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.
I'm actually opposed to affirmative action in college admissions for a number of reasons, but calling this a victory for meritocracy is a farce.
If the conservatives on this forum were truly interested in a meritocracy (they're not), then they would be opposed to the entire concept of inheritance (they're not), and would push for policies that level the playing field before college (they don't).
Curiously, there isn't much outcry against legacy admissions at Ivy League universities or the advantages that wealthy private school students enjoy. Is it because the children of society's elite are considered the most deserving by default?
It's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer.
If the conservatives on this forum were truly interested in a meritocracy (they're not), then they would be opposed to the entire concept of inheritance (they're not), and would push for policies that level the playing field before college (they don't).
That's a personal matter among family and sometimes friends. The government should not be involved in it in any way.
When my elderly parents pass, my situation will be typical of probably 90% of the people on this forum. I will inherit a lot of unpaid medical bills. I'll have to sell any estate assets to pay them. I may end up with a piece of furniture that I have no place for that has been passed down from a great grandmother. I could always check things at my parents house since my mother has put Post-It notes on the back of things instead of writing a formal will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
Curiously, there isn't much outcry against legacy admissions at Ivy League universities or the advantages that wealthy private school students enjoy. Is it because the children of society's elite are considered the most deserving by default?
Private institution can have affirmative action programs and legacy admissions. They can discriminate on any personal trait they want. They don't accept government money.
T
Private institution can have affirmative action programs and legacy admissions. They can discriminate on any personal trait they want. They don't accept government money.
No, that's not true. If I were a private landlord or a private shopkeeper, I couldn't discriminate based on race, sex or a host of factors due to federal laws in this country. Neither can private colleges.
If I were a private landlord or a private shopkeeper, I couldn't discriminate based on race, sex or a host of factors due to federal laws in this country. Neither can private colleges.
Actually, private landlords can discriminate since they are exempt from the Federal Fair Housing Act if the landlord has 4 or fewer rentals(states or cities might be more strict). Per federal rules, the landlord can't advertise regarding the discrimination but they can legally discriminate otherwise. For example, they can't advertise "No Catholics"(or X race, etc), but they can deny renting to someone if they are Catholic.
Shopkeeper is a different story. We'll soon find out about private colleges if new rules are about to be enacted by Trump.
Then most schools will be primarily Asian. I wonder how soon people will call for restrictions that limit the number of Asians in schools- you know because "we can't get in if you just go by test scores. Why isn't some other criteria being considered?"
i agree they shouldn't. white privilege is not a real thing.
I'm mostly against affirmative action because I think it's the wrong way to tackle the problem of a lack of diversity. But you're wrong about white privilege not existing.
I'm actually opposed to affirmative action in college admissions for a number of reasons, but calling this a victory for meritocracy is a farce.
If the conservatives on this forum were truly interested in a meritocracy (they're not), then they would be opposed to the entire concept of inheritance (they're not), and would push for policies that level the playing field before college (they don't).
Curiously, there isn't much outcry against legacy admissions at Ivy League universities or the advantages that wealthy private school students enjoy. Is it because the children of society's elite are considered the most deserving by default?
It's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer.
That's a personal matter among family and sometimes friends. The government should not be involved in it in any way.
I won't even debate this point, because there are very few who share my views on the role of inheritance in society.
My only point was that removing race-based considerations from the college admissions process does very little to move us a closer to a "meritocracy," as one poster suggested. The truth is that there is very little appetite for a society that is truly based on merit, rather than family ties.
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.
