|
|
On October 12 2012 00:33 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 00:13 xDaunt wrote: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.
School of Mines?
I went to CU Law, which is also a very white school compared to what I am used to. Being from California and the UC system, the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of Asians on campus. But anyway, our classes were very minority-light. However, never did any of the minorities have any problem integrating with the rest of the student population. Race truly didn't matter because no one gave a shit, which is how it should be.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's anecdotal, limited personal observation from someone who has no access to the way some minorities feel. but hey, you are welcome to believe that it is just not very important.
|
On October 12 2012 00:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 00:33 ZasZ. wrote:On October 12 2012 00:13 xDaunt wrote: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. School of Mines? I went to CU Law, which is also a very white school compared to what I am used to. Being from California and the UC system, the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of Asians on campus. But anyway, our classes were very minority-light. However, never did any of the minorities have any problem integrating with the rest of the student population. Race truly didn't matter because no one gave a shit, which is how it should be.
No CSU, but Mines would have been an even better example from what I've heard. And no, in my experience as long as they were social and made the effort, minorities usually didn't have any problem integrating with the rest of the student population. While I don't think we should be proactively plopping them into programs to satisfy AA, I do think there exists a benefit in making sure they don't feel out of place in a sea of white when they first show up at the program. Like I said, people tend to socialize with groups they identify with, so whether schools make the extra effort to assimilate them or make the extra effort to hook them up with people with similar culture/ideals, it doesn't really matter.
It should be noted that at least at CSU, the minority I noticed did this the most were Muslims and/or people of Middle Eastern descent. They would almost exclusively hang out with each other, and just based on what I observed seemed to shun everybody else. That may go into some deeper social issues about our relationship with the Middle East, but that's what I noticed for what it's worth.
I believe AA should strictly be used on a financial aid basis (and with great prejudice [no pun intended]), not a replacement for performance. A kid shouldn't get into a school because he is black or because she is a woman. A bright kid, with good grades and potential for a good career, should be able to get help paying for school because his parents can't, regardless of the color of his skin. But once admissions are done, intra-school programs should help bridge any of the social/cultural gaps that may be present.
|
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it .
|
Dang, DOL needs to get its crap together. It's not good for anyone if people stop trusting their data.
Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks
For the second time in a week, a government unemployment report is sowing confusion—and may not be as positive as the markets think.
First it was last Friday's August payrolls report, which showed an unexpectedly large drop in the unemployment rate, that spurred confusion (and conspiracy theories). Now, a sharp drop in the pace of new jobless claims has also left people scratching their heads.
The Labor Department on Thursday said the number of people filing jobless claims last week dropped by a seasonally adjusted 30,000—a pretty sharp decline, and one that left the total number of filings at a four-year low of 339,000.
Financial markets immediately rallied on the news.
While the government didn't note any unusual factors in the release itself, a Labor Department official did tell news agencies covering the release about a quirk which partly accounted for the larger-than-expected drop.
As Dow Jones reported: “A Labor Department economist said one large state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease.”
The wording of that statement, along with the accompanying headlines, left the impression that one major state didn't turn in its figures.
Here's what actually happened. The state did report weekly jobless claims but did not process and report its quarterly claims number (when many people have to reapply for benefits for technical reasons as opposed to being newly laid off). As a result, there wasn't the expected spike in claims that normally happens at the start of the quarter.
It is unclear why that happened or how unusual that is. What is clear is that the expected spike in claims around the start of each quarter was smaller this time than usual. Coupled with the seasonal adjustment (that expected a bigger increase), that pushed down the headline figure.
In other words, the drop of 30,000 last week had more to do with the lack of expected re-filings at the start of the fourth quarter than with any particular improvement in labor market conditions.
That also means that the decline which usually follows the spike won’t be as pronounced this time around, so the headline tally of jobless claims is likely to rebound next week.
All told, these two weeks’ worth of jobless claims will end up being more noise than signal. That may frustrate those who follow the series closely for clues into the health of the U.S. labor market. Coupled with last week’s payrolls report, it is also likely to fuel perception that labor market figures in general can’t be trusted.
The Labor Department appears to have had little choice in this matter, however; it couldn't estimate what the one large state would or should have reported. Still, it may have been able to avoid more confusion had it more clearly articulated that in its weekly press release.
And now, there is one state’s labor department with plenty of explaining to do.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh. it's a bureaucratic booboo.
|
On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it .
So you could be a jaded hipster and claim your vote doesn't matter, but continue to complain about the system, or you could decide which "same shit in a different package" appeals to you more, do your civic duty, and hope that your choice was the lesser of two evils.
There are many, many flaws with our political system, but the people complaining about it and not voting aren't helping anyone either.
(P.S. I realize you aren't American, but there are plenty of American citizens with the same mindset.)
|
On October 11 2012 11:56 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 11:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 11:28 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, true, the UC system is pretty much one-of-a-kind in America. We really do need more like it throughout the country. Financial Aid could definitely be better, but we know how it is with education and money these days. At the very least, it really helps out a lot of the poorer/low-income families, so in my opinion it's nothing to scoff at.
Are you guys talking about the system or the quality of education? It seems the UC system has really good access and cheap tuition compared to a lot of state flagships, but don't act like they are the best public universities in the country (Berkley is one though).
|
It's a good thing for Obama that so few people watch CNN. Here's a video of Anderson Cooper's interview of the mom of one of the people that died in Libya.
|
On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it .
That's like saying there is no difference between diet pepsi and diet coke. There is a small, miniscule difference, somewhere...
|
On October 12 2012 00:34 Agathon wrote:
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?
No, no, and yes, respectively.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 12 2012 01:14 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 11:56 Souma wrote:On October 11 2012 11:42 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 11 2012 11:28 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, true, the UC system is pretty much one-of-a-kind in America. We really do need more like it throughout the country. Financial Aid could definitely be better, but we know how it is with education and money these days. At the very least, it really helps out a lot of the poorer/low-income families, so in my opinion it's nothing to scoff at. Are you guys talking about the system or the quality of education? It seems the UC system has really good access and cheap tuition compared to a lot of state flagships, but don't act like they are the best public universities in the country (Berkley is one though).
Berkeley/LA/SD are all top public universities. UCSF is a top graduate school for medicine/pharmaceutical. The others are eh but certainly not bad.
|
I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.
STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.
BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–
CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–
BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.
Cutter’s remarks drew immediate criticism from across the political spectrum. But the Obama spox quickly doubled down on Twitter, replying to a Buzzfeed researcher, “Romney has politicized Libya w/no plans of his own. POTUS’ priorities are getting facts & bringing terrorists to justice.”
In fact, the Obama administration has face serious criticism for its response to the events in Libya that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama notably accused Romney of “shooting first and aiming later” in his response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi. However, yesterday, ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper challenged White House press secretary Jay Carney, asking, “Given the fact that so much was made out of the video that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi, that there wasn’t even a protest outside the Benghazi post, didn’t President Obama shoot first and aim later?”
Source.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
|
On October 12 2012 01:11 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it . So you could be a jaded hipster and claim your vote doesn't matter, but continue to complain about the system, or you could decide which "same shit in a different package" appeals to you more, do your civic duty, and hope that your choice was the lesser of two evils. There are many, many flaws with our political system, but the people complaining about it and not voting aren't helping anyone either. (P.S. I realize you aren't American, but there are plenty of American citizens with the same mindset.)
Instead of berating anyone not voting, I think encouraging protest votes, wether a writein for "Donald Duck", a blank vote or any invalid vote, is all a better choise!
I think voting third party is by far the best idea for anyone thinking the top two are evil and eviler, but letting the election officials and eventually all of the country see your frustration is the better choice between "wasting" a vote and not voting at all.
When 20% of the votes are blank or invalid, it is a sign to those holding it that the people are not satisfied. It is hard to find out why, but in most situations the officials will be motivated to find out what the problem is "to stabilize the democracy".
When 20% of the votes are third party it will likely result in the two big parties trying to accomodate the views of the most popular third party candidates.
|
Write in votes are stupid, nobody is going to count those. That is tantamount to not voting. A third party vote at least gets counted in some column, somewhere. Pick a third party with nice title and vote for that one.
|
On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it .
yeahhhhh so if you think Mccain would of won that america would of gotten the ACA? or do you think that if romney gets elected roe v wade is going to stick around? elections really do matter man
|
On October 12 2012 04:56 Deathmanbob wrote:
road v wade
The landmark decision in which it was ruled that it is constitutional to cross a river on a bridge, but not by fording it.
|
On October 12 2012 04:56 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it . yeahhhhh so if you think Mccain would of won that america would of gotten the ACA? or do you think that if romney gets elected road v wade is going to stick around? elections really do matter man
Don't worry, the Supreme Court won't be outlawing abortion ever, regardless of whom is elected.
On October 12 2012 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:The landmark decision in which it was ruled that it is constitutional to cross a river on a bridge, but not by fording it.
Hahaha.
|
On October 12 2012 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:The landmark decision in which it was ruled that it is constitutional to cross a river on a bridge, but not by fording it.
i might of spelled a lot of things wrong....... lol
going to edit
|
On October 12 2012 05:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 04:56 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote:
Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it . yeahhhhh so if you think Mccain would of won that america would of gotten the ACA? or do you think that if romney gets elected road v wade is going to stick around? elections really do matter man Don't worry, the Supreme Court won't be outlawing abortion ever, regardless of whom is elected. Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 12 2012 04:56 Deathmanbob wrote:
road v wade
The landmark decision in which it was ruled that it is constitutional to cross a river on a bridge, but not by fording it. Hahaha.
well what do you think will happen with a republican win? i believe there are 3-4 judges who are up for retirement within the next 4 years. Both sides will replace with judges with their views and i do not think abortion stands a chance with a very conservative court. I could be wrong though
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
