Court Rules on Affirmative Action: Mixed Ruling

[Natoma]

With regard to Education most certainly I believe that that everyone should have a chance to get the best education possible. Would you not agree?

No, I don't. There's many problems with a statement like that. Not the least of which is logistics.

First of all, how do you define "the best education?" Is there a particular school? Set of schools? Does that mean everyone has the right to get into those schoools? Should U Penn just admit everyone that applies, regardless of credentials or ability to pay for their education?

What everybody "deserves," is some level of education that will allow them a basic position in society. Beyond that, your pursuit of higher education is based on your drive, willingess to sacrifice, and ability. The opportunity to further your own education should be available to everyone.

Financial status should not be something that holds back a student because they can't afford to go to the best kindergardens, or the best grade school, or middle school, or high school.

A student will be accepted to certain places due to their intelligence and their credentials. However, funds for education should be increased so that every student can get updated books. Funds for education should be increased so that teachers are paid on the level with other important vocations. You can't attract the best and brightest minds with an average $25,000 salary. If you can't attract the best and brightest minds, you can't teach students in the best way.

For instance, I went through a program called Prep for Prep in New York City. I was withering in the Public School system because I was not being challenged enough. My mom certainly could not afford to send me to a $12,000 a year private school, but through Prep I was able to attend, and they helped fund a great portion of my schooling. Why did I get the chance to live up to my potential and go on to a school like Yale? Because the economic portion of the equation was removed and it was all left up to me and my own individual drive to excel. If I had not gone through prep, I would not have made it to Yale. I was so utterly unchallenged and bored in Public School that I would have left, or muddled through. Lost in the system.

That is what this article is stating, and which I agree with. Remove finances from the equation of schooling, and it's only left to intelligence and individual drive. Those two individual merits would be something I'd think anyone would want to see stressed with regard to moving ahead in the world of education.

 

[Natoma]

2 things:
-AA is only used for 2 maybe 3 races, blacks, native americans, latinos. Ever hear of a asian(either indian or chinese) getting a break, reason why is that they dont need it. (they have a better work ethic, and their parents tend to stress education more at home.)

Huh? I suppose you believe that asians are also really good in math all across the board too? Way to stereotype. :?

-The reason why colleges give children of alumni a better chance of getting is, is purely money driven. If you feel closer to your university your more likely to donate money to it. Its about money more than anything else, they need as much as possible.

later,

To which I agree. And in terms of educating people, I don't believe that is a "fair" basis for admissions. If people want to get rid of all preferences, then we most certainly need to get rid of that one.

Here's a perfect, high profile, example of Legacy run amok.

George W. Bush. C-/D+ Average in High School. Rejected from University of Texas for awful grades and low SAT scores.

Same grades and SAT scores that were not welcome at UT? Accepted to Yale University. Why? George H. W. Bush happened to be an alumnus, and was also head of the CIA at the time. Not to mention a very "giving" alumnus.

What deserving student didn't get in because Dubya undeservedly took up a spot? Gee, I wonder.

If we're going to get rid of all preferences, Legacy needs to go first. It is by far the oldest and most pervasive of *all* preferences, and has been abused for decades, if not centuries.

 

[Silent_One]

natoma wrote:

I agree. My partner and I paid off his loans to columbia a couple of years ago, and we're one year away from paying off my remaining loans to yale. It makes the sense of education more personalized when you know you're paying for it, eventually.

1-2%? I wish. I was overjoyed when I was able to get my loans down to 4%.

See Natoma, I told you thats not so hard.

 

[Clashman]

Thank you Natoma. You said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

One point I will disagree on though is the prevalance of race and racism in modern society. Ask people if segregation is OK and they'll tell you "Absolutely NOT!!". Ask them to integrate schools and watch the bullets start flying, (especially with the conceal and carry laws we have in my state! ). It's not as overt as it was before, but in some ways that makes it worse and more difficult to combat.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In a perfect world I would agree with this.

And in a realistic world more racism doesn't solve racism, it just makes it worse.

But using that statement, no discrimination at all, we need to remove the following:

Preference for Legacy Students

Agreed.

Preference for Rural Students

Define Rural? If you mean any type of "purely geographical preference", then I agree, with one exception: A state stchool of NJ should be able to have preferential treatment of NJ citizens.

Preference for Athletes (If you want to be completely draconian, you're in college to be educated, not play sports)

Can't agree there, because I don't necessarily agree that college is for intellectual education. College is preparation for being self sufficient, and sports is one way to achieve that.

Having said that, I think that admissions for "sports" should be an entirely different process than admissions for "intellectual" education. If you go to a school "to play football", that's fine...but you shouldn't even be taking "intellectual" classes unless you also meet the intellectual admission standards.

Preference for someone able to pay more than someone else

Agreed. But this pertains to admissions criteria only. If you can't afford to pay, they shouldn't keep you on just because you are qualified. You shouldn't be rejected or accepted based on "ability to pay."

Etc etc etc. But considering you seem to want to hold onto "Legacy" as an acceptable admissions policy due to the "community" it creates, I guess this isn't happening anytime soon.

Hello? Where on earth did I say any such thing?

I never argued that statistically blacks are more poverty stricken than any other group. The complete point I was making is that while race based affirmative action worked in the past because of past injustices against minorities, now that our society is moving away from societal discriminations based on race, it would be more prudent to focus on economics.

So then why again do you support admissions policies that use race as an admission factor?

[quot]Uhm, I'm just saying people should get a chance to have as good an education as anyone else.[/quote]

Agreed. And quotas of any kind work against that. Including favoritism based on ability, or lack thereof, to pay.

Education is the primary mover when it comes to social mobility in our society. To give someone an education is to give them the opportunity to move up the financial ladder of life.

You're going to "give" away education...why not just give away financial security to everyone and be done with it?

The opportunity exists, but what good is the opportunity if one school can only afford 20 year old books while another school can afford the completely updated editions, as well as the person who wrote those books?

So instead, all schools have 10 year old books...right? Or does money just come from nowhere to support your, as you put it, "perfect world".

No one is talking about a welfare state.

That's where you are wrong. That is exactly the consequences of your arguments. Why are you afraid of admitting such a thing? I'm sure your intentions are all well and good (as are those of many socialists).

The article is talking about giving those who want an education the best possible tools available so that despite your lack of funds, you can still do everything possible to get further in life.

In other words...socialism, or at the very least a socialized education system. People with a "lack of funds" get further in life every day Natoma. And no, it's not easy. And in fact, it's hard. That's the point. You work hard, you personally sacrifice and you are rewarded.

If you don't take advantage of that, the onus is on you, and no one else.

Really? So where does all the money come to be able to support "everyone being able to go to schools with up-to-date textbooks and the people who wrote them?" Seems to me you are putting a good chunk of the onus on "the wealthy".

But at least you would have been given the best possible tools to educate yourself with.

So, how does being discriminated against because you are not black, or because you HAVE money, give you the best possible tools?

I'm with the others on this. Financial assistance to those in need is one thing, and is reasonable to an extent. Preferential admission treatment is another thing all together.

So we need to get rid of Legacy. However, as you've stated earlier in this thread, you're opposed to that in certain circumstances. Do I detect a certain hypocrisy here?

Sigh.

I repeat:
[quote="Joe DeFuria]"However, there is at least actually an argument to be made that if there is a history of a particular legacy to succeed in the institution, you could say that indicates a higher probability of success.

Still, I don't agree with that practice though."

Where the hell you got out of that "I oppose getting rid of it in certain circumstance", I have no f*ckin' idea. indeed.

You have a serious problem Natoma with understanding and accepting other points of view as valid. In your world, people either agree with you, or their points of view have no merit what-so-ever.

No wonder "discussing" things with you is like beating your head against a wall...

 

[Natoma]

Actually Joe, Clashman stated that legacy admissions should be done away with, to which you stated

In public institutions? I agree.

However, there is at least actually an argument to be made that if there is a history of a particular legacy to succeed in the institution, you could say that indicates a higher probability of success.

Still, I don't agree with that practice though.

What does that imply? That you're fine with it in private institutions. You've argued this point before actually. So unless you want to change your earlier stated beliefs, that is what I went by.

The rest of your statement, however, clearly shows that you are *only* referring to public institutions. You stated "In public institutions? I agree." Then you go on to say that if there is a history of a particular legacy to succeed in the institution, you could say that it indicates a higher probability of success.

You then qualify that statement saying you don't agree with it, but you acknowledge it potential benefits, all under the umbrella with regard to *public* institutions.

The fact that you do not speak about *private* institutions clearly shows that you have no problem with *private* institutions such as Yale keeping "Legacy" admissions alive, allowing such stellar academics as Dubya to continue to take up spots that actually should belong to far more deserving students.

 

[Natoma]

Thank you Natoma. You said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

One point I will disagree on though is the prevalance of race and racism in modern society. Ask people if segregation is OK and they'll tell you "Absolutely NOT!!". Ask them to integrate schools and watch the bullets start flying, (especially with the conceal and carry laws we have in my state! ). It's not as overt as it was before, but in some ways that makes it worse and more difficult to combat.

Well, I like to think that we're moving towards a society where race is not a dominating factor in our lives. I know we're not there yet, but we're getting there.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Financial status should not be something that holds back a student because they can't afford to go to the best kindergardens, or the best grade school, or middle school, or high school.

Financial status should not be something that impacts admissions.

You cannot possibly say you are not for a socialistic education system on one hand, and then claim that money shouldn't be able to afford you a better education. That's a contradiction.

A student will be accepted to certain places due to their intelligence and their credentials. However, funds for education should be increased so that every student can get updated books. Funds for education should be increased so that teachers are paid on the level with other important vocations. You can't attract the best and brightest minds with an average $25,000 salary. If you can't attract the best and brightest minds, you can't teach students in the best way.

Where do these "funds" come from?

Teachers should be paid whatever society deems their worth to be. Teachers should be paid on an individual basis based on measured performance criteria and ranks / ratings against their peers. You've just highlighted the biggest problem in public education: the teacher's union.

You don't attract the best and brightest minds to teaching, if the imbicile next to you is getting paid more just because he's been there longer than you, even though he couldn't teach a dog to beg.

My mom certainly could not afford to send me to a $12,000 a year private school, but through Prep I was able to attend.....and they helped fund a great portion of my schooling. Why did I get the chance to live up to my potential and go on to a school like Yale?

Your first fallacy is assuming that Yale is required for you to live up to your potential.

I went through public school. I was accepted to both Rutgers and Princeton. My family is one of the typical that was "too wealthy" to not get financial aid, but not nearly wealthy enough to afford Princeton. My parent's divorce when I was a sophomore in High-School futher handicapped our financial resources.

I had a choice: Go to Princeton, the more "prestigious" school and go into significant debt, or go to Rutgers where I could work enough part time (and as an R.A.) and in the summer be able to graduate without debt.

I chose Rutgers. Do I bitch and moan that I "deserved" to go to Princeton? No. If I had the money, might Ihave gone? Perhaps. But then, I'm not stuck up enough to believe that Princeton, because it costs more and has "ivy league prestige", offers a better education. It's only guaranteed to offer a different education.

Because the economic portion of the equation was removed and it was all left up to me and my own individual drive to excel. If I had not gone through prep, I would not have made it to Yale.

And the economic portion of the equation was not removed for me, and my individual drive to excel has made me successful regardless. Imagine that.

That is what this article is stating, and which I agree with. Remove finances from the equation of schooling, and it's only left to intelligence and individual drive.

Remove finacnces from the equation, (level the financial playing field) and you essentially have socialism.

Again, I'm not challenging your motives. I'm sure you are "well intentioned." I just disagree with them. IMO, if you "remove the finances" from education, you remove the incentive that fuels the very drive you are talking about.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What does that imply? That you're fine with it in private institutions.

Of course, because the government has no right to interfere with private institutions.

In the same way I'm fine with private institutions discriminating based on race however the hell they want. They are self-funding (private by definition) so who the hell am I to demand what rules they set for their admissions and education, tuition, etc? It's when schools are funded to any significant degree with my tax dollars (public institutions), that they should not discriminate...because the Constitution says so.

The fact that you do not speak about *private* institutions clearly shows that you have no problem with *private* institutions such as Yale keeping "Legacy" admissions alive, allowing such stellar academics as Dubya to continue to take up spots that actually should belong to far more deserving students.

You are right. I CLEARLY DON'T have a problem with private institutions such as Yale keeping legacy admissions alive. To be clear, again, I don't agree with the concept. But it's not my place to tell a private institution how they should run their outfit.

 

[Legion]

The government does however intefere with the actions of private institutions all the time.

1. Boy Scouts
2. West Point

Both of these insitutions were attacked on issues of sexism.

3. KKK

Many laws have been passed to discourage people from joining the KKK and its ability to practice.

4. Men's sports programs in college and title 09

Right here we have four examples.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The government does however intefere with the actions of private institutions all the time.

Federal government?

In any case, when they do, it's often wrong to do so.

1. Boy Scouts

?? IIRC, The federal government ruled that Boy Scouts as an institution CAN discriminate against gays, and in a separate case, atheists. Or are you thinking of something else?

2. West Point

To what are you referring to, exactly?

3. KKK

Many laws have been passed to discourage people from joining the KKK and its ability to practice.

Federal laws? Federal laws protect the right of the KKK to exist.

4. Men's sports programs in college and title 09

Another bad move. Equal opportunity is all well and good. Equal outcome (which is often how 'equal opportunity' is measured) is not.

 

[epicstruggle]

2 things:
-AA is only used for 2 maybe 3 races, blacks, native americans, latinos. Ever hear of a asian(either indian or chinese) getting a break, reason why is that they dont need it. (they have a better work ethic, and their parents tend to stress education more at home.)

Huh? I suppose you believe that asians are also really good in math all across the board too? Way to stereotype. :?

The president of berkley has publicly stated that if they had no discrimination of any kind the school would be full of asians who had 4.0 and 1600 (or close to it)SATs. In a typical asian family there is more of a push by the parents for the kids to get a good education. I believe most people would agree that asians are overrepresented (based on %of the US population) in math, science and engineering fields. Im not saying every asian is a good math student, but I do believe that most asians work harder for a better education (partly due to parental help).

BTW do you know of any circumstances where asians are given preferantial treatment, such as AA???

later,

 

[Clashman]

Financial status should not be something that impacts admissions.

So in effect you're saying that if they have high enough test scores but not enough money they shouldn't go. Other people less qualified to do the work but more able to pay should, (and in many cases in fact do), go.

Why should children get shitty educations because they can't afford better ones? When you're 18 and about to enter college what control have you been able to have over your financial well-being. An even better example can be found in the K-12 system. Families with more money can get a better k-12 education. How can a 6 year old effect the educational institution they attend? What resposibility do THEY bear for their socio-economic position?

By your own model, the main determinant to economic success is slanted away from academic or intellectual ability and towards socio-economic status. And with that line of reasoning, (and I think this is part of what Natoma was trying to address), formal political emancipation will do very little to fix the social problems of the past, (and this becomes even more apparent when formal political emancipation only lets you choose between two increasingly identical options for political-social change). Those people who once had to endure formal sanctions, and were poor and discriminated against because of it, will continue to attend dilapidated schools placing them at a disadvantage to those who do not, and will continue to not be able to pay for higher education, which means that by and large they will stay poor, and their children will grow up the same way, and the cycle will continue to repeat itself. This isn't a concrete line, but by and large it tends to fit the scenario pretty well.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Financial status should not be something that impacts admissions.

So in effect you're saying that if they have high enough test scores but not enough money they shouldn't go.

Yup. If they don't have enough money, and they don't take out a loan (as in, an investment in themselves) to pay for it, then they shouldn't go to the particular school with the "high tuition."

If someone doesn't want to make the investment in themselves...why should I make an investment in them with my tax dollars?

Other people less qualified to do the work but more able to pay should, (and in many cases in fact do), go.

Other people who meet the admission policies and are willing to invest in themselves should indeed go.

Why should children get shitty educations because they can't afford better ones?

Classic. Define "shitty." Anything less than an Ivy league school?

When you're 18 and about to enter college what control have you been able to have over your financial well-being.

The same control you have over taking out a loan, working while going to school, etc.

An even better example can be found in the K-12 system. Families with more money can get a better k-12 education.

Families with more money can get a more expensive K-12 eduction.

How can a 6 year old effect the educational institution they attend? What resposibility do THEY bear for their socio-economic position?

Hello? Thier parents / guardians bear that responsibility. Not only for socio economic position, but for instilling morals and values into their children, and encouraging them to do more for themselves...not telling them they can't succeed without someone else's help.

And I'm all for VOUCHERS by the way, because that increases competition. Moreso though, I'm for de-unionizing public school teachers, because that increases competition of teaching jobs and raises the quality of teachers.

By your own model, the main determinant to economic success is slanted away from academic or intellectual ability and towards socio-economic status.

By my model, the main detriment to success is a lack of drive and will to succeed.

Those people who once had to endure formal sanctions, and were poor and discriminated against because of it, will continue to attend dilapidated schools placing them at a disadvantage to those who do not, and will continue to not be able to pay for higher education, which means that by and large they will stay poor, and their children will grow up the same way, and the cycle will continue to repeat itself. This isn't a concrete line, but by and large it tends to fit the scenario pretty well.

All I can say is that I disagree with that philosophy.

Those people who are in dilapidated conditions and truly aspire to be more will find a way out. It's not easy, and it takes sacrifice, and it doesn't happen overnight...and that's exactly what makes one appreciate getting out of such conditions, and doing their damnedest to make it easier for their children.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The president of berkley has publicly stated that if they had no discrimination of any kind the school would be full of asians who had 4.0 and 1600 (or close to it)SATs.

And that means one of two things:

1) Berkeley should be full of asians
or
2) Berkeley's current admission guidelines do not accurately define what makes a good candidate.

Certainly, something as arbitraty as race shouldn't be a factor though, because that's discrimination.

On a related note, doesn't California have a law that effectively does away with affirmative action in admission policies? Is Berkely today filled with all asians? (And if so, what's wrong with that?)

And if that is true, then the typical asian familyI believe most people would agree that asians are overrepresented (based on %of the US population) in math, science and engineering fields. Im not saying every asian is a good math student, but I do believe that most asians work harder for a better education (partly due to parental help).

That has been my limited experience as well, though I don't know what the statistics are.

BTW do you know of any circumstances where asians are given preferantial treatment, such as AA???

Nope, not in terms of university admissions,.

 

[epicstruggle]

i believe that Berkeley does use some factors that would effect who gets in, that might penalize asians. 2 of them would be sports and being a legacy (ie your parents went there). ill try to do a bit of searching to see what other factors they have. also asians dont tend to go into every field. I would guestimate that a big chunk of them are trying to get into medice,math,science,and engineering. and if they cant get in one of those fields they will go else where.

At MSU, i would say more than 75% of those getting a major in CS, where either chinese or indian. I think there are 1 or 2 blacks about 7-10 whites and about 10 europeans/russians and about 40-50 chinese or indians. My figures could be a bit off, but from the classes I attended this ratio seems about right.

later,

 

[Natoma]

Financial status should not be something that impacts admissions.

So in effect you're saying that if they have high enough test scores but not enough money they shouldn't go. Other people less qualified to do the work but more able to pay should, (and in many cases in fact do), go.

Why should children get shitty educations because they can't afford better ones? When you're 18 and about to enter college what control have you been able to have over your financial well-being. An even better example can be found in the K-12 system. Families with more money can get a better k-12 education. How can a 6 year old effect the educational institution they attend? What resposibility do THEY bear for their socio-economic position?

By your own model, the main determinant to economic success is slanted away from academic or intellectual ability and towards socio-economic status. And with that line of reasoning, (and I think this is part of what Natoma was trying to address), formal political emancipation will do very little to fix the social problems of the past, (and this becomes even more apparent when formal political emancipation only lets you choose between two increasingly identical options for political-social change). Those people who once had to endure formal sanctions, and were poor and discriminated against because of it, will continue to attend dilapidated schools placing them at a disadvantage to those who do not, and will continue to not be able to pay for higher education, which means that by and large they will stay poor, and their children will grow up the same way, and the cycle will continue to repeat itself. This isn't a concrete line, but by and large it tends to fit the scenario pretty well.

Makes perfect sense. You understand the issue just fine. I have no clue why Joe is having such a difficult time comprehending, then getting lost in the minutiae of the discussion rather than seeing the big picture of what the article is trying to state. But whatever. Can't say I'm too surprised.

 

[Natoma]

2 things:
-AA is only used for 2 maybe 3 races, blacks, native americans, latinos. Ever hear of a asian(either indian or chinese) getting a break, reason why is that they dont need it. (they have a better work ethic, and their parents tend to stress education more at home.)

Huh? I suppose you believe that asians are also really good in math all across the board too? Way to stereotype. :?

The president of berkley has publicly stated that if they had no discrimination of any kind the school would be full of asians who had 4.0 and 1600 (or close to it)SATs. In a typical asian family there is more of a push by the parents for the kids to get a good education. I believe most people would agree that asians are overrepresented (based on %of the US population) in math, science and engineering fields. Im not saying every asian is a good math student, but I do believe that most asians work harder for a better education (partly due to parental help).

BTW do you know of any circumstances where asians are given preferantial treatment, such as AA???

later,

This is not necessarily true. Why? Because admissions, wrt "qualifications," (race/gender/geographic location/legacy aside) in today's society go beyond just grades. Admissions take into account your well roundedness. Musical ability, community service, athletic ability, leadership qualities, etc.

A 4.0/1600 student who does nothing else is not necessarily going to get into a school over a student who has a 3.5/1400, but plays in the chamber band, has hundreds of hours at the senior citizens home, plays on a couple of sports teams, and was elected to the student body.

If it were purely academics, then yes, that would happen. But even taking the non-talent based factors away (I listed them above), it is most certainly not the case today, i.e. purely academic. Nor do I believe it should ever be.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Makes perfect sense. You understand the issue just fine. I have no clue why Joe is having such a difficult time comprehending, then getting lost in the minutiae of the discussion rather than seeing the big picture of what the article is trying to state. But whatever. Can't say I'm too surprised.[/

We have a difference of opinion, which makes perfect sense to me...but apparently doesn't happen in your world...someone's view must be "wrong"...specifrically any that doesn't agree with yours, or the article's.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? I disagree with the premise that there IS an "issue" that can be properly addressed by wealth-based admission discrimination.

Nah....I can't possibly disagree with you, and at the same time "understand the issue." That just can't happen.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Because admissions, wrt "qualifications," (race/gender/geographic location/legacy aside) in today's society go beyond just grades. Admissions take into account your well roundedness. Musical ability, community service, athletic ability, leadership qualities, etc.

Agreed. And there's a valid basis for that, because those qualities, not simply test scores and GPA, can make for a better candidate.

A 4.0/1600 student who does nothing else is not necessarily going to get into a school over a student who has a 3.5/1400, but plays in the chamber band, has hundreds of hours at the senior citizens home, plays on a couple of sports teams, and was elected to the student body.

Right. (And rightfully so).

If it were purely academics, then yes, that would happen. But even taking the non-talent based factors away (I listed them above), it is most certainly not the case today, i.e. purely academic. Nor do I believe it should ever be.

Wow. We agree on something. This is why I said earlier that the Berkely spokesman who complained about "the 4.0s and 1600s asians taking over" has a deeper issue. (His admissions policies are out of whack if they only rely on those things...of if he believes they are not out of whack, then what's he complaining about?)

Now, if you can only reconcile the above with how a non-talent based factor like wealth or race rightfully belongs in there...