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.
Since education is unequal, going on grades only favors those who got better educations, which kinda mocks our notions of equal protection. By your standard, someone with a 3.1 GPA and 1800 SAT from a great UMC school (median 3.4 GPA and 1900 SAT) is more qualified than someone else with a 3.0 GPA and 1780 SAT from a pathetic inner city or rural school (median 2.5 GPA and 1200 SAT)...and I'm skeptical of that, because in this case the UMC kid underperformed his peers and the other kid outperformed his peers.
And yes, I support school choice to level that playing field.
I've done college recruiting. It doesn't matter the color of your skin or what school you went to.
The resume's got handed in and we made 2 piles...3.0 and above and 2.9 and below
We turned those 2 piles into HR.
Your first job is based on how well you did in school.
Computer Science majors all take the same classes regardless of which school.
SAT doesn't matter when you start looking for that first job.
I've done college recruiting. It doesn't matter the color of your skin or what school you went to.
The resume's got handed in and we made 2 piles...3.0 and above and 2.9 and below
We turned those 2 piles into HR.
Your first job is based on how well you did in school.
Computer Science majors all take the same classes regardless of which school.
SAT doesn't matter when you start looking for that first job.
And exactly what is the relationship between "how well you did in school" and your job 10 years after graduation? Ya think the relationship is solid or not so hot?
I know people who graduated with 3.9 GPA and failed in the real world.
I did my undergrad at a private school, and I've done admission interviews for them as an alum. I'm pretty skeptical of your example of the rich Nigerian kid being admitted over the working class white kid--you're trying to claim that it was an affirmative action decision. (Honestly, I doubt that it's even real--lots of fabricated "a friend of a friend" crap goes on here where people pull things out of their backside to try to prove a point).
I CAN tell you how it actually works in the real world though. My bet is that, in cases where you have a wealthy student of any race with more average grades admitted over a very bright poor student, it has everything to do with amount of financial aid available during that year. Most private schools can and do develop impressive endowments to cover aide for very talented low income students, but it can never be enough to pay for every kid qualified to attend. If you have wealthy kids, especially wealthy legacies, who at least meet the minimum criteria for admission, their chances of being admitted are great if mom and dad can write a check for everything. It's a million times more competitive for kids who can't attend without extensive financial help from the school.
So, for decades, it is argued that skin color should not make anyone different. You cannot be denied a job simply because of your skin color, etc. Anyone who discriminates based on skin color is quickly and rightfully called a racist.
Affirmative action argues that skin color does matter and that those who have darker skin are at a disadvantage and thus, need an extra helping hand.
In reality, what this means in the context of higher education is that some white kid with great grades will lose a spot at a college/university to somebody with lesser qualifications simply because that other applicant is, say, black.
I used to be a member of an admissions committee for a doctoral program at an Ivy League university and have seen this over and over again: Perfectly qualified applicants were rejected simply because they were white. Instead, somebody else was admitted simply because they were black or hispanic, even if that person's grades were far inferior or his letter of intent has grammatical and/or spelling errors. This "helping hand" was applied even in cases where the non-white student came from a wealthy and privileged family while the white student came from a poor, working-class family.
Which is it America? Do we value merit? Or is skin color enough to put you ahead of somebody who worked hard?
I have a good friend who is quite thoroughly white who went to a black university to get a teaching degree because they needed more white students to make their quota. She would not have been able to afford college any other way. Affirmative action is not about one race. It is a double-edged sword.
I've done college recruiting. It doesn't matter the color of your skin or what school you went to.
The resume's got handed in and we made 2 piles...3.0 and above and 2.9 and below
We turned those 2 piles into HR.
Your first job is based on how well you did in school.
Computer Science majors all take the same classes regardless of which school.
SAT doesn't matter when you start looking for that first job.
Depends on field it's asked for Wall Street finance and consultant jobs but generally speaking if you go to one one of the firm's core schools it doesn't matter much.
I agree with the OP - affirmative action is placing race over merit. It directly contradicts Dr. King's dream of judging one "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I did my undergrad at a private school, and I've done admission interviews for them as an alum. I'm pretty skeptical of your example of the rich Nigerian kid being admitted over the working class white kid--you're trying to claim that it was an affirmative action decision. (Honestly, I doubt that it's even real--lots of fabricated "a friend of a friend" crap goes on here where people pull things out of their backside to try to prove a point).
I CAN tell you how it actually works in the real world though. My bet is that, in cases where you have a wealthy student of any race with more average grades admitted over a very bright poor student, it has everything to do with amount of financial aid available during that year. Most private schools can and do develop impressive endowments to cover aide for very talented low income students, but it can never be enough to pay for every kid qualified to attend. If you have wealthy kids, especially wealthy legacies, who at least meet the minimum criteria for admission, their chances of being admitted are great if mom and dad can write a check for everything. It's a million times more competitive for kids who can't attend without extensive financial help from the school.
I can assure you that the scenario I described reflects reality. I understand that quite a lot of nonsense is posted on this forum in order to make a point. Obviously, all I can offer is my assurance. The decision to admit the black student instead of the white student was exclusively based on race and the idea of diversity being a desirable good.
Financial concerns did not play into this decision. The school at which I taught and took on a function on the admissions committee is one of the wealthiest in the US. All doctoral students in this department generally receive full scholarships. In my tenure in this department, I did not meet a single doctoral student who was there due to legacy.
I have a good friend who is quite thoroughly white who went to a black university to get a teaching degree because they needed more white students to make their quota. She would not have been able to afford college any other way. Affirmative action is not about one race. It is a double-edged sword.
Spare us the racism.
I quite like this!
I am saying that race should NOT be important in college admissions. I am also arguing that neither government nor any court should dictate that using race to discriminate against another person is acceptable or, worse, desirable.
Saying this makes me a racist in your eyes even though I am clearly arguing against using race as a basis for discrimination.
You, on the other hand, argue that race SHOULD be important and that, therefore, it is alright for government and/or courts to decree that it is perfectly acceptable and/or desirable to discriminate against others simply based on race. You are the one saying that blacks cannot possibly live up to the same standard as other people!
And somehow, that makes you a person who points the finger at me and yells "racist."
In what twisted world is the person who decries racism labeled as a racist and the person who condones racial discrimination is not?
In other words:
NOT wanting discriminatory laws = racist.
WANTING discriminatory laws = not a racist.
So 8 judges invalidate the will of 58% of Michigan's voters.
Well, that's not exactly uncommon IF the will of the voters is deemed "unconstitutional."
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.
