Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The dems are trying to enact legisation that gives preference to students applying to state universities based on race. The text of the bill seems to contradict itself.
Do you agree? Or disagree? And why...
Quote:
Pursuant to subdivision (b), the University of California may, and the California State University may, consider race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given.
Why would they consider those points if no preference is given?
In my opinion race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income should never be considered as a qualification to be admitted to a university. Only merit and accomplishment should be considered.
In my opinion race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income should never be considered as a qualification to be admitted to a university. Only merit and accomplishment should be considered.
And to think some peoples' minds are so twisted they would consider you a racist for that. It's sad really.
Yeah, and this is after California became a majority minority state. Face it. Affirmative action is not about helping minorities, but displacing White people. It's tribalism, plain and simple.
free to be blindsided with student loans that will haunt you the rest of your life keeps the system going. go for it students.be sure to borrow enough for your day to day living expenses,suckers
As written it doesn't "give preference", but it does allow college admissions to consider these things. What's to stop some schools from actually using it as a preference seems to be a little sketchy.
Some universities prefer to admit an incoming class that is diverse and are not satisfied with just taking whoever has the highest test score. There are lot's of reasons for that which include not graduating a class of matchy-matchy students.
Looking at the totality of a student's experiences to determine if they should or shouldn't be admitted beyond bare academics shouldn't be a problem. As long as preference is not given. "Beating the odds," overcoming social and economic obstacles to succeed where one is expected to fail is often the hallmark of a good worker and good student.
But, to avoid sticky race preference problems, I especially think household income should be used as a measure to ensure that truly disadvantaged students get a leg up they might not otherwise have been able to get. That way the disadvantaged of any race get help and a CHANCE, which is what meritocracy is all about. Since minorities can also be of privileged economic status, a disadvantaged white student with good grades should be considered over a rich black kid with the same grades.
Solid middle (and especially, upper middle class and rich kids) have all the opportunity in the world. Perpetuation of the aristocracy is worse than letting some poor kids in over "better grades and scores" kids from privileged backgrounds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
