Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,079,965 times
Reputation: 4270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
I admitted as much in an earlier post that I'm in my present position despite competing with at least one guy that I KNOW was more qualified than me because I'm better connected and had a few people on the inside making it happen. The other people didnt stand a chance. They were never in the game, and I knew it. They didn't know it though.

Do I feel guilt? NOPE! None whatsoever. How many hires are made like that in America everyday? Probably 50% I'd bet. Who ever apologizes for being well connected?

No one. Furthermore, there is no way I'm gonna turn down a high 5 figure salary just for the sake of being fair, and neither will anyone else. We ALL seek to use every advantage, no matter how non-meritorious it might be to get ahead.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.
50% would be on the low side of that estimate too. I've seen it reported as high as 70% of open jobs never get advertised for. And that's how it's always been. This country has never been a strictly meritocratic. I don't know what drives people to turn a blind eye to all the other forms of subjective standards there are, but in my other thread, I've got one guy arguing that legacy & donor special admissions are fine but AA isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2013, 11:06 AM
 
57,022 posts, read 35,008,437 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
50% would be on the low side of that estimate too. I've seen it reported as high as 70% of open jobs never get advertised for. And that's how it's always been. This country has never been a strictly meritocratic. I don't know what drives people to turn a blind eye to all the other forms of subjective standards there are, but in my other thread, I've got one guy arguing that legacy & donor special admissions are fine but AA isn't.
Absolutely...I suspect that my 50% number is low too, but I was being conservative.

Frankly, that's not the only time I've gotten over because of who I know. When I was working for the Federal Government, I know of at least one big promotion that I got because I had a good relationship with the assistant director of the activity I worked for. He even told me in so many words without coming right out and incriminating himself in the hire. I beat out another guy that had more experience, and he smelled a rat, but couldn't put his finger on it.

Moreover, I suspect that in another case of a good situation that I found myself in when I was working in transportation was due to someone I knew on the inside. Couldn't confirm it, but let's just say that without that push, there was no way it could've happened for me.

And again, I feel no guilt. Everyone does it.

You're absolutely right...America is not nor has EVER BEEN a nation based on meritorious achievement. This is a capitalist society, and its about who and what you know. All of us seek that little tiny edge when we want to attain something, and all of us will accept that advantage unapologetically. Only outright liars will deny this.

Black folks have squat go apologize for. If folks are butthurt over the few crumbs we get, then boo effin' hoo! Go suck an egg. White folks don't feel the need to justify their advantages, and frankly, neither do I. Not should women or any other minority feel any guilt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,079,965 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
The select few with lower GPAs in ivy league schools are non-traditional students with work history to make up for the fact, or are students with other degrees (making high school GPAs irrelevant). Interesting how you ignore that fact.
HALF THE CLASS IS REPRESENTED BY THE 25/75 STAT. Look up any top school you want, compare that range to what the 99th% of scores is. Let me know what you find out...

Quote:
I am saying that any form of admissions based on anything other than academics should be done away with
Riiiiiiiight. Should I assume you had a 4.0 gpa and 99percentile score?

Quote:
You are a racist in your support for AA (a program existing to promote racism) and you are anti-intellectual in your support of all non-academic based admissions standards. I am only outing myself as supporting academic institutions admitting people based on academic standards. Let me ask you again, Why are you so intent on punishing those students who work hard enough to actually deserve a place in a top school?

Funny how you ignored that question.
Who's punishing anyone? I believe school is about more than just learning. It's where people actually experience the diversity of life and expand their thinking. Filling a school w/ a bunch of number crunchers creates a harmful, unrewarding experience for everyone involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 01:22 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,158,116 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
HALF THE CLASS IS REPRESENTED BY THE 25/75 STAT. Look up any top school you want, compare that range to what the 99th% of scores is. Let me know what you find out...
An above 3.0 GPA isn't the top 99%...you still don't seem to get that

Quote:
Riiiiiiiight. Should I assume you had a 4.0 gpa and 99percentile score?
I never mentioned the top 99%. I mentioned an above 3.0 GPA, and yes, mine was in that range. My SAT and GMAT scores were also in the top 2%, for whatever that is worth

Quote:
Who's punishing anyone? I believe school is about more than just learning. It's where people actually experience the diversity of life and expand their thinking. Filling a school w/ a bunch of number crunchers creates a harmful, unrewarding experience for everyone involved.
You are punishing people who deserve to get in based on academics. For every person you let in because of skin color or ability to play a sport, a smarter person does not get to go to that school. The fact that we don't fill schools with 'a bunch of number crunchers' is why companies have to go overseas to find qualified people to fill jobs. We are getting dumber as a country because of attitudes like yours. School isn't this touchy-feely place to discover yourself. It is a place to build the necessary skills to be a productive member of society. You want to 'expand your thinking'? Go to a library.

School is about the experience. I don't want to experience stupid people in my classes. I want to experience intelligent people who I can learn from. Experiencing someone who I can't have an intelligent conversation with on advanced academic topics because they were only let in due to something as arbitrary as race or athletic performance is an experience I can live without.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,079,965 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
An above 3.0 GPA isn't the top 99%...you still don't seem to get that


I never mentioned the top 99%. I mentioned an above 3.0 GPA, and yes, mine was in that range.
What. t. f. are you talking about? Did you lose track of your argument? Here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Ivy Leagues are also not just filled by the 99th percentile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Show me a shred of evidence to support this. You are 100% wrong.
The "shred of evidence" is the 25/75 stat on standardized testing scores for the admitted class. Those scores fall below the 99th percentile. Those scores represent HALF the scores of that class. And no, it's not a few here & there like you tried to say earlier. Normally when someone says something that can proven false by numbers, they either move on, or admit they were wrong. They don't resort to spewing gibberish.

Quote:
My SAT and GMAT scores were also in the top 2%, for whatever that is worth
So unless everyone who fell into the top 1% also got in, and turned down their acceptance, looks like you benefited from a non-strictly meritocratic admission. How does it feel knowing that you took the spot of someone more qualified? Why do you hate the kids who obviously worked HARDER THAN YOU to get better grades?

Quote:
You are punishing people who deserve to get in based on academics. For every person you let in because of skin color or ability to play a sport, a smarter person does not get to go to that school. The fact that we don't fill schools with 'a bunch of number crunchers' is why companies have to go overseas to find qualified people to fill jobs. We are getting dumber as a country because of attitudes like yours. School isn't this touchy-feely place to discover yourself. It is a place to build the necessary skills to be a productive member of society. You want to 'expand your thinking'? Go to a library.
Unlike you, I recognize how reality has actually shaped things. To think that someone that went to a top school thinks the country that produces the worlds best doctors, scientists, economists, mathematicians, etc. is somehow dropping the ball on producing quality engineers is sad. I mean, seriously?

On top of that, that you think that this country EVER operated on merit is equally laughable. It's easy to believe your grandfather succeeded on just his hardwork when he didn't have to compete against minorities or women or foreigners for his job or education.

Quote:
School is about the experience. I don't want to experience stupid people in my classes. I want to experience intelligent people who I can learn from. Experiencing someone who I can't have an intelligent conversation with on advanced academic topics because they were only let in due to something as arbitrary as race or athletic performance is an experience I can live without.
That's right. If some minority got let in when race was a factor, it's only b/c they were inferior to the White applicant. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes the choice is between two equally qualified candidates and race was used a tie breaker? Or does the idea that there are minorities that are as good as White people somehow offend your sensibilities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:42 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,887,042 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
If that's your position, then explain why using legacy standards or donor standard or faculty standards or athletic standards or gender standard are all more noble than using racial standards?
Athletic standards are a phenomenon simply because of demand....people love (and pay) to watch college sports. I asked you before...and you evaded by suggesting I make a separate thread, since now YOU brought it back into the fold....can you possibly answer this question now?

Do you advocate lesser skilled athletes receiving athletic scholarships based on race and in the name of equaity?

Or...do you agree there is a social affinity for athletics and that students more gifted than their peers should receive these benefits?

Faculty standard? Easy....somebody who has utility in the eyes of the institution will have a perk. Why SHOULDN'T they? This is similar to naturally observed phenomenons like kin selection. What benefit does being black or asian afford an institution aside ftom diversity? If you can even call that a benefit.

Gender standards shouldn't exist....

And lastly, I never said that legacy standards are more NOBLE...just in line with my values. Family values....legacies are rooted in family values...unfortunately some demographics haven't grasped this and now are being rewarded for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:31 PM
 
57,022 posts, read 35,008,437 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Athletic standards are a phenomenon simply because of demand....people love (and pay) to watch college sports. I asked you before...and you evaded by suggesting I make a separate thread, since now YOU brought it back into the fold....can you possibly answer this question now?

Do you advocate lesser skilled athletes receiving athletic scholarships based on race and in the name of equaity?

Or...do you agree there is a social affinity for athletics and that students more gifted than their peers should receive these benefits?

Faculty standard? Easy....somebody who has utility in the eyes of the institution will have a perk. Why SHOULDN'T they? This is similar to naturally observed phenomenons like kin selection. What benefit does being black or asian afford an institution aside ftom diversity? If you can even call that a benefit.

Gender standards shouldn't exist....

And lastly, I never said that legacy standards are more NOBLE...just in line with my values. Family values....legacies are rooted in family values...unfortunately some demographics haven't grasped this and now are being rewarded for it.
Of course you're saying that it's noble. Otherwise you'd be saying that your values or family values are ignoble, and I know you aren't saying that.

Just come clean and cut it out...you're for legacy standards because the chances of it benefiting blacks is generally pretty low. Damn..just spit it out and chill with all that bullsh*t about family values. It ain't that deep and you know it.

Besides, legacies are a tiny group anyway, so despite your family values take on it (which is nonsense), it pretty much benefits the wealthy and well connected....and most people, including white people, aren't anywhere near playing in that league.

BTW...wassup with the constant slick talk, as if you're being cryptic. "Some demographics?" Why don't you just say who you're talking about instead of prevaricating? I can understand why that's useful and smart to do off the interwebz, but its kinda silly to do on the net. Is it so hard to type "black people?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Metro-Detroit area
4,050 posts, read 3,946,464 times
Reputation: 2107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereCanBeOnly1 View Post
Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business


Help me help you.

Reading is fundamental!

"Peter, we are looking for a solid Accountant to add to the team. I am now considering your race, color, religion, sex and national origin and using it to find the best person at netting credits with debits."

Makes 100% complete sense!
Reading is fundamental, from your reply it is clear you have yet to master those fundamentals...
Even your example is an exercise of the ignorant, let me try again to make it so simple, even you will comprehend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark View Post

Why do people totally ignorant of Affirmative Action always trot out this lie???
Poster please point to the Affirmative Action statute that dismisses the ability to do the job in favor of hiring white women and minorities??
I asked for someone to point out the Affirmative action statute that says one must be hired regardless of their ability to do the job, as was suggested in this thread.

Did you provide that statute...Yes or No?

In other words you have failed....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
8,227 posts, read 11,100,928 times
Reputation: 8198
Good chart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 05:19 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 2,063,016 times
Reputation: 804
I don't think race is the issue, anymore. Poverty is.

A rich black kid with educated parents is likely to do better than a poor white kid living in a trailer with high school drop out parents.

It would also mean that black kids who are truly disadvantaged would get the benefits of A.A, not rich kids who don't need any more help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top