Natural wants to put young people into crippling debt, just so they can get the diversity training they truly need.
Justice Scalia Thinks Black Students Belong In 'Slower-Track' Schools
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
Natural wants to put young people into crippling debt, just so they can get the diversity training they truly need.
Those are different problems not inherent to my idea. Solve for those too or don't according to their merit. That it might cost something to bet on your future isn't an inherently bad thing either. What is bad IMO is the government deciding who gets to step up to the betting table. That might be a fair thing for a private school to do, but public schools should have it their mission to serve the public and specifically the public in their state.
Now I'm not obtuse. I recognize there are inherent problems with my plan, mostly to do with logistics and academic accreditation. Logistics could be handled by offering the freshman year online to a large degree. The academic side would be a culture war worth fighting IMO.
How statist you have become wanting your government to tell you if you are worthy to get educated. I can play this game too.
Thomas is the gimp in that relationship.Oh boy, Clarence is probably making him sleep on the couch tonight. No chocolate love for the Scalia this week.
Has anyone claimed this is a per se race (as in all races) issue? How many people have argued for giving "consideration" to Asians.
So, yes, you do prescribe to the notion that it is "their fault", so they can deal with it. Even completely ignoring any argument for societal duties, wouldn't the country be improved if certain minority groups were more educated?
I'm suggesting removing the state from the admissions process. You are fighting me on that making you the de facto defender of the government controlling who gets to go to school.
Question for the anti-AA'ers here:
Would a "consideration" for things other than race, but non-merit, be acceptable? Such as something like: socio-economic status, or high school (such as one with poor test scores all around, but a kid at the top of it)? Or is anything other than "merit" simply "unfair"?
Would a "consideration" for things other than race, but non-merit, be acceptable? Such as something like: socio-economic status, or high school (such as one with poor test scores all around, but a kid at the top of it)? Or is anything other than "merit" simply "unfair"?
I'm on board with the idea that Junior College should be open and "free" to all students who show up.
I'm not there on public universities.
I'm not there on public universities.
Sure, but you can't make them educate themselves. None of that is what I'm talking about anyway. At their base, Affirmative Action and what Scalia said were exactly the same thing. That supporters of these two ideas don't think that most minorities are able to make it in life without help. If I were one of those minorities, I would be insulted.
Personally, I don't think that race has anything to do with whether or not someone is successful in life, but that's just me.
I don't have a problem with them, but they are not the topic here. We are talking specifically about state public universities. The funding mechanism of state universities isn't an aspect I have to account for in my plan. Make them free, make loans easier, fix that aspect as you will. Financial accessibility is a separate issue from admission accessibility.
Assuming the public universities must admit all transfer students who graduate with their AA degree, that's essentially the same thing. The JC would just serve to weed out some before they transfer. That seems a wise compromise. My goal (fantasy maybe) is to eliminate the admissions process at least for the instate students. Those students (or their families, communities) already invested in what I like to think of as a public education utility. In state students should be able to access that utility freely like they do any other utility. That doesn't mean water or a driver licence is free, but it does mean everyone is free to access their services without first being deemed worthy. That's how public schools should work too IMO.
Is this a thing? I wasn't aware of it. But even so, I don't think it is the same, because it would necessitate at least 2 years of preparation for University at a place that should be able to properly prepare them. I think that is a good thing. I'd compromise at that.
Yes, if someone has been harmed they should be able to challenge. I see no reason why we need to change the standing requirements here.
This is of course the real irony of this case, after several years of searching, the real plaintiff here, Ed Blum, has never been able to find a rejected white applicant who would have been admitted had they been black.
I'm not concerned about financial accessibility, the government makes that very easy.
I'm concerned about financial depression from the government. That you were easily able to take out $25,000 in loans, fail out of school (predicted by admissions models) and then you are required to pay back the school that shouldn't have allowed you to do it in the first place.
To me that is like taking out a loan from your hooker to pay her in the hopes that she will love you, and then she leaves you after the hour is up and a bouncer comes to your house demanding repayment. Great business model, terrible societal strategy.
I don't think it is a thing now, I'm suggesting it should be. Everyone gets into junior college if they show up. Everyone with an associates degree gets accepted by their state university.
I'd compromise at that. Everyone with an AA from an Iowa school gets in. Not sure I trust other states.
If more people could be funneled to JUCO (being free), that would seemingly open up large amounts of funding from the Universities to improve the JUCOs as well.
I'm not tracking you on the funding. If we shift more tax money into making JUCO free, how would that free up any money? Its entirely possible in my mind that the funds to pay for JUCO would come in some part from the public budgets for Universities. There has been a steady push to make Universities self funding. Which is part of the reason there are so many foreign students at Iowa (because they pay more) and why the diversity class has become an issue.
Used in tandem with the 10% rule it might be pointless but that doesn't make it illegal.
It is obvious most of them do belong in slower track schools. Once they integrated they could not keep up with the whites. Now most blacks are against testing because they can't compete.
I suggest we simply give the blacks the option to opt out of the fast tract schools and have testing at the fast tract schools. 99% of the blacks will opt out on their own.
I like this guy. You seem to think that blacks are being forced to go to college, is that what you think?
My thinking:
If JUCO is "free" and admission after AA to University is guaranteed and credits transfer - students who would normally go straight to university will opt for JUCO first, lessening the amount of students at University, therefore shifting the funding to JUCOs.
If 15,000 undergrads are at Iowa currently, and JUCO has, say, 3,000 on average, making it free could boost each school to, say, 3,500, taking away 5,000 from Iowa. Iowa would then streamline its operation based on lesser number of students (or bolster it with foreigners).
In theory.
I can see that. But we have to pay for making JUCO free. Where do you see that money coming from if not the money already budgeted for education?
Good point. Education is expensive. Right now we are saddling that huge debt on the students, I guess I'd propose shifting it to the taxpayers. Once those students obtain jobs, with less debt, they will have more to spend and more to be taxed. Encourages improvement of socio-economic status instead of forcing stagnation.
I didn't say anything about race. I was speaking generally about where students should and shouldn't go.
The Supreme Court argument provides context to Scalia's comment. The argument was that it might be a disservice to a barely qualified minority to be admitted and become a barely successful student, where at another less-challenging school, this student could excel.
Having spent time on a number of college campuses, this is very true.
Is that the concern? That does NOT seem to be the concern of the case. This case is not about "harming minorities", it is about whether diversity is important in higher education, important enough to use race as a condition.
I'm happy to look at the statistics showing your (and Scalia's) claim to be some universal truth that we need to discuss.
No, that was the context of the argument happening at the time Scalia made the statement. Not the Cliff's Notes of the entire argument made before the court.
Not too bright. Must be a liberal. Once they are taxed they will have less to spend. The increased taxes will simply replace the student debt.
Not to mention there's no way to tax only the people who might go to college. The burden would be on everyone instead of only those who benefit from it.
We had great schools before diversity. Since forced diversity the quality of education has gone down for everyone.
Can anyone tell me ANY education system on the planet where the majority of blacks are successful?
AFronomics is a failure because the more we do for the lower class blacks the less they do for themselves. They just keep lowering their game.
YOu can't redistribute brains and work ethics.
Can anyone tell me ANY education system on the planet where the majority of blacks are successful?
AFronomics is a failure because the more we do for the lower class blacks the less they do for themselves. They just keep lowering their game.
YOu can't redistribute brains and work ethics.
The lower class won't even have the money to pay the taxes. As soon as they get a few bucks in their pockets they will spend the money on luxury items and won't spend it on necessities. Ever notice the people standing in line at the food banks during Christmas all have 1k worth of tats, limited edition kicks and smart phones. No money for food but they got tats.
I can't say I have any experience standing in a food line.
I will say that there are very successful black people, and there's no reason more can't be successful. The racism thing is a crutch and an excuse. Everybody has challenges. The goal is to overcome them and realize your dreams.
I will say that there are very successful black people, and there's no reason more can't be successful. The racism thing is a crutch and an excuse. Everybody has challenges. The goal is to overcome them and realize your dreams.
Just so I understand, you base position is black people lack brains and a work ethic all over the world? I can't wait to read your thesis, please post a copy for us.
Neither do I. I have seen a few stories on TV.
There are a handful of successful blacks. They are CAPITALISTS. Those are the blacks that work hard and don't need the affirmative action BS. They are the real minorities. The problem with Black America is they actually look down at the successful blacks. JUst look up the term "selling out" or "acting white" on wiki. Most blacks look down at success so it is easy to see why most blacks fail.
The biggest disadvantage that blacks have is bad parenting.
We give them free housing, free food, free child care, free healthcare, free education, affirmative action, lower admissions to college, job quotas, free Obamaphones and they act like they are being held down.
They definitely lack the work ethic.
Can you tell me ANY education and economic systems where the majority of blacks are successful? I am trying to help you my brotha.
Pick a system, ANY system where blacks will be successful and you can stop making excuses for failing.
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
