Supreme Court Upholds Discrimination

[alkemyst]

minorities and women get so much more in college.

I had better grades and was more serious, but almost every minority and woman I knew in college was getting money for free, some got all tuition paid for with a book allowance. Some of them would do audit and then retake getting easy A's and B's, some would just blow off the class and retake it. They had nicer cars, and nicer clothing than I.

After I graduated I had about $32k in loans I have to pay back, most of them maybe a grand or two and of that money they would spend it on non-school things...also with the AA still sort of supported in some companies that came under fire originally, jobs easier.

The truth is the white male is actually becoming more and more a minority in the workforce and college.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Sounds like a good ruling to me. They threw out the arbitrary system but allowed the more thorough system to remain.

If you want to look at this issue fairly the first thing to do is think about what the criteria for determining elegibility should be in the first place ? Test results are a very poor way to decide who gets in, as are high school GPA. Those things measure the school system the student is from as much as they measure the students ability. They also put too much emphasis on easily measurable things like math, science, and less on creativity like art, music, etc. A well balanced university community needs students from all backgrounds and with a variety of skills.

This is why they made standardized tests like the SAT. GPA and Class Rank are subjective; SAT is not. The material tested on the SAT does not go above the 10th grade level. Yet students regularily score with <50% correct when they are seniors. The material on the SAT is a solid mixture of study skills (vocabulary), critical thinking (analogies/some math), reading comprehension, writing skills, and so on and so forth. The students that DO well on the SATs are the same students that do well in collegiate-level classes. What is the point behind admitting someone with a lower SAT score and a lower GPA that fails out becaucse they can't pass calc I?


Most schools that have art departments also require an audition or other form of subjective judgement. Your talent at the arts is not based upon your race by any means. Therefore your arguements hold no water whatsoever.

 

[Shantanu]

Arrrrggghhhh!

You think the white male has it bad? It's even worse when you're an East Indian male.

I have a 3.8 from an Ivy League school, a 34 on the MCAT, and a whole host of extracirriculars. I'll be lucky if I can get into *a* medical school.

On the other hand, if you're Hispanic/black with a 3.5 from community college, and have 27 on the MCAT, you can get into Johns Hopkins med school with no problems.

 

[ggavinmoss]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Sounds like a good ruling to me. They threw out the arbitrary system but allowed the more thorough system to remain.

If you want to look at this issue fairly the first thing to do is think about what the criteria for determining elegibility should be in the first place ? Test results are a very poor way to decide who gets in, as are high school GPA. Those things measure the school system the student is from as much as they measure the students ability. They also put too much emphasis on easily measurable things like math, science, and less on creativity like art, music, etc. A well balanced university community needs students from all backgrounds and with a variety of skills.

This is why they made standardized tests like the SAT. GPA and Class Rank are subjective; SAT is not. The material tested on the SAT does not go above the 10th grade level. Yet students regularily score with <50% correct when they are seniors. The material on the SAT is a solid mixture of study skills (vocabulary), critical thinking (analogies/some math), reading comprehension, writing skills, and so on and so forth. The students that DO well on the SATs are the same students that do well in collegiate-level classes. What is the point behind admitting someone with a lower SAT score and a lower GPA that fails out becaucse they can't pass calc I?


Most schools that have art departments also require an audition or other form of subjective judgement. Your talent at the arts is not based upon your race by any means. Therefore your arguements hold no water whatsoever.

If you think standardized tests are a good indicator of college success, you're deluded.

-geoff

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Shantanu
Arrrrggghhhh!

You think the white male has it bad? It's even worse when you're an East Indian male.

I have a 3.8 from an Ivy League school, a 34 on the MCAT, and a whole host of extracirriculars. I'll be lucky if I can get into *a* medical school.

On the other hand, if you're Hispanic/black with a 3.5 from community college, and have 27 on the MCAT, you can get into Johns Hopkins med school with no problems.

Yea, just remember, the doctor that graduated last in their class....

....is still a doctor.

You just hope that med school programs weed people like that out. The racial diversity of the engineering program I am in looks a bit different junior year than it did freshman year.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Sounds like a good ruling to me. They threw out the arbitrary system but allowed the more thorough system to remain.

If you want to look at this issue fairly the first thing to do is think about what the criteria for determining elegibility should be in the first place ? Test results are a very poor way to decide who gets in, as are high school GPA. Those things measure the school system the student is from as much as they measure the students ability. They also put too much emphasis on easily measurable things like math, science, and less on creativity like art, music, etc. A well balanced university community needs students from all backgrounds and with a variety of skills.

This is why they made standardized tests like the SAT. GPA and Class Rank are subjective; SAT is not. The material tested on the SAT does not go above the 10th grade level. Yet students regularily score with <50% correct when they are seniors. The material on the SAT is a solid mixture of study skills (vocabulary), critical thinking (analogies/some math), reading comprehension, writing skills, and so on and so forth. The students that DO well on the SATs are the same students that do well in collegiate-level classes. What is the point behind admitting someone with a lower SAT score and a lower GPA that fails out becaucse they can't pass calc I?


Most schools that have art departments also require an audition or other form of subjective judgement. Your talent at the arts is not based upon your race by any means. Therefore your arguements hold no water whatsoever.

Unfortunately, like any standardized test, the SAT has problems with predictive validity. For this reason and others (i.e., does the SAT really measure what colleges need to know about prospective students) universities only use the SAT/ACT criteria when they have to (due to the volume of applicants) and only then with other criteria such as GPA, Recommendations, and other personal experience.


Have you read anything on this subject or are you just foaming at the mouth b/c the world doesn't confirm to your own personal reallity?

Threads like this, IMO, are by far the worst thing about ATOT and unfortunately, are only an extension of the natural mob behavior of mankind.

 

[beer]

There are, unfortunately, no other ways to judge students from different school districts across several regions. Hence the name 'standardized.' Every other measure of college sucess is relative to where the student originates from. This is especially true for GPAs. Other measurements, such as IQ, are far less indicative of success than what is currently the best attempt at a standardized test. Furthermore, economici status has far more implications on stanardized test success than race does.... yet that isn't a factor.

 

[Tom]

Discrimination based on SAT is much more insidious than other forms of discrimination. Precisely because there are people like you who won't acknowledge that any test is by definition arbitrary and incomplete.

My point about art and music wasn't about art majors, it was about the fact that measuring a person's ability with an arbitrary test like SAT, doesn't give an accurate picture upon which to base admissions. A person with abundant creativity but a lower SAT score could very well be more valuable in a computer science class, than the person who got the highest SAT score in the nation but has limited abilty to think creatively. An ideal situation would be to have some of both types, over-reliance on a test like SAT, precludes that happening.

"What is the point behind admitting someone with a lower SAT score and a lower GPA that fails out becaucse they can't pass calc I?"

Life is an experiment, we can't get very far by always doing the safest thing. And the point of a university isn't passing Calc !. It's about enriching the life experience of the university community and the world as a whole. Ideally everyone should be allowed this opportunity, but so far we haven't commited the resources to allow that. So we have to pick and choose who gets in. As soon as we start discriminating we have to do everything possible to try to get as much diversity as possible, not because it's nice to do so, but because this gives the best chance of getting closer to the goal of a better world for everyone.

Of course many people don't see this as the goal, they see going to college as the way to advance themselves personally, never opening their minds to the fact that there wouldn't be universities if everyone had that narrow vision. It's primarily this thinking that the world revolves around oneself that causes people to resent what they see as a decision to let people they see as inferior get the prize that should have been theirs.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Elemental007
There are, unfortunately, no other ways to judge students from different school districts across several regions. Hence the name 'standardized.' Every other measure of college sucess is relative to where the student originates from. This is especially true for GPAs. Other measurements, such as IQ, are far less indicative of success than what is currently the best attempt at a standardized test. Furthermore, economici status has far more implications on stanardized test success than race does.... yet that isn't a factor.

Yes there is.

School that can afford to will meet with the student and interview them, look at examples of their prior work, and make a judement based on a much richer set of data, than a 2 or three SAT data points.

 

[beer]

DeadParrotSketch -

So how does admission preferences based SOLELY on race help creativity in a computer science class?

Are you implying anglos are not as creative as blacks/hispanics? How about other races that affirmative action does not 'assist,' namely indian, international, and asian students?

Your point is valid but has absolutely nothing to do with race-based admissions.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

I don't think people understand that affirmative action type programs are to create equal opportunity for minorities that wouldn't otherwise exist in this nation.

 

[ggavinmoss]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Elemental007
There are, unfortunately, no other ways to judge students from different school districts across several regions. Hence the name 'standardized.' Every other measure of college sucess is relative to where the student originates from. This is especially true for GPAs. Other measurements, such as IQ, are far less indicative of success than what is currently the best attempt at a standardized test. Furthermore, economici status has far more implications on stanardized test success than race does.... yet that isn't a factor.

Yes there is.

School that can afford to will meet with the student and interview them, look at examples of their prior work, and make a judement based on a much richer set of data, than a 2 or three SAT data points.

If high schools can't do portfolio reviews as a means of evaluating students, what makes you think universities can?

-geoff

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Elemental007
There are, unfortunately, no other ways to judge students from different school districts across several regions. Hence the name 'standardized.' Every other measure of college sucess is relative to where the student originates from. This is especially true for GPAs. Other measurements, such as IQ, are far less indicative of success than what is currently the best attempt at a standardized test. Furthermore, economici status has far more implications on stanardized test success than race does.... yet that isn't a factor.

Yes there is.

School that can afford to will meet with the student and interview them, look at examples of their prior work, and make a judement based on a much richer set of data, than a 2 or three SAT data points.

Every one of your examples has flaws.

Let's say I live in Lubbock, TX and I want to go to UT Austin. That's an eight-hour car drive. But if I am a poor anglo living in Lubbock, I cannot afford the day trip. Therefore, I am being discriminated against on the basis of my economic status, yet a wealthy african american who lives in Round Rock (20 min north of UT) can afford the trip and be interviewed.

Prior work? Well that's more or less the same thing. Wealthy school districts can afford extensive participation in said extracurriculars - science fair, OM, etc. etc. They can afford to have entire clases dedicate to indepedent research for science fair projects.

Once again, this is another valid point, but has nothing to do with race-based admissions.

 

[edro]

I love when morons compare the Alumni point bonus to the race point bonus. Some dude on the news last night said "George Bush was got into Yale because his dad went there... that is discrimination against people whose parents didn't go there."

WTF! Colleges are social places with strong history values.... Alumni SHOULD be given a few bonus points on the admissions! They paid $812742123 to go there, their offspring should be given some kind of bonus.

Grrr.....

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I don't think people understand that affirmative action type programs are to create equal opportunity for minorities that wouldn't otherwise exist in this nation.

Only if your black or hispanic. Nevermind if you are asian/indian/european, many of whom are my friends and none of which get ANY assistance based upon their race.

 

[Tom]

"Furthermore, economici status has far more implications on stanardized test success than race does.... yet that isn't a factor."

Economic status certainly is a factor in a great many universities, there are lots of programs to give students from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or poor regions of the country, admittance into our best schools. But that alone doesn't address the fact that there are many subcultures in this country, and in the best circumstance we are best served by having people from these cultures in our colleges. This includes Native Americans, blacks, Hispancis, etc. Including people from these sub-cultures improve the learning experience of everyone at a university, as well as helping all the members of these sub-cultures more fully participate in the larger culture as a whole. Rather than feeling isolated and seperate from the rest of us.

 

[tm37]

I am currnetly read a book on public education and college called INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION by Thomas Sowell

He produces some interesting stats.

By alowing less qualified minorities into schools they are much more likely to fail. the stats are pretty intereseting. Blacks anbd hispanics are more likely to fail ouyt of colleges that give them preference to get in. It isn't because they are black or hispanic but because they were ill prepared to be in that school to begin with.

The problem needs to be adressed in many areas but the main is that people who are not qualified to get into a college should not. They hurt the education of everyone, by lower the standards.read this Of course WIlliams example is simply insane why should race play a factor in grading?

If you tell a group of people that they can not suceed without help a strange thing happens. They begin to rely on that help and NEED IT.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I don't think people understand that affirmative action type programs are to create equal opportunity for minorities that wouldn't otherwise exist in this nation.

Um.. what else would they be for? They still shouldn't be implemented though. Any person, if they put in enough effort, can succeed in life. Different backgrounds are a given, and shouldn't be blindly compensated for. Let's say he poorest, hardest working white kid and a rich lazy black kid are trying to get into a college.. who would win if they both had the same scores/grades?

 

[Nitemare]

So a black person raised in a nice neighborhood with a white collar parent making 6 figures and attending private colleges gets a head up

over a white guy that grew up in a trailer park in BFE Louisiana while never knowing a father and having a mother that's only occupation was breeding and passing around STD's gets rejected because he is not black enough


Could someone explain to me how this is not racist behavior?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: edro13
I love when morons compare the Alumni point bonus to the race point bonus. Some dude on the news last night said "George Bush was got into Yale because his dad went there... that is discrimination against people whose parents didn't go there."

WTF! Colleges are social places with strong history values.... Alumni SHOULD be given a few bonus points on the admissions! They paid $812742123 to go there, their offspring should be given some kind of bonus.

Grrr.....

The reason the comparison is made is becaue it's completly accurate. Both situations are criteria based on arbitrary standards unrelated to ability, but one is widely accepted and the other is seen by some as a bad thing.

Why? Because one perpetuates a race and sexist based culture where white males have all the advantages, and the other might lead to a lessening of that grip on power.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: edro13
I love when morons compare the Alumni point bonus to the race point bonus. Some dude on the news last night said "George Bush was got into Yale because his dad went there... that is discrimination against people whose parents didn't go there."

WTF! Colleges are social places with strong history values.... Alumni SHOULD be given a few bonus points on the admissions! They paid $812742123 to go there, their offspring should be given some kind of bonus.

Grrr.....

Actually it has alot to do with allumni donating money after they graduate.

Allumni are much more likely to donate IF their childern have a better chance of attending the school.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Elemental has all the answers. Put him in charge. 😱

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I don't think people understand that affirmative action type programs are to create equal opportunity for minorities that wouldn't otherwise exist in this nation.

the opportunities are there for miniorites, they just dont take advantage of it. hey if you get the scores, get the grades then you'll be accepted, what the heck is wrong with that and how is that discrimanatory??

 

[beer]

First of all, that has nothing to do with your priot assertion. I want to hear your response to my last post. I even bolded your name so you wouldn't miss it.

And your point in your last post doens't make sense, either. Are you saying that a hispanic should be in charge of building the next highway overpass because his skin is a different color than a anglo civil engineer who he graduated with?

It's not participation that bothers me; it's grossly underqualified people who don't understand basic math concepts that sit next to me in my classes whose admission to the university was soely based upon what school district they came from (Texas Top 10% Law = rebadged affirmative action). They're obviously not meant to be engineers, their grade point sucks, but yet, because of their race, they're going to graduate and end up being an engineer. If a teacher fails them like they should be, they have to defend themselves from racial accusations. Makes me sick.

 

[jpbushido99]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
I don't think people understand that affirmative action type programs are to create equal opportunity for minorities that wouldn't otherwise exist in this nation.

Only if your black or hispanic. Nevermind if you are asian/indian/european, many of whom are my friends and none of which get ANY assistance based upon their race.

Hey man I know your angry about this I would be too if I was Asian and so forth. The problem with affirmative action is much deeper than you think. Blacks have had discrimination issues that have destroyed communities, and created in some instances atmospheres were education is more of a crutch than a leg up. Unfortunately there is a dichotomy of ideologies within and out side of Black communities that prevent many Blacks/Hispanics from being all that they can be. Please before comparing groups do research on American History and what has caused this problem. Even to this day there are many Black communities were people are raised to be individuals like sport stars and so forth in poor Black communities rather than a homogenous net community focused on the betterment of their lives. There is so much that America covers up, but I happen to know people who live in these communities and deal with the problems of racism, and poor education and family problems, and on and on. And even when these people get to college they are constantly dealing with people underestimating them, and treating them like they don?t belong, or they didn?t deserve to be there.