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.
No, you seem to have an issue with PRIVATE education institutions.
Nope. I'm not the one decrying race-based AA, then turning around and cheering on legacy admissions and donor admissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
There are a few exceptions and you use that to state a fact? Really?
Lol... the 25 - 75 percentile stat REPRESENTS HALF THAT CLASS! "Few exceptions..."
Quote:
College should be composed completely of the best people who will produce the best results post-graduation. Supporting preferential treatment is one of the reasons why our country is pathetically far behind the rest of the world in terms of STEM education.
Uh-huh. Seeing how that standard was never in effect when the US was kicking ass (unless you're one of those who thinks letting women & minorities apply to schools/learn to read is what set this country back), and seeing how a lot of the countries that kick our ass employ their own preferential acceptance models... we can all agree that you're full of it.
Quote:
I am 100% against anyone (whites or otherwise) getting preferential treatment. You are 100% supportive of minorities receiving preferential treatment. You are absolutely a racist. Racism will never cease to exist as long as people like you are thinking the way you do.
I am supportive of minorities getting their preferential treatment. I'm also supportive of fac-brats, donors, athletes, scholarships, and a whole bunch of other standards that produce a diversified experience for the student body. The funny thing is how you're calling me a racist for supporting something that benefits minorities, yet not a peep about what I am for supporting something that benefits Whites. Why is that?
Nope. I'm not the one decrying race-based AA, then turning around and cheering on legacy admissions and donor admissions.
Your thread premise was simply misleading... you are saying "Hey, race based admissions need to be enforced...because plenty of white kids get a leg up"
Yes, but not by RACE BASED ADMISSIONS...
I have no issues whatsoever with an infrastructure that rewards a legacy. Parents who raised their children in environments conducive to success in the system we have today should have some kind of perk.
Nope. I'm not the one decrying race-based AA, then turning around and cheering on legacy admissions and donor admissions.
Lol... the 25 - 75 percentile stat REPRESENTS HALF THAT CLASS! "Few exceptions..."
And ONLY A MINORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE 2.0 GPAs
Quote:
Uh-huh. Seeing how that standard was never in effect when the US was kicking ass (unless you're one of those who thinks letting women & minorities apply to schools/learn to read is what set this country back), and seeing how a lot of the countries that kick our ass employ their own preferential acceptance models... we can all agree that you're full of it.
This isn't 1960. AA was necessary in the past. It isn't needed today. Do you realize this is 2013?
Quote:
I am supportive of minorities getting their preferential treatment. I'm also supportive of fac-brats, donors, athletes, scholarships, and a whole bunch of other standards that produce a diversified experience for the student body. The funny thing is how you're calling me a racist for supporting something that benefits minorities, yet not a peep about what I am for supporting something that benefits Whites. Why is that?
You support race-based treatment (making you a racist) and you also support other forms of non-performance based treatment. The fact that you support poor behavior with whites doesn't make you less of a racist.
Why are you so intent on punishing those students who work hard enough to actually deserve a place in a top school?
And what's your opinion on referral hires? If you oppose AA b/c it somehow punishes more qualified candidates, where do you stand on job openings that are only filled by people w/ connections to a company? Do you seriously believe the friend of one of the manager's would be the best qualified in an open pool?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereCanBeOnly1
Why are you always looking for an artificial edge? I find it sad that you and the minority or class groups you speak for are so pathetic they cannot do anything without seed money from the white man to do anything.
Then on top of it, you've been given the world from food, housing, jobs, policy, government officials, free education, etc and it is still not enough or not equal.
I have a profound theory for you to digest, the reason you cannot succeed is because you aren't able to when you can't even get the first steps in life done without help. The amount of people I know (ironically white) that have come from just as humble of beginning as all the cry babies in this country and most are wildly successful mainly because they had a M/F actual family, proper priorities and were good decent people.
Key tips to not be a failure in life
-go to school and pay attention
-don't break laws
-plan for your future
-refuse all govt assistance/policy (especially as a way of life)
-grind
-profit
Those are the only differences between the "hillbillies" I know in the sticks without a pot to **** in and the crying, minorities that use every excuse in the book besides personal failures as why they cannot keep up given the same starting point.
The President is black, the AG is black, the NSA (soon to be) director is black, the SCOTUS has multiple minorities and women, the SOTUS is female, Valerie Jarrett is Black/Iranian, etc, etc, etc.
Racism is absolutely unacceptable excuse for ANY minority to use in 2013. Obviously, to anyone who is educated; affirmative action is literally racism against white people. (meritorious people will only understand this)
We've been "given the world?"
LMAO...by whom exactly? We've been given NOTHING. Anything that blacks have we took ourselves...no one has ever given us a damn thing. No favors have ever been done for us, and we've had no more than a few well meaning benefactors since we've been in this country.
SMH @ "given the world." Please.
As for the rest of your sorry ass rant, go eat a Snickers Bar or something.
This isn't about Welfare, it's about Affirmative Action.
It might have been intended as a way to include and develop people who weren't given opportunities, but it never turned out that way. Nobody ever checked what opportunities were "given". It was, in fact, exactly what I described: A program based on the assumption that black people (and other minorities) have low ability, and so need help from whites. And of course, that "help" means money, coerced from taxpayers by government.
It was also a flat violation of the 14th amendment, since it was based purely on race, and NOT on any measurement of who was "given" more opportunities. In fact, such measurements were never made. Govt just blindly doled out the money to blacks, and to programs advertised as "helping" blacks.
This "help" has done more to hold back black people, than any program in the country's history since slavery itself.
The fact that support is diminishing from this racist program, as I said, is a sign we are finally entering the ranks of civilized nations that do not discriminate by skin color or national origin. Blacks made the best progress, even in the face of rampant discrimination and bigotry, in the 1950s when there were no such "help" programs and they had to prosper by their own hard work and perseverence. And they improved their lots magnificently... until Democrats decided they needed "help" in the 1960s.
Your confusion comes in believing that embolded phrase. Some one told you AA is for those with limited "ability"...you are incorrect.
AA is for those with limited opportunity. The ability is there.
Quote:
Blacks made the best progress, even in the face of rampant discrimination and bigotry, in the 1950s
This phrase proves you have no concept of AA or Post WWII AA.
Think of our nation history and prior to 1950's. WWII was the catalyst for all Americans to advance to a middle-class.
Women and minorities joined the labor force in record numbers to provide for war effort...but little reflect on what happen to women and minorites when the boys came home. Women and minorities with skills and experience were laid-off for the boys needing work. The gains to women and minorites we erased in a generation.
So in synopsis...Durring the Great depression women and minorities were discouraged from the workforce because they would take jobs from 'men". Durring WWII, women and minorities worked in record numbers. Post WWII, Women and minorities lost good paying jobs in record numbers to returning men.
American has always had AA, it just worked the other way around...
I like how you're focusing on the 2.0 when my quote was "3.0-2.0." Regardless, the fact that even the Ivy's have a 25/75 stat, ends your argument.
Quote:
This isn't 1960. AA was necessary in the past. It isn't needed today. Do you realize this is 2013?
And here is the reason that I started the thread in the first place. With all the OTHER preferential standards applied to the applicant pool, the only one you can muster an argument against is race-based AA. Not the White-AA that discriminates against Asians. Not the White male AA that discriminates against women. The one that needs to be done away w/ is the one that benefits minorities. Way to out yourself...
Quote:
You support race-based treatment (making you a racist) and you also support other forms of non-performance based treatment. The fact that you support poor behavior with whites doesn't make you less of a racist.
Why are you so intent on punishing those students who work hard enough to actually deserve a place in a top school?
I support using standards that amount to more than just who scores the highest. Again, It's funny that you have nothing to call me when I support that standard for Whites, but when I support that standard for minorities, I'm a racist. Way to out yourself a second time...
Your thread premise was simply misleading... you are saying "Hey, race based admissions need to be enforced...because plenty of white kids get a leg up"
Yes, but not by RACE BASED ADMISSIONS...
I have no issues whatsoever with an infrastructure that rewards a legacy. Parents who raised their children in environments conducive to success in the system we have today should have some kind of perk.
And that perk is not racially based.
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?
I've made the point before that with all the OTHER forms of non-merit based selections that schools use, the focus on race-based AA is revealing of those who criticize it. If the case was just about person A being let in over person B, then why is there never a focus on all the White males w/ lower GPAs getting into school than other White males w/ higher GPAs?
For every complaint about a minority w/ lower scores getting the nod over a White person w/ a higher score, there is almost certainly another White person w/ lower scores than BOTH OF THEM that also got in. Yet this fact is never brought up. Why?
The fact that this issue, along w/ several other trends that end up favoring White applicants at school (legacy admissions, children of staff admissions, White Female admissions, the 50/50 gender split) never get mentioned all point to the reason why minority-based AA is still necessary.
In short, in the mind of these critics: A White person can lose their spot to another White person, but never a Black or Hispanic. When a Black or Hispanic takes a White person's spot, it's a travesty. When a White person takes another White person's spot, it's fine.
And before you "offenders" trot out the tired line of "it should all be merit-based," just know that for all the complaints people have leveled against minority-based AA, how many have been against any of the above mentioned admissions that benefit Whites? How many threads have been created pointing out those practices? How many court cases? History and your selective outrage show what I'm writing is true.
You don't think it works both ways? You don't think blacks with lower GPAs sometimes get excepted over blacks or whites with higher GPAs?
I like how you're focusing on the 2.0 when my quote was "3.0-2.0." Regardless, the fact that even the Ivy's have a 25/75 stat, ends your argument.
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.
Quote:
And here is the reason that I started the thread in the first place. With all the OTHER preferential standards applied to the applicant pool, the only one you can muster an argument against is race-based AA. Not the White-AA that discriminates against Asians. Not the White male AA that discriminates against women. The one that needs to be done away w/ is the one that benefits minorities. Way to out yourself...
I am saying that any form of admissions based on anything other than academics should be done away with. How is that hard for you to understand?
Quote:
I support using standards that amount to more than just who scores the highest. Again, It's funny that you have nothing to call me when I support that standard for Whites, but when I support that standard for minorities, I'm a racist. Way to out yourself a second time...
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.
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.
