University of California votes to restore affirmative action nearly 24 years after it was outlawed

B

blam

SILVER ELITE
I consider myself to be from the extreme left and progressive. However, this decision sickens me.

Why is it that affirmative action is raced based? I do not see any logic why a person of color whose dad is in the top 1% should stand to benefit from affirmative action.

As a progressive, I am all in favor of helping students who are not from well to do families to be given a helping hand when it comes to admissions. So I am 100% in favor of affirmative action based on income and opportunities available.

The problem with such policies is it now creates a schism between the working class folks. Now the not well to do white folks will be driven away from Democratic party because they are the ones who stand the most to lose from this. Ha! Another tactic by the top 1%to divide the working class based on racial lines by reintroducing affirmative action based on race instead of income levels?

www.cnn.com

University of California votes to restore affirmative action nearly 24 years after it was outlawed | CNN

The University of California has voted to restore affirmative action in hopes of diversifying its student body.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Per the UC system: "Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should -- and must -- represent the rich diversity of our state." Then maybe they should make in state students a priority: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kriste...t-might-just-work-in-your-favor/#6d775da4527b.
I guess out of state money is hard to give up, but at least the press release looks good.
 
Wow!!! Why can’t it be a meritocracy? You get in on merit alone. Many of the Universities in CA are very liberal in their beliefs, I would think UC Schools are very much so. To think that these considerations are not already being made by admissions is naive. It’s just legislating it. People will argue privilege, money, etc., etc., but didn’t they just catch a whole bunch in 1%’s playing dirty and are prosecuting the heck out of them. I know one of the guys, he was an exec at a client of mine, and he was an asshat. He got what he deserved. What these people did was wrong and stole opportunities from other deserving people.

Are we moving backwards where we are trying to implement different standards for different color people, different socioeconomic backgrounds, etc.? Isn’t this the opposite of equal, what people are fighting for? I guess life is going to measured on a curve going forward and the Federal, State, and Local Governments are going to set the grading standards. There is a difference between equal opportunity and trying to create equality. They are very different.

Think about a lottery for $1000...there are 100 entries at $10 a pop. Equal opportunity is that the first 100 people with $10 in cash can enter. The standard or requirement to enter is that you have $10. Period. Everybody has an equal chance of winning. This is equal opportunity.

Trying to create equality is when you start giving people additional entries, let them enter for less than $10, or adjusting the opportunity to win based on comparisons of the other entrants...how much money they have, education, background, race, sex, etc. Adjusting the chances to win based on a scale that determines who needs or deserves it more. Creating equality is not equal. Some people are smarter, some work harder, some people are just more talented. Does environment play a part, sure it can and does in some cases. This is just the kind of thing that is treating the symptom rather than trying to cure the disease. We don’t all have the same parents, same life, same money, etc., etc. Life is not fair, not everyones situation is identical. Some people work hard and rise at all levels, some people squander their chances, and some people do the bare minimum. Ability and results are not equal across people. Some people perform better than others. Sports is a great example of this.

As a business owner, I hire the best people I can for what my payroll budget allows. We have all colors, all genders, I could care less if you are orange or green. The only thing that matters is are you reliable, can I count of you to show up, can you do the job, do you have the skills, and can you pass a background and drug screen. That’s my standard of entry or $10. But if you start telling me that I have to start giving preference to people because of their color or their socioeconomic background versus their ability there is no other word for that other than wrong. It may drive me to take my 100+ jobs, and taxes out of California. It’s small potatoes, but I’m sure there a lot of small business owners who feel the same way.
 
Woobie06 said:
Wow!!! Why can’t it be a meritocracy?
Click to expand...

It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.
 
STUDY YOUR ASS OFF AND LET YOUR " RESULTS " SPEAK FOR YOU.....

ENOUGH OF THIS CODDLING BY THE STATE......

YOU CAN EASILY DISCERN BETWEEN WHO THINKS AND WHO LETS
SOMEONE ELSE WIPE THEIR ASS !
 
blam said:
It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and I can get on board with that to a point. The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted. That’s not an equal opportunity of entry. We then have to make choices on who is more deserving of the opportunity. One who has demonstrated they have done it and the other who may have the potential to do it. This is where it gets tricky for me.

I look at it like hiring. I have two entry level candidates, one from a highly regarded school one from a middle of the road state school. Both excellent grades, activities, campus involvement, etc.internships based on location, etc. the one from the more prestigious school looks better on paper, higher profile school, better internship company, etc. INTERVIEW....I’ve hired the less prestigious school many times over based on the interview results.

I can tell from the interview who is hungry, true interest, attitude, ask life experience questions, etc. I can see the things paper does not tell you. I think the decision should be made on the Objective Information - grades/scores/etc. and the Subjective Information gathered during the interview. I’m against the decisions made via filter and demographic data on an application, income, etc. I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to create an opportunity for somebody it should be deserved/earned and based on ability and results and not just because a specific box is checked.
 
Woobie06 said:
I hear what you are saying and I can get on board with that to a point. The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted. That’s not an equal opportunity of entry. We then have to make choices on who is more deserving of the opportunity. One who has demonstrated they have done it and the other who may have the potential to do it. This is where it gets tricky for me.

I look at it like hiring. I have two entry level candidates, one from a highly regarded school one from a middle of the road state school. Both excellent grades, activities, campus involvement, etc.internships based on location, etc. the one from the more prestigious school looks better on paper, higher profile school, better internship company, etc. INTERVIEW....I’ve hired the less prestigious school many times over based on the interview results.

I can tell from the interview who is hungry, true interest, attitude, ask life experience questions, etc. I can see the things paper does not tell you. I think the decision should be made on the Objective Information - grades/scores/etc. and the Subjective Information gathered during the interview. I’m against the decisions made via filter and demographic data on an application, income, etc. I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to create an opportunity for somebody it should be deserved/earned and based on ability and results and not just because a specific box is checked.
Click to expand...


I NEVER " HIRE " SOLELY ON PAPER....
UP FRONT AND PERSONAL.....BECAUSE MY EMPLOYEES WORK UP FRONT
AND PERSONAL.
 
blam said:
It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.
Click to expand...
Excellent takes.
The system is not fair. Period, end of story. I was dumb dumb and brought the grades down at the whole school. Back then you got judged as a teacher based off scores and I was dumb dumb. I held the school back and the scores because I took longer to speak because__________________________ and i was dumb. School is easy for some and hard for others. My son is Mr test taker. On paper, super star. My dd, I already said not that good of test taker.,,,,but way better than I was and is doing way better in this new online format that I see will continue most likely. Why not take both kids and have a broader program at these schools with diversity in the truest way. The requirements to get into some of these Unicorn U schools is next to impossible unless your gifted like Dr Carson and had the best mom in the world raising you. Not all learn the same way is what I'm trying to say. For example, the kids in Newport Beach learn differently then the kids in South Central. Maybe the kids in NB are too slow and can't keep up with the kids in South Central? I love college but it's so darn hard to get in for some and most know by the 6th grade it's over. You actually see some of them now on tv. Plus and lastly, the smart test takers aren;t always the smartest ones when life hits them in the face with one challenge after another later in life. Woobie, you need a salesman to kick ass for you?
 
QUOTE="blam, post: 335285, member: 4726"
It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.
/QUOTE


Blam.... Blam....Blam....
Shots Fired...!

Does Nigeria have affirmative action.....?
Does India have affirmative action......?
Does Good Old Corrupt China have affirmative action....?

Go on " Blamey " ....line up some excuses...!
 
Woobie06 said:
The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted. That’s not an equal opportunity of entry.
Click to expand...

However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.

My order of preference is:
1) affirmative action based on income
2) merit based

99) affirmative action based on race


Affirmative action based on race is just racist.
 
blam said:
However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.

My order of preference is:
1) affirmative action based on income
2) merit based

99) affirmative action based on race


Affirmative action based on race is just racist.
Click to expand...

Affirmative Action anyway you paint it is a crutch....stand up on your own two feet.
This is AMERICA in the year 2020.
 
blam said:
However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.

My order of preference is:
1) affirmative action based on income
2) merit based

99) affirmative action based on race


Affirmative action based on race is just racist.
Click to expand...

I get your take. I would swap 1 and 2 and make sure there are spots for those that have exhibited potential, ability, and deserve the opportunity but have not yet demonstrated the capability yet. I just believe that if merit is not the top criteria the wrong message is being sent. Look at sports, you may bet on a spread but you don’t play on one. Athletes come from a wide variety of backgrounds. The same effort, commitment, and drive can be focused on academics rather than sport.
 
Woobie06 said:
I get your take. I would swap 1 and 2 and make sure there are spots for those that have exhibited potential, ability, and deserve the opportunity but have not yet demonstrated the capability yet. I just believe that if merit is not the top criteria the wrong message is being sent. Look at sports, you may bet on a spread but you don’t play on one. Athletes come from a wide variety of backgrounds. The same effort, commitment, and drive can be focused on academics rather than sport.
Click to expand...


Stand on your own two feet.....The Govt is not your mother.
 
blam said:
Do you agree that students should be able to attend elementary middle or high school based on their ability rather than zipcode?
Click to expand...


Classic Democrat tactic ...change the narrative when called out.

You started a thread on " University Affirmative Action " ...proceeded to
whine and whimper through out your initial post, then anchor it with an article
stating that California's UC system will restore " Affirmative Action "....

(And who is the " President " of the California UC system....Janet Napolitano...
That's why the UC system is a complete mess....)

No where does the subject come up about K - 12, and it should not.
The solution is Parenting, plain and simple......when kids study and
are motivated they succeed....it doesn't matter where they are raised....!!

Sit down and think about that for awhile, instead of ways to disrupt family
structure....!
 
nononono said:
The solution is Parenting, plain and simple......when kids study and
are motivated they succeed
Click to expand...

That is one solution, however, it takes an entire community to improve their parenting for it to work. If the community inside the zipcode does not parent well, then the small number of kids who are parented well will see their academic performance suffer because the teachers in their school had to dumb down the syllabus. It is this small number of kids who have the potential but is hurt by the community that they live in that I am trying to save.

 
blam said:
That is one solution, however, it takes an entire community to improve their parenting for it to work. If the community inside the zipcode does not parent well, then the small number of kids who are parented well will see their academic performance suffer because the teachers in their school had to dumb down the syllabus. It is this small number of kids who have the potential but is hurt by the community that they live in that I am trying to save.
Click to expand...


Nice......you decided to use bold....that means you are engaged.
I like it...!

Now lets address your poor poor argument....

A. What's the Zip Code of Nigeria's Capital city..?
B. What's the Zip Code of Zimbabwe's Capital City..?
C What's the Zip Code of India's Capital City....?

Those three cities/countries produce very intelligent students...
WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION !
IMAGINE THAT !
 
nononono said:
Those three cities/countries produce very intelligent students...
Click to expand...

Those are good cities. If you take any of their good students and plant them into our bad schools, their own results will go down. The system and environment you are in, also determines your outcome to a very large extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top