Race policies at universities questioned

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

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

Nepotism.

[Jenn! 918]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

Nepotism.

Stop, Steven!!! Nooooooo! You're walking into the trap!

[Caladan 19]

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

Nepotism.

Unfortunately, that only gets you as far as saying that legacy admits are destroying the country.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

Nepotism.

Maybe, but whether or not he got in due to the pull of his father, GWB would have to do good work in order to stay in Harvard and Yale and their respective programs. He would've had to do at least decently in order to graduate as well.

I'm not suggesting that Bush is a genius. All I'm saying is that he's not a moron.

So let me get this straight. It's okay for a supposedly underprivileged kid to receive help in some form or fashion and use it to his advantage (and still remain intelligent), but if someone like Bush used all of his resources to get where he wanted, that means he's an idiot, a slacker, a loser and whatever else?

As far as I'm concerned, if Affirmative-Action is considered "okay," then "legacy admits" are just as fair. Both mean the students in question are using whatever they have at their disposal to assist them in getting into a good school (in addition to their grades and test scores).

Edited February 20, 2007 by DeadPoolX

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

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

Nepotism.

Unfortunately, that only gets you as far as saying that legacy admits are destroying the country.

I want to form a group that goes to universities and colleges to stop nepotism because it discriminates.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

I wonder if that illustrates the difference between wisdom and intelligence

[Caladan 19]

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GRADES AND TEST SCORES. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. POUND THAT INTO YOUR THICK LITTLE SKULLS ALREADY. CONSIDERING AN APPLICANTS RACE, INCOME, HOBBIES, SOB STORY, PARENTS, FAMILY HISTORY, EXTRACURRICULARS, AND PERSONALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE GAME SINCE THEY INVENTED UNIVERSITIES. IT IS NOT ABOUT *MERIT*, UNLESS BY *MERIT* YOU MEAN *NOT MERIT.*

just had to get that out there.

[DeadPoolX 9]

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GRADES AND TEST SCORES. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. POUND THAT INTO YOUR THICK LITTLE SKULLS ALREADY. CONSIDERING AN APPLICANTS RACE, INCOME, HOBBIES, SOB STORY, PARENTS, FAMILY HISTORY, EXTRACURRICULARS, AND PERSONALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE GAME SINCE THEY INVENTED UNIVERSITIES. IT IS NOT ABOUT *MERIT*, UNLESS BY *MERIT* YOU MEAN *NOT MERIT.*

just had to get that out there.

Okay...so if "parents" and "family history" is just as important as "race" and "income" why is legacy admittance considered unfair while Affirmative-Action considered fair? I feel both are just as fair (or unfair, as the case may be) when considering a student beyond their grades and test scores.

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

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GRADES AND TEST SCORES. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. POUND THAT INTO YOUR THICK LITTLE SKULLS ALREADY. CONSIDERING AN APPLICANTS RACE, INCOME, HOBBIES, SOB STORY, PARENTS, FAMILY HISTORY, EXTRACURRICULARS, AND PERSONALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE GAME SINCE THEY INVENTED UNIVERSITIES. IT IS NOT ABOUT *MERIT*, UNLESS BY *MERIT* YOU MEAN *NOT MERIT.*

just had to get that out there.

Amen...but please - not the ALL CAPS!

The same goes for employers - there are many factors that can and should be considered when finding the right employee for the job. A person can be a real go-getter, but isn't much of team player. It's hard to measure such factors based on a resume or even a test.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Caladan 19]

Oh, and you can be an incompetent businessman and graduate from Harvard or Yale; it's just that your race or intelligence had nothing to do with it.

Statistically, a minority or poor applicant who struggles is more likely to drop out due to a poor social network at the lily-white rich kid school; if the Choate grad struggles, he'll finish due to parental & peer pressure. Not to mention grade requirements on some scholarships.

[Jenn! 918]

Poor Choate keeps getting ragged on.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

I wonder if that illustrates the difference between wisdom and intelligence

Mayhap, you meant "difference between 'book smarts' and 'street smarts' aka 'commonsense'"?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for the med school and law school thing...as many have said, I don't think that argument holds water. First of all, any person who applies to these grad schools has already had a college experience, which while not 100%, but it DOES level the playing field some. Granted someone from Harvard is going to have prolly more pull then someone from somewhere else...but if you can graduate from Harvard ... you're no dummy.

Meanwhile...people claim President Bush is a complete moron, even though he graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

I wonder if that illustrates the difference between wisdom and intelligence

Mayhap, you meant "difference between 'book smarts' and 'street smarts' aka 'commonsense'"?

Same thing, more or less

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Okay...so if "parents" and "family history" is just as important as "race" and "income" why is legacy admittance considered unfair while Affirmative-Action considered fair? I feel both are just as fair (or unfair, as the case may be) when considering a student beyond their grades and test scores.

You could turn that question around -- why is legacy admissions (common practice in the Ivys) okay but affirmative action is not?

In my experience of hiring I've had far more pressure to hire some bigwig's friend's stupid kid than I ever have to hire a minority applicant to fill some kind of diversity quota

Edited February 20, 2007 by robinklake

[Caladan 19]

IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GRADES AND TEST SCORES. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. POUND THAT INTO YOUR THICK LITTLE SKULLS ALREADY. CONSIDERING AN APPLICANTS RACE, INCOME, HOBBIES, SOB STORY, PARENTS, FAMILY HISTORY, EXTRACURRICULARS, AND PERSONALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE GAME SINCE THEY INVENTED UNIVERSITIES. IT IS NOT ABOUT *MERIT*, UNLESS BY *MERIT* YOU MEAN *NOT MERIT.*

just had to get that out there.

Okay...so if "parents" and "family history" is just as important as "race" and "income" why is legacy admittance considered unfair while Affirmative-Action considered fair? I feel both are just as fair (or unfair, as the case may be) when considering a student beyond their grades and test scores.

You're missing the main argument. Here's an explanation (we can call it 'affirmative action for Deadpool.') People say 'oh, people should just be admitted by merit!' like we're talking about some fantasy world where topuniversities admit white people only by grades and test scores except for [dark chords of doom] black students, who get the magic affirmative action fairy dust.

In reality, about 20,000 kids apply to Harvard each year; only about 1700 or so get in. A lot of things are considered, because 75% of the applicants are very good candidates. I don't have a particular problems with legacy admits or athletes or what have you; let a thousand flowers bloom, and there's certainly advantages to having the top universities be places where the rich well-connected kids mingle and make friends with the up-and-coming geniuses and then go onto sponsor their business endeavors or introduce them to their powerful dads & moms.

But let's stop pretending those things are about merit. Because they're just not. If it were it would be impossible to get in at Harvard and rejected at Princeton or Yale; the non-academic stuff counts for a lot.

And I see no particular reason to value 'dad can pay the bills and buy my Uggs' over 'managed a 3.7 at a school infested with cockroaches, imagine what he'll do with funding and actual teachers!'