• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court punts on affirmative action case

ttwtt78640 said:
That may be true but, under the 10% scheme, latino admissions to the University of Texas went from 14% to 24% (a nearly 60% increase) of the total - that was the goal of "diversity", not to allow the some of the rural minority to jump the urban/suburban majority in gaining UT admission.
Click to expand...

Latino population is rising so admissions will as well.

Also, like I pointed out earlier it is easy for whites to check latino.

Small rural white schools benefit a great deal from the 10 percent rule.

If you graduate from a class of 30 and are in the top 10 with a 3.2 it still counts.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't think it applies further than 1/4th for most people. Only natives get to claim the 1/16th thing. However, this is all moot. This Fisher person had an average GPA, with an average SAT, and tried to get into an university that only accepts 50% of the people who apply. She failed to get into a program which would have automatically admitted her and then she blamed the darkies for it. It's just another case of a white person being unable to compete in the 21st century and chalking it up to 'reverse racism'.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I know the OP is bunk, I'm just curious about my situation. I don't know if my grandpa or great grandpa came over from Persia but I assumed both were close enough to me to recognize official heritage and therefore self-identification of ethnicity.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That may be true but, under the 10% scheme, latino admissions to the University of Texas went from 14% to 24% (a nearly 60% increase) of the total - that was the goal of "diversity", not to allow the some of the rural minority to jump the urban/suburban majority in gaining UT admission.
Click to expand...

Has the diversity in graduates retained the diversity in admissions?
 
I've never understood trying to purposefully "diversify" universities. Why not base it strictly on performance on standardized tests?
 
captainawesome said:
The top 10 percent thing is state law and benefits white rural students.

UT is TX most sought after school. It is hard to get in. 3.6 is ok not great. Her SAT was mediocre.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it any better a policy for the reason I stated.

Khayembii Communique said:
As I'm looking to get a post-graduate degree, I'm genuinely curious if my "white" appearance would be taken into account upon meeting in person, and how that would affect my application, if I actually checked a "minority" box on the application. This article claims that I would be "entitled to self-identify any race and the University [would] not ever question that determination". But do we really think that's true? If that is the case, then what is the point of even considering race, and what is preventing everyone from self-identifying as a minority in order to get the URM bump?
Click to expand...

I sort of think the same way. IIRC, race was optional information when I applied to grad school.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I've never understood trying to purposefully "diversify" universities. Why not base it strictly on performance on standardized tests?
Click to expand...

Because standardized testing is bull****.
 
captainawesome said:
To make up for past wrongs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is true, nor am I sure that's "right" (I'm assuming you're referring to "reparations" in sorts).

Hatuey said:
Because standardized testing is bull****.
Click to expand...

What should be used for college admittance, then? Why do you think standardized testing is BS?
 
captainawesome said:
Latino population is rising so admissions will as well.

Also, like I pointed out earlier it is easy for whites to check latino.

Small rural white schools benefit a great deal from the 10 percent rule.

If you graduate from a class of 30 and are in the top 10 with a 3.2 it still counts.
Click to expand...

That 60% latino admission increase happened immediately (1st year of the 10% rule), not over time due to a population shift and that 10% has since been dropped to 8% with pressure to reduce it further now being applied.

I already agreed that tiny number from very small rural HS classes have benefited. Qualifying to get in does not pay your tuition or get you any scholarship help so many from poor rural areas do not apply/go anyway.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I've never understood trying to purposefully "diversify" universities. Why not base it strictly on performance on standardized tests?
Click to expand...

Because that still ends up discriminating mostly against poor people who have underfunded schools in their districts that don't prepare them as well for the test.

That, and standardized tests aren't really that great a measure of academic aptitude.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
What should be used for college admittance, then? Why do you think standardized testing is BS?
Click to expand...

We have standardized testing in a country where there isn't a standard for education. As long as we continue to let education be up to the states and in some cases counties, standardized testing will be nonsensical. There is no standard for history, there is no standard for science, there isn't even a standard for the social sciences. So what exatcly are we testing in a standard way? How many arbitrarily picked facts they can remember? Sure, one could claim that in math, linguistic courses etc, there is some sort of standard, however those standards are pretty self evident and rarely disputed by the states.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That 60% latino admission increase happened immediately (1st year of the 10% rule), not over time due to a population shift and that 10% has since been dropped to 8% with pressure to reduce it further now being applied.

I already agreed that tiny number from very small rural HS classes have benefited. Qualifying to get in does not pay your tuition or get you any scholarship help so many from poor rural areas do not apply/go anyway.
Click to expand...

Student loans and grants. Also, TX is chock full of small rural schools as this is a huge state. Whites are not hurting here in TX.
 
captainawesome said:
The top 10 percent thing is state law and benefits white rural students.
Click to expand...

Is that an economic issue or an issue of race?
A poor white kid has the same disadvantages as a poor black kid
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have no idea what you are asking me. :roll:
Click to expand...

Base on your post, it appears affirmative action in admissions has increased the number of "minorities" accepted into UT. Is that diversity reflected in the graduation rates.

Meaning are those minorities who receive special preference for admission actually completing their college education and graduating?
 
trfjr said:
Is that an economic issue or an issue of race?
A poor white kid has the same disadvantages as a poor black kid
Click to expand...

The law was always meant to benefit rural whites in college admissions. A white student in Kermit with a 3.1 but in top 10 is better off than a black in Dallas with a 3.5 and not in top 10.
 
Deuce said:
Because that still ends up discriminating mostly against poor people who have underfunded schools in their districts that don't prepare them as well for the test.

That, and standardized tests aren't really that great a measure of academic aptitude.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. However, there are other solutions. For instance, Memphis has "optional" programs for schools that you can test in to. I just don't see the reason to "diversify." There certainly are other ways to prepare for the test, as well. I remember taking the ACT and SAT (just like the GRE and MCAT) and there were a host of books, free tests online, etc.

Hatuey said:
We have standardized testing in a country where there isn't a standard for education. As long as we continue to let education be up to the states and in some cases counties, standardized testing will be nonsensical. There is no standard for history, there is no standard for science, there isn't even a standard for the social sciences. So what exatcly are we testing in a standard way? How many arbitrarily picked facts they can remember? Sure, one could claim that in math, linguistic courses etc, there is some sort of standard, however those standards are pretty self evident and rarely disputed by the states.
Click to expand...

The standard is a person's knowledge and what they know. May I ask your solution to standardized testing?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
The standard is a person's knowledge and what they know. May I ask your solution to standardized testing?
Click to expand...

Except it's not a measure of what they know, it's a measure of whether or not they know a specific list of things.
 
Deuce said:
Except it's not a measure of what they know, it's a measure of whether or not they know a specific list of things.
Click to expand...

Right the list is things they are supposed to know.
 
captainawesome said:
The law was always meant to benefit rural whites in college admissions. .
Click to expand...

why do you insist in include race in your argument
would a Black student in Kermit with a 3.1 but in top 10 is better off than a White in Dallas with a 3.5 and not in top 10?
 
captainawesome said:
Yes it is wrong.

The reason is to battle the long term effects of institutional racism that were built into our laws and culture after hundreds if years of slavery then Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

The way for blacks to battle so-called long term effects of institutional racism, which I think you are wrong about, is to take responsibility and work. I understand that for some people this seems like racism in its self, but in the real world only those that work and take personal responsibility for their plight will ever improve their lives. No amount of government reverse discrimination will change this fact.
 
Deuce said:
Except it's not a measure of what they know, it's a measure of whether or not they know a specific list of things.
Click to expand...

It's far from perfect, but I'd take it over many other "requirements." There are a problem with a lot of college admissions, though.
 
trfjr said:
why do you insist in include race in your argument
would a Black student in Kermit with a 3.1 but in top 10 is better off than a White in Dallas with a 3.5 and not in top 10?
Click to expand...

The op is about race.

Yes a black at a rural school will benefit, but rural TX is mostly white so whites are who benefit from the law. That was the point of the law.
 
captainawesome said:
The op is about race.

Yes a black at a rural school will benefit, but rural TX is mostly white so whites are who benefit from the law. That was the point of the law.
Click to expand...

why then did you add race to your argument if a black kid has the same advantage as a white kid in a rural area race had nothing to do with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom