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 left insists Harvard and other top-ranked universities can discriminate based on race, but a baker/florist/caterer/photographer/etc can't discriminate based on LGBT Status (which isn't even protected under the Federal Civil Rights Act).
What say you? Can both discriminate? Or can neither discriminate?
I firmly believe that no public institution should be allowed to discriminate. I personally don't agree with private businesses discriminating either (and I will not patronize any business that I find out are discriminating), but it's their business, their first amendment rights, so I don't think they can be legally forced to serve everyone.
There was no affirmative action at my high school for gifted kids. It was over 95% Asian if I recall correctly. So be it. They happened to be the students who had the highest test scores and grades. Many of my friends and boyfriends throughout high school were Asian or Jewish Eastern European, and I saw first hand how hard they worked academically. I don't think it's fair to punish that.
If we admitted purely on merit, then almost the entire class would be Chinese students.
I don't believe this at all.
Regardless if it happened or not, why in the world would anyone care?
You want a haircut...go to the best beauty salon.
You want a tooth pulled...go to the best dentist.
WHO IN THE WORLD DOES NOT THINK LIKE THIS?
I think those in favor of AA and similar programs need to put their money where their mouth is and develop some kind of program where they can only use educational institutions and private businesses that have some kind of AA system in place to create "diversity". Those of us who aren't racists and sexists can use a meritocracy.
Why should I have to weed through bums in education and those that provide goods & services because a select few have decided that I need to use/hire diverse folks?
Regardless if it happened or not, why in the world would anyone care?
You want a haircut...go to the best beauty salon.
You want a tooth pulled...go to the best dentist.
WHO IN THE WORLD DOES NOT THINK LIKE THIS?
I think those in favor of AA and similar programs need to put their money where their mouth is and develop some kind of program where they can only use educational institutions and private businesses that have some kind of AA system in place to create "diversity". Those of us who aren't racists and sexists can use a meritocracy.
Why should I have to weed through bums in education and those that provide goods & services because a select few have decided that I need to use/hire diverse folks?
yeah I know. I have a feeling that even if we get rid of AA, everybody is still going to be pretty happy about the result. People are just too afraid for no reasons at all.
If we admitted purely on merit, then almost the entire class would be Chinese students.
I don't believe this at all.
It's already true in the sciences at the graduate level, which is focused on research and test scores more than creating a cohesive, diverse class with varying backgrounds and interests.
When's the last time you visited an elite college's admissions office? What access to SEM data do you have? I'm just commenting on what the data at the university I work for tells me and what I've heard anecdotally from colleagues at Harvard, Cornell, Yale, and MIT.
What we've found, however, is that the large number of Chinese students whose parents not only spent a lot of money to send them to the US but also a lot of money on test prep often lack the ability to express themselves in a classroom environment. School English vs. real-time English so to speak. Chinese high schools are also less focused on critical thinking than US schools, which is not always well matched to the US college experience. That is why college admissions is generally holistic rather than focusing on just test scores and GPA (which can range dramatically depending on the school - a 4.0 at one school might be a 3.0 at another). There's a lot more to admissions than the hard data points that determine "merit."
It's already true in the sciences at the graduate level, which is focused on research and test scores more than creating a cohesive, diverse class with varying backgrounds and interests.
When's the last time you visited an elite college's admissions office? What access to SEM data do you have? I'm just commenting on what the data at the university I work for tells me and what I've heard anecdotally from colleagues at Harvard, Cornell, Yale, and MIT.
You said
If we admitted purely on merit, then almost the entire class would be Chinese students.
I simply don't understand how there is any downside to a meritocracy.
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.
