but those in positions of political power defend it due to a need for political solidarity against the right. On October 11 2012 15:00 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem. Asians suffer the most from race based affirmative action policies. Why? Because there are so many Asians applying to universities, despite only representing 4.8% of the US population (compared to whites at 72% and blacks at 12%). So the problem is that certain minority groups are not statistically applying to college nearly as often as other groups. This problem needs to be addressed at the root, the public education system, rather than at the top. The color of one's skin shouldn't be a criteria used by universities to determine whether or not you are suitable for education there. Not to mention that the data shows affirmative action actually hurts the minority students that it purports to help. In my first year of law school, there was this black girl in one of the classes ahead of me who apparently got admitted as a result of affirmative action. It turned out that she wasn't really cut out for it, which she figured out. She then proceeded to write a scathing email that she circulated to everybody (students, teachers, admins, staff), blasting the school's affirmative action policies and blaming the school for setting her up for failure. I'm not exactly sure what happened afterwards, other than that the student was gone and the school's email policy changed such that one couldn't email everyone anymore.
Sounds about right. Back in undergrad, we had a black lawyer on one of my pre-law fraternity's law panels who was asked a question about affirmative action. The frank advice he gave to minorities was to be aware of the relevance of affirmative action, and to go to a law school that their GPA and LSAT scores actually matched up to, which typically results in a decent financial aid package for the usually significantly lower ranked school. Strategically speaking, using AA to get more financial aid makes much more sense than using it to get into a school you're not prepared for.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 11 2012 14:50 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:45 oneofthem wrote:On October 11 2012 14:43 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:41 oneofthem wrote:
aa is a complicated policy issue. repealing it requires another outcomes based test in place to level the playing field.
for some a class based rather than race based system also is ideologically abhorrent. There already is income based affirmative action in place at many universities. That's not what the supreme court is ruling on so it's not going to play a part in this ruling. many factors go into a decision like this. the scope itself is the most contentious issue. but as we've repeatedly seen, when there's a policy issue you like, the law also tends to say that it is relevant. If anything, the presence of income based affirmative action will strengthen the case against race-based affirmative action. I can't see it reinforcing the other side at all.
the argument of the school is that they want a diverse student body in which students of different racial groups will not feel stranded and isolated.
|
On October 11 2012 23:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 23:07 xDaunt wrote:On October 11 2012 22:56 sunprince wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to The people on the left that like AA are basically the social justice/political correctness types who represent groups which benefit from AA. The rest of the left don't like it, but those in positions of political power defend it due to a need for political solidarity against the right. On October 11 2012 15:00 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 11 2012 14:42 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 11 2012 13:50 BluePanther 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? pretty much. really? i think a lot of people on the left dont like AA, its a really unpopular program with the people i talk to but when you start to talk about the alternative... I mean, I'm not a fan of it by any means, but I also understand WHY it's there. It's meant to accelerate the closing of the socio-economic gap that currently exists. But it takes several generations to fix that through AA. I personally believe the issue has more to do with culture and education than it has to do with "opportunity". While AA helps, I don't think it's the best way to go about the issue. It's too complicated and runs much deeper than the color of ones skin. I mean, if you look at asians, they blow whites out of the water when it comes to incomes. It's not a "minority" problem. It's a culture problem. Asians suffer the most from race based affirmative action policies. Why? Because there are so many Asians applying to universities, despite only representing 4.8% of the US population (compared to whites at 72% and blacks at 12%). So the problem is that certain minority groups are not statistically applying to college nearly as often as other groups. This problem needs to be addressed at the root, the public education system, rather than at the top. The color of one's skin shouldn't be a criteria used by universities to determine whether or not you are suitable for education there. Not to mention that the data shows affirmative action actually hurts the minority students that it purports to help. In my first year of law school, there was this black girl in one of the classes ahead of me who apparently got admitted as a result of affirmative action. It turned out that she wasn't really cut out for it, which she figured out. She then proceeded to write a scathing email that she circulated to everybody (students, teachers, admins, staff), blasting the school's affirmative action policies and blaming the school for setting her up for failure. I'm not exactly sure what happened afterwards, other than that the student was gone and the school's email policy changed such that one couldn't email everyone anymore. Sounds about right. Back in undergrad, we had a black lawyer on one of my pre-law fraternity's law panels who was asked a question about affirmative action. The frank advice he gave to minorities was to be aware of the relevance of affirmative action, and to go to a law school that their GPA and LSAT scores actually matched up to, which typically results in a decent financial aid package for the usually significantly lower ranked school. Strategically speaking, using AA to get more financial aid makes much more sense than using it to get into a school you're not prepared for.
That's actually really sound advice.
|
On October 12 2012 00:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 14:50 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:45 oneofthem wrote:On October 11 2012 14:43 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:41 oneofthem wrote:
aa is a complicated policy issue. repealing it requires another outcomes based test in place to level the playing field.
for some a class based rather than race based system also is ideologically abhorrent. There already is income based affirmative action in place at many universities. That's not what the supreme court is ruling on so it's not going to play a part in this ruling. many factors go into a decision like this. the scope itself is the most contentious issue. but as we've repeatedly seen, when there's a policy issue you like, the law also tends to say that it is relevant. If anything, the presence of income based affirmative action will strengthen the case against race-based affirmative action. I can't see it reinforcing the other side at all. the argument of the school is that they want a diverse student body in which students of different racial groups will not feel stranded and isolated.
Yeah, except no one really gives a shit about what you are in higher education. No one is isolated unless they're nazis or something crazy.
EDIT: Really what affirmative action is all about in higher education is a bunch of ivory tower liberals creating an excuse to feel good about themselves. It's that simple.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's not even laughable as an argument. you must be captain oblivious if you think social isolation is not a substantial problem especially considering that half of college is the networking.
it doesn't matter if you think it's not a problem based on anecdotal experience. it's a legit policy consideration by the school using race as a factor. does that warrant a large preference in terms of standards? a more difficult question, but as you can see the matter is more complicated.
|
On October 12 2012 00:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 00:06 oneofthem wrote:On October 11 2012 14:50 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:45 oneofthem wrote:On October 11 2012 14:43 Voltaire wrote:On October 11 2012 14:41 oneofthem wrote:
aa is a complicated policy issue. repealing it requires another outcomes based test in place to level the playing field.
for some a class based rather than race based system also is ideologically abhorrent. There already is income based affirmative action in place at many universities. That's not what the supreme court is ruling on so it's not going to play a part in this ruling. many factors go into a decision like this. the scope itself is the most contentious issue. but as we've repeatedly seen, when there's a policy issue you like, the law also tends to say that it is relevant. If anything, the presence of income based affirmative action will strengthen the case against race-based affirmative action. I can't see it reinforcing the other side at all. the argument of the school is that they want a diverse student body in which students of different racial groups will not feel stranded and isolated. Yeah, except no one really gives a shit about what you are in higher education. No one is isolated unless they're nazis or something crazy. EDIT: Really what affirmative action is all about in higher education is a bunch of ivory tower liberals creating an excuse to feel good about themselves. It's that simple.
No, it's really not. You're particularly out of touch with reality on this one. I don't really agree with AA in most cases, but it's not true that no one gives a shit about what you are in higher education.
Just like every other area of society, people group together based on common interests and identities. I went to a pretty white engineering school in a very white state to begin with (Colorado), with maybe 1 in 10 students being a minority of any type (so I'm lumping blacks, asians, and hispanics together). If you had taken a snapshot 20 years ago, the same could probably be said of women at my school.
They go the extra mile trying to include everyone and provide some sense of solidarity for students that get the vibe they don't belong from the get go, but it's still hard.
|
Just a little question for my own curiosity.
Do small candidates have the same visibility in the medias than the two big ones? Is there rules to ensure that everybody can present his program to the US citizen? Or does it just depend on the money they can spend for ads and the good will of big medias?
|
On October 12 2012 00:22 oneofthem wrote:
that's not even laughable as an argument. you must be captain oblivious if you think social isolation is not a substantial problem especially considering that half of college is the networking.
it doesn't matter if you think it's a problem based on anecdotal experience. it's a legit policy consideration by the school using race as a factor. does that warrant a large preference in terms of standards? a more difficult question, but as you can see the matter is more complicated.
I spent more than enough time in higher education to see the social dynamics at these schools. What I am saying is that kids don't give a shit about race, religion, sexual orientation, and all of the other crap that today's liberal elite still make a big deal about. In short, students are free to make what they want of social networking. As long as they are "there" (ie actively participating and trying to network), the issue takes care of itself. Artificially loading up the school with minorities (many of whom are underqualified) isn't solving any social problems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
take it up with the school administration. the question is, if the school feels that there is this problem, can they address it with race being one of the admission factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
