High School Halts Publication of Honor Roll

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Most of the admissions preferences at the top schools also try to recruit heavily from rural/poorer areas also for diversity.

Good point - "Diversity" isn't relegated merely to ethnic diversity.

And depending on the school, it's not much of a bump. People are acting like Harvard and Yale are letting in kids with C averages because they're black or Hispanic, and this just isn't the case. At this end of the spectrum, "increasing diversity" means "finding the kid who has made good in a public school and ensuring he applies to the Ivy League rather than just applying to State." It's more on the recruiting end than the admissions end. And the Ivies, at least, are really interested in regional diversity, so yeah, the poor white kid from rural Tennesee is someone they'd be interested in, though typically, since there's such a strong correlation between poverty and education, most Ivy League kids are upper middle class or richer anyway.

Part of it isn't just increasing racial diversity. It's trying to give someone a chance who has done the best with what they've had, and if what they've had is a crappy inner city school and they've still managed straight As, that should count for something over the kid who squeaked by with As and Bs but had daddy pay for the SAT prep.

A couple admissions officer acquaintances of mine have noted that it's very, very hard to find qualified applicants from non-traditional backgrounds, to the extent they're despairing because a) they don't want to let anyone in who is unqualified and B) it's really hard to get into an elite school when the public school system is so broken.

So all this handwringing about diversity bewilders me. It's worth about 80 points on the SAT at most. And in practice, quite a lot of the time there's no meaningful difference in score, and it comes down to 'Well, we can let in another prep school brat with a 1500 score or we can let in this girl from south central L.A. with a 1490.'

[one...two...tree 2,762]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Also, the issue of diversity was brought up in defense of those who oppose Affirmative Action.

Good lord, we like to read into things here.

"There's a connection between poverty and crime."

"OMGLOLWTF YOU SAID POOR PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS."

"What's fair? No wheelchair access, for example, isn't fair to the disabled."

"OMGLOLWTF WHY DO YOU THINK RACE IS A DISABILITY BECAUSE I CANT HANDLE THE ANALOGIES. TOO MUCH BRAIN THINKING REQUIRED."

"Statistically, black and Hispanic kids are more likely to grow up in poor households."

"OMGLOLWTF WHY DONT YOU CARE ABOUT POOR WHITE KIDS."

It's like conversational implicature just goes out the window here. What's next?

"Hello."

"OMGLOLWTF DOES THAT GREETING MEAN I AM FROM MARS?"

nice!

[Fandango 1,439]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Erm, it should matter what I say if we're having a conversation

I was discussing the 'minorities seen as handicapped' when you asked 'how many whites are below the poverty line? how many blacks/hispanics?' <---- if the conversation at hand has nowt to do with % of whites/non whites...then why'd you bring it up?????? My little sarcastic barb was in response to this....as if % of whites vs non-whites have anything at all whatsoever to do with someone comparing a minority to a handicapped person. Which is somehow socially acceptable white-man apologist racism...'oh these poor poor minorities...without our help, they are unable to do anything. Someone build them a ramp or else they won't be able to keep up'

Either have a conversation with me, or go steer one with someone else.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Erm, it should matter what I say if we're having a conversation

I was discussing the 'minorities seen as handicapped' when you asked 'how many whites are below the poverty line? how many blacks/hispanics?' <---- if the conversation at hand has nowt to do with % of whites/non whites...then why'd you bring it up?????? My little sarcastic barb was in response to this....as if % of whites vs non-whites have anything at all whatsoever to do with someone comparing a minority to a handicapped person. Which is somehow socially acceptable white-man apologist racism...'oh these poor poor minorities...without our help, they are unable to do anything. Someone build them a ramp or else they won't be able to keep up'

Either have a conversation with me, or go steer one with someone else.

I wasn't fixated on Steven's comment - I was talking about diversity programs in general. You seemed to be labouring under the assumption that "encouraging diversity" is all about ethnicity, which isn't really the case. You said

...if the goal is helping ppl...shouldn't that be for EVERYONE- regardless of race?

It is. More or less.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

.

Edited December 16, 2006 by erekose

[Fandango 1,439]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Erm, it should matter what I say if we're having a conversation

I was discussing the 'minorities seen as handicapped' when you asked 'how many whites are below the poverty line? how many blacks/hispanics?' <---- if the conversation at hand has nowt to do with % of whites/non whites...then why'd you bring it up?????? My little sarcastic barb was in response to this....as if % of whites vs non-whites have anything at all whatsoever to do with someone comparing a minority to a handicapped person. Which is somehow socially acceptable white-man apologist racism...'oh these poor poor minorities...without our help, they are unable to do anything. Someone build them a ramp or else they won't be able to keep up'

Either have a conversation with me, or go steer one with someone else.

I wasn't fixated on Steven's comment - I was talking about diversity programs in general. You seemed to be labouring under the assumption that "encouraging diversity" is all about ethnicity, which isn't really the case. You said

...if the goal is helping ppl...shouldn't that be for EVERYONE- regardless of race?

It is. More or less.

For the love of God, I'm not talking about 'encouraging diversity = anything' All I said was comparing minorities to the handicapped is racist and insulting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Erm, it should matter what I say if we're having a conversation

I was discussing the 'minorities seen as handicapped' when you asked 'how many whites are below the poverty line? how many blacks/hispanics?' <---- if the conversation at hand has nowt to do with % of whites/non whites...then why'd you bring it up?????? My little sarcastic barb was in response to this....as if % of whites vs non-whites have anything at all whatsoever to do with someone comparing a minority to a handicapped person. Which is somehow socially acceptable white-man apologist racism...'oh these poor poor minorities...without our help, they are unable to do anything. Someone build them a ramp or else they won't be able to keep up'

Either have a conversation with me, or go steer one with someone else.

I wasn't fixated on Steven's comment - I was talking about diversity programs in general. You seemed to be labouring under the assumption that "encouraging diversity" is all about ethnicity, which isn't really the case. You said

...if the goal is helping ppl...shouldn't that be for EVERYONE- regardless of race?

It is. More or less.

For the love of God, I'm not talking about 'encouraging diversity = anything' All I said was comparing minorities to the handicapped is racist and insulting.

I believe I said I didn't think it was the best analogy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

for the record...i never have uttered the word 'diversity' in this thread. And secondly, I was replying to your comment discecting poor whites/poor blacks and hispanics by percentage.

Do try to keep up

It doesn't matter whether you said it or not - the topic had actually moved on from the original topic to the relative merits of "diversity" programs.

Ethnicity is a factor in diversity programs but far from the most important one - however it is the one that many people seem to predominantly associate when it comes to discussions of "diversity". Caladan made some interesting points on the subject, but I guess you overlooked those on your way to suggesting that noone cares about whites living below the poverty line. Something which hasn't been claimed here, BTW.

It is however a statistical fact that the large majority of this nations poor are either of black or hispanic ethnicity. There is a similar correlation with the population of the countries prison populations - but I guess noone sees the correlation between poverty and crime.

Erm, it should matter what I say if we're having a conversation

I was discussing the 'minorities seen as handicapped' when you asked 'how many whites are below the poverty line? how many blacks/hispanics?' <---- if the conversation at hand has nowt to do with % of whites/non whites...then why'd you bring it up?????? My little sarcastic barb was in response to this....as if % of whites vs non-whites have anything at all whatsoever to do with someone comparing a minority to a handicapped person. Which is somehow socially acceptable white-man apologist racism...'oh these poor poor minorities...without our help, they are unable to do anything. Someone build them a ramp or else they won't be able to keep up'

Either have a conversation with me, or go steer one with someone else.

I wasn't fixated on Steven's comment - I was talking about diversity programs in general. You seemed to be labouring under the assumption that "encouraging diversity" is all about ethnicity, which isn't really the case. You said

...if the goal is helping ppl...shouldn't that be for EVERYONE- regardless of race?

It is. More or less.

For the love of God, I'm not talking about 'encouraging diversity = anything' All I said was comparing minorities to the handicapped is racist and insulting.

Lisa, you really get tripped up over analogies. Rich (Luckystrike) stated that he believes when it comes to University students, they should be treated exactly the same, particularly with regard to race. Based on the things he's said in other posts, he opposes Affirmative Action and many people who oppose it say it is because it's not treating students exactly the same - that unless you treat someone exactly the same, it constitutes unfairness. So if you can follow me here on why I then asked him what about a wheelchair bound student? Would he consider it unfair to build a ramp for the student which means NOT treating that student exactly the same as others? You're hung up on my analogy instead of seeing the point - and that is that treating ALL students exactly the same does does not make things equal. We recognize such clear physical disadvantages such as a wheelchair bound student, so why can we not recognize more subtle, less obvious disadvantages such as race that has closed the door to opportunity for many blacks in this country? University admissions consider many disadvantages when looking at students and try to bring diversity among its student body as Caladan pointed out.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hence the connection between poverty and crime - because things are not equal

Edited December 17, 2006 by erekose

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa, you really get tripped up over analogies. Rich (Luckystrike) stated that he believes when it comes to University students, they should be treated exactly the same, particularly with regard to race. Based on the things he's said in other posts, he opposes Affirmative Action and many people who oppose it say it is because it's not treating students exactly the same - that unless you treat someone exactly the same, it constitutes unfairness. So if you can follow me here on why I then asked him what about a wheelchair bound student? Would he consider it unfair to build a ramp for the student which means NOT treating that student exactly the same as others? You're hung up on my analogy instead of seeing the point - and that is that treating ALL students exactly the same does does not make things equal. We recognize such clear physical disadvantages such as a wheelchair bound student, so why can we not recognize more subtle, less obvious disadvantages such as race that has closed the door to opportunity for many blacks in this country? University admissions consider many disadvantages when looking at students and try to bring diversity among its student body as Caladan pointed out.

Your analogy was sh!t because you're basing it on a premise of a handicapped person. One who is unable to do physical things, like climbing stairs. Without the ramp, a handicapped person in a chair would be unable to climb the steps...or whatever...metaphorically speaking. If you're saying the ramp is AA and the handicapped person is the minority, then they would not be able to go to college without the help of a handout because they would not be able to do so based on their own merits...because they are 'handicapped'...

"here, <insert minority here> you can get a ramp cos your skin color makes you HANDICAPPED and without my help, you are not capable on your own"

which not only is actually racist in a feelgood philanthropic sanctimonious way, it's also bollocks

Edited December 17, 2006 by LisaD

[Alex+R 0]

Here's some advice that, if followed, would allow the conversation to continue:

Everyone forget the handicapped analogy. Steven obviously did not mean it in the way it's being taken, as he explained, and has admitted its shortcomings.

Ok, are we all good now? Can we stop fixating? Gooooooood.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's some advice that, if followed, would allow the conversation to continue:

Everyone forget the handicapped analogy. Steven obviously did not mean it in the way it's being taken, as he explained, and has admitted its shortcomings.

Ok, are we all good now? Can we stop fixating? Gooooooood.

I think we won't be 'happy' until no-one uses any analogy of any kind

Edited December 17, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Here's some advice that, if followed, would allow the conversation to continue:

Everyone forget the handicapped analogy. Steven obviously did not mean it in the way it's being taken, as he explained, and has admitted its shortcomings.

Ok, are we all good now? Can we stop fixating? Gooooooood.

I think we won't be 'happy' until no-one usages any analogy of any kind

in the meantime, i'm avoiding poor people because erekose said they are more likely to be criminals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's some advice that, if followed, would allow the conversation to continue:

Everyone forget the handicapped analogy. Steven obviously did not mean it in the way it's being taken, as he explained, and has admitted its shortcomings.

Ok, are we all good now? Can we stop fixating? Gooooooood.

I think we won't be 'happy' until no-one usages any analogy of any kind

in the meantime, i'm avoiding poor people because erekose said they are more likely to be criminals.

Back to the all about you / semantic bullshit eh?

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Here's some advice that, if followed, would allow the conversation to continue:

Everyone forget the handicapped analogy. Steven obviously did not mean it in the way it's being taken, as he explained, and has admitted its shortcomings.

Ok, are we all good now? Can we stop fixating? Gooooooood.

I think we won't be 'happy' until no-one usages any analogy of any kind

in the meantime, i'm avoiding poor people because erekose said they are more likely to be criminals.

Back to the all about you / semantic bullshit eh?

i know, you'd rather it be all about you, the pompous pontificator

pardon me for stealing your thunder