| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
yandere991
Australia394 Posts
On November 05 2012 21:26 oneofthem wrote: those who are not favored by the aa policies. Then that is where I see the problem with AA. If the policy labels those whom are clearly not privileged as such then the policy needs to be scrapped. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and privilege is itself too simplistic. aa is in part addressing the problem of social marginalization of the sort that can have in groups excluding qualified but different people. this may not be as large a problem today/in certain areas, but make no mistake, active effort was needed to get it to this place. people also totally ignore the school's side to it. | ||
|
TheLight
Australia410 Posts
That's how we do it in Australia except for the Aboriginals (who get affirmative action similar to that of Native Americans in the US). | ||
|
kamicom
United States180 Posts
Religion and ethnicity should never be used for affirmative action. "Diversity" is a bullshit idea that colleges gobble up and regurgitate in order to attract students. | ||
|
mikell
Australia352 Posts
| ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 05 2012 08:03 tree.hugger wrote: I too feel that this case will result in Grutter being overturned.... excellent post. On November 05 2012 02:43 Papulatus wrote: As an engineering student, I see affirmative action everywhere and it's really really depressing. It may be by coincidence, but it seems like all the research and assistant teaching positions are occupied by minorities or women. In fact, flyers for a assistant reaching position even read "Minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." As a 6'2" white male with blonde hair and blue eyes I stand no chance in getting these positions, even though I'm more qualified than almost all of the people who got these positions. yeah, probably not; your shitty arrogant attitude probably convinced them otherwise. honestly Im glad we aren't in the 1950s where a person like you or me would get the job automatically. pro tip: there is always someone better than you. always. On November 05 2012 08:11 red4ce wrote: Speaking as a Chinese American who probably would have gotten into an Ivy League school if I was black, I support affirmative action. Yes in an ideal world race would not matter and college admissions would be based purely on meritocratic criteria, but we do not live in that world. The end of institutional discrimination does not mean the playing field is level for everyone. Imagine a game of Starcraft where one player wasn't allowed to build an extra CC for 10 minutes. Does that mean the game is fair after the restriction is lifted? Of course not. The other player still has the advantage thanks to the extra workers and production facilities. Removing discriminatory practices only preserves the pre-existing inequality, it does not negate it. There are of course many flaws with the current implementation of affirmative action, but given the choice of affirmative action or nothing I'd pick the former. I agree, and that's a nice analogy. A personal story of where I have seen institutionalized racism; I had a professor of business law who was fantastically intelligent, published tons of quality work and was very effective as a professor. Granted, many students didn't appreciate the fact that they had to do some actual work (shock), but honestly the guy was plenty good enough. The University never offered him tenure. In fact, the business college hasn't offered a black professor tenure in 2 decades. Now, had he been the only one I might have been able to see that as a personality issue, but honestly 2 decades? You can't find one black professor worthy of tenure in 20 years in Tennessee? | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On November 06 2012 17:16 kamicom wrote: "Diversity" is a bullshit idea that colleges gobble up and regurgitate in order to attract students. um well my undergraduate program was almost entirely white. but my graduate program had tons of foreigners from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Quite a few from South America and even a few African students. I am truly grateful for that experience and meeting lots of people who had a different culture than me. You might call it bullshit, I don't care. You may not value having those experiences. But I do. I like meeting people who challenge my preconceived notions in a respectful way and find those interactions far more useful than just another white kid with a rich dad who I share dumb ass, petty hobbies with. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On November 07 2012 01:44 red_b wrote: excellent post. yeah, probably not; your shitty arrogant attitude probably convinced them otherwise. honestly Im glad we aren't in the 1950s where a person like you or me would get the job automatically. pro tip: there is always someone better than you. always. I agree, and that's a nice analogy. A personal story of where I have seen institutionalized racism; I had a professor of business law who was fantastically intelligent, published tons of quality work and was very effective as a professor. Granted, many students didn't appreciate the fact that they had to do some actual work (shock), but honestly the guy was plenty good enough. The University never offered him tenure. In fact, the business college hasn't offered a black professor tenure in 2 decades. Now, had he been the only one I might have been able to see that as a personality issue, but honestly 2 decades? You can't find one black professor worthy of tenure in 20 years in Tennessee? I like the starcraft analogy as well. In general when talking about fairness in politics people immediately fall back on rules set forth in games. Things like flat taxes are fair because, like in a game, they apply equally to all people. Sadly this only works in a world where equality already exists which any sociologist can tell you is not the case. As a thought exercise I like to put forth the game Monopoly just for the sake of hitting people over the head with symbolism. During setup give one player 90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties. Design a rule set that makes this game fair. This is essentially the job of politicians. AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success we can regulate them like a game and be truly fair. Sadly, without revolution or overwhelming consensus this is not something we will see in our lifetimes. AA is the compromise, if you care about this issue that is. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On November 02 2012 07:13 Deadlyhazard wrote: Affirmative action is incredibly racist. Merit is the only thing that should ever be judged in situations like this. I find it incredibly offensive that people of different skin color than me get scholarships to go to school just because of their skin, while I have to pay out my ass to go (I'm white). I would like to see scholarships and admittance go solely to people with merit. I don't see how it can be balanced in any other way. I can't believe policies like this even exist in modern society. The problem with going merit alone is that many public school systems are inherently disadvantaged because of the lack of economic support. Someone can do really well at one of these schools and still get passed over for admission simply because doing well in a crappy school district does not mean you are as qualified strictly merit wise as someone who was able to attend school in an affluent area, who was able to gain access to a much better variety of courses and college preparation. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Let's say two teams are playing in a StarCraft tourney. In game 1 one player can't build a CC for 10 minutes. The game ends. Next game what to do? Impose the restriction on the other team's new player? That won't be fair for him either. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. The best way would be to restart the tourney but what does that correspond to in the real world? This is why I don't believe in any special treatment for "disadvantaged" minorities. Four generations ago my great-great-grandfather was a peasant in Buttfuck, Belarus. He scrounged up some money to send his kid for training as a skilled laborer in the nearby city, and then his kid had the money to bring up his kid in a more educated environment and eventually pull in sizable money as a rocket scientist. The point of all of this is that as the next player for the "advantaged" team it's not fair to limit my CC production because the "disadvantaged" seem to be complacent to live where they are instead of investing in the future and becoming "advantaged" themselves. | ||
|
ReginaldRogers
4 Posts
On November 07 2012 02:16 Velocirapture wrote: I like the starcraft analogy as well. In general when talking about fairness in politics people immediately fall back on rules set forth in games. Things like flat taxes are fair because, like in a game, they apply equally to all people. Sadly this only works in a world where equality already exists which any sociologist can tell you is not the case. As a thought exercise I like to put forth the game Monopoly just for the sake of hitting people over the head with symbolism. During setup give one player 90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties. Design a rule set that makes this game fair. This is essentially the job of politicians. AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success we can regulate them like a game and be truly fair. Sadly, without revolution or overwhelming consensus this is not something we will see in our lifetimes. AA is the compromise, if you care about this issue that is. Your analogy is terribly racist. Why is it assumed someone has "90% of the money from the bank and 60% of the properties" because of their race? If there is a problem with someone having too much money or too much property, then why would corrective measures target race (or "playing piece color") instead of targeting money or property? On November 07 2012 02:16 Velocirapture wrote: AA is an attempt to slowly reset the game with the belief that once all races occupy relatively similar distributions of success I can see you are making the same mistake most supporters of Affirmative Action make. You are basing your beliefs on the false premise that all races have equal abilities, and therefore should have equal outcomes. In reality there are inherent racial differences. For example Blacks are the fastest sprinters, whereas Asians have the highest levels of intelligence. Any system that tried to enforce equal outcomes between Blacks and Asians would be inherently unfair. I will use an analogy of my own. Imagine a 100m sprinting race. Upon examining racial outcomes in this race it is discovered Black sprinters have faster average finish times than other races. For the sake of equal outcomes it is decided next time that Blacks have to run 110m, Whites 90m, and Asians only 80m. After adjusting track length based on ethnicity the different ethnic groups have the same average finish times. Success! Is it more fair now that rules are changed to favor certain ethnic groups? To enforce equal outcomes among people with unequal abilities is incredibly unfair. "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really." -- Nobel Prize winning scientist James Dewey Watson | ||
|
glabius
46 Posts
Yeah Asians generally get better grades because they have a culture where they work really fucking hard on shit. Blacks generally are faster but thats because there is a culture of sports/athleticism being more important over education. But still, EVEN IF there are genetic reasons for one race being better than the other IT SHOULDN'T MATTER. There is no SIGNIFICANT difference in speed/intelligence/attractiveness/coordination/interpersonal ability/whatever that we should just say "Oh no, all of these social issues that discriminate towards blacks isn't important, trust me, they're just genetically dumb" Others, that bring up that people should be given affirmative action more based off of socio-economic status do have a good point, but this country has systematic racism that makes things unequal EVEN IF a comparative black/white person are at the same socio-economic level: Here's an article: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/ Which brings up some important points: 1. In early school blacks are targeted more than whites and others, and are labeled bad kids, criminals, this is not something you want to do to a kid this young. 2. Black family life more often than not, sucks. Single moms everywhere, dads in jail. 3. Blacks are criminalized far more often through the drug war than whites (whites just as much if not more drug selling/usage) 4. Blacks receive harsher sentences for crimes. 5. Blacks are much less likely to get loans/mortgages in nicer neighborhoods to attend better schools despite similar socio-economic status to a white person that could get the loan. I'm not claiming that any of you are racist, or anyone is racist really. But the SYSTEM is racist. It started with blacks moving into inner cities and whites leaving them and segregating poor blacks from whites. Combine that with "tough on crime" policies along with the drug war, and you have created a generation and culture of criminality and poverty among blacks. Not because of racism now but just because that show the system works. AA helps take into account all of these factors. You see that the college population of blacks is much less than whites, well I mean blacks are just stupid right!?!? NO, they've been fucked over by the system, and im proud that places of higher education like where I attend (University of Texas) are smart enough to realize that. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
On November 08 2012 00:43 glabius wrote: Holy shit. I'm tired of this stupid argument that Asians are the most intelligent, blacks are genetically dumb, etc. There is no conclusive evidence that any of this is true just based on genetics. Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument. Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared. Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all. | ||
|
glabius
46 Posts
On November 08 2012 01:24 Silvanel wrote: Its not stupid argument, its a fact that Asians on average score better than whites in IQ tests, and whites better than blacks. You can dispute it of course claiming, that the reasons for this are socio-economical differences or iq-tests bias, but this is still a fact and actually very good argument. Also there cant be any conclusive evidence that this fact is based solely on genetics simply because everyone is affacted by their cultural enviroment. You cant test IQ in cultural free enviroment, as everything is affacted by culture, using this fact as an argument against IQ tests is simply retared. Take me for example, i leave near a powerplant and loud noises from powerplant keep me awake at night, causing me to never having good sleep and contributing to my bad grades. Also my mother was smoking during my preganancy, it sure as hell did affact me, perhaps i should adjust my iq score multiplaying it by 1.1 . Also my genes are shitty, its not my fault and therefore i should adjust my results by further 1.1 . There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all. Yeah, they do score on average better on IQ tests? So fucking what? We should only give manual labor jobs to blacks, and the technical jobs to asians? These IQ tests have much more to do with environmental factors than innate ability. What? Your last statement "There are many factors besides race affecting Your development, some of them are more important and You cant take them all into consideration. The only truly fair aproach is to disregard them all." Is ill-informed for the situation. If we took NOTHING into account for admissions, my University (that this case is about) would be like 70% white and 25% asian and 5% everything else. This is not what I want at my Unviersity, and this is not a place that would be serving the interests of texas (as it is public) | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
| ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
On November 08 2012 01:36 Silvanel wrote: Whatever floats Your boat, if You are ok with accepting inferior candidates to Your University for whatever reason thats Your privilage. I couldnt care less, I merly expressed my opinion that the argument discussed above is in fact very good, not stupid as You claim. You should probably have a clue before you start talking about things. IQ tests are complete nonsense, and no one takes them seriously. | ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
| ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On November 08 2012 01:36 Silvanel wrote: Whatever floats Your boat, if You are ok with accepting inferior candidates to Your University for whatever reason thats Your privilage. I couldnt care less, I merly expressed my opinion that the argument discussed above is in fact very good, not stupid as You claim. The problem is that this is not a private institution. The University of Texas receives federal funding, meaning taxpayers pay to the college. Title VI of the civil rights act states: This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. Also, discrimination can be prosecuted against even in private institutions. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On November 02 2012 06:05 Sated wrote: No, both are not important. Merit alone should be used to judge potential students (and potential employees if we look more broadly). If 100% of the best students/employees/whatever happen to be white or happen to be black then so be it. that would work awesome if life started like sc: pretty much equal. but some people start with a rax and 10 scvs. The natural order isn't as you make it out to be | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs MaxPax
SHIN vs Reynor
herO vs Maru
WardiTV Korean Royale
SC Evo League
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
OSC
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
IPSL
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs Artosis
OyAji vs KameZerg
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
