Race policies at universities questioned

[Caladan 19]

Poor Choate keeps getting ragged on.

Haha, sorry. A friend's kid is there and it's the first one that came to mind. We can rag on Miss Porter's if you want instead.

[Jenn! 918]

Poor Choate keeps getting ragged on.

Haha, sorry. A friend's kid is there and it's the first one that came to mind. We can rag on Miss Porter's if you want instead.

No way I'm telling you where I went.

Edited February 20, 2007 by jenn3539

[DeadPoolX 9]

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

I don't think Affirmative-Action is necessarily a terrible thing, provided it's regulated, built around SES, and there are no quotas involved. If race is the primary factor, then it's discriminatory, since it'll exclude others who're poor and disadvantaged as well.

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!'

You know...I thought we were attempting to have a decent discussion that debated the topic, not the person. The comments directed at me (i.e. "affirmative action for Deadpool") was completely unnecessary and just plain rude. I'm sure you could've figured out a way to get your point across without being sarcastic and inflammatory.

Anyway, when I mention merit, I don't only mean "grades and test scores." When I mention "grades and test scores," then I mean only those. Merit can mean clubs, extracurricular activites, athletics, and so on. It includes a whole slew of items. It just doesn't include race as a factor, since I don't believe race should be the focus in choosing a student.

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

The flip side of this, is that race doesn't appear to play as big a role in assigning places at educational institutions as some people seem to think it does. There is more to diversity than ethnicity...

sure remember that next time you see a doctor.

I'm still not sure how you can justify classifying ethnic minority professionals as "sub-standard". What specifically are you basing this on?

Had a bad experience with a black doctor?

the above example i cited was assuming that in this case the minority was a less than competent doctor. it does not imply that all minorities are less than competent. is your reading comprehension that far gone?

and no, nothing to do with a black doctor either, so quit fishing.

charles, if you're assuming that a black doctor who has been admitted to neurosurgery,

no one said black doctor other than you and erekose.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i'm not assuming anything about the minority being less qualified. in the above scenario i flat stated the minority was in this case. want to make an issue out of it, feel free. the above was an excellent example of how some of these feel good laws and regulations can often lead to less than desired results. so the next time you feel like championing the cause of something, consider the flip side of it.

The flip side of this, is that race doesn't appear to play as big a role in assigning places at educational institutions as some people seem to think it does. There is more to diversity than ethnicity...

sure remember that next time you see a doctor.

I'm still not sure how you can justify classifying ethnic minority professionals as "sub-standard". What specifically are you basing this on?

Had a bad experience with a black doctor?

the above example i cited was assuming that in this case the minority was a less than competent doctor. it does not imply that all minorities are less than competent. is your reading comprehension that far gone?

and no, nothing to do with a black doctor either, so quit fishing.

charles, if you're assuming that a black doctor who has been admitted to neurosurgery,

no one said black doctor other than you and erekose.

Perhaps I took your example a little bit too far – all the same I’m a little curious as to the real world application of that example. Its hypothetical, I can accept that – in which respect you seem to be saying that I (and presumably you also) would choose a doctor based on merit rather any other factor. I’m not sure you’d find anyone who would honestly say “no, I would rather choose my doctor according to political correctness and diversity”. To me, diversity is irrelevant to the decision, so what’s your point?

If I’m misunderstanding anything here, please feel free to correct me…