• 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!

High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

TurtleDude said:
his transcript is sealed from columbia-what does that tell you
and Columbia posted its honors graduates. He wasn't one of them
Click to expand...

No, being sealed at Columbia is not unusual.

The idea that any Obama record is “sealed” is a falsehood, to start. The word “sealed” when applied to documents ordinarily refers to records that would normally be public, but that a judge has ruled cannot be released without the court’s permission. Common examples of truly “sealed” documents include records of crimes committed as a juvenile or records of adoptions. None of the claims in this message refers to records actually “sealed” in that usual sense.
In some cases, the records this screed claims are “sealed” are actually public, and open for anyone to see. Other supposedly “sealed” records are normally private documents that Obama hasn’t released — and that other presidential candidates haven’t released either.
Obama’s ‘Sealed’ Records
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you really don't. 3) would be enough. That's why I brought up Bush.
Click to expand...

you are confused again. you are making stuff up based on what you hope the facts are. Bush went to the B school. Grades are far less important for that school. I know I was accepted into both the Law and the B school
 
Boo Radley said:
No, being sealed at Columbia is not unusual.

The idea that any Obama record is “sealed” is a falsehood, to start. The word “sealed” when applied to documents ordinarily refers to records that would normally be public, but that a judge has ruled cannot be released without the court’s permission. Common examples of truly “sealed” documents include records of crimes committed as a juvenile or records of adoptions. None of the claims in this message refers to records actually “sealed” in that usual sense.
In some cases, the records this screed claims are “sealed” are actually public, and open for anyone to see. Other supposedly “sealed” records are normally private documents that Obama hasn’t released — and that other presidential candidates haven’t released either.
Obama’s ‘Sealed’ Records
Click to expand...

semantics-Obama hasn't released them to public
 
TurtleDude said:
you are confused again. you are making stuff up based on what you hope the facts are. Bush went to the B school. Grades are far less important for that school. I know I was accepted into both the Law and the B school
Click to expand...

After graduating from Yale University in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1975. . . .
George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He got into both, right? From a "B" school.
 
Boo Radley said:
As few have. Point, nothing unusual, and you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

you are ignoring the obvious because you don't like where it is pointing
 
Boo Radley said:
After graduating from Yale University in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1975. . . .
George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He got into both, right? From a "B" school.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that has to do with Obama's affirmative action seat at Harvard.


B School=Harvard Business School. Executive potential is a huge thing for B school admissions

not nearly as grade oriented
 
TurtleDude said:
you are ignoring the obvious because you don't like where it is pointing
Click to expand...

No, you only think it is obvious because you want to believe your narrative.

But, more on Bush for you:

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so. George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments.
CNN.com - How affirmative action helped George W. - Jan. 20, 2003


Just saying . . .
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't know what that has to do with Obama's affirmative action seat at Harvard.


B School=Harvard Business School. Executive potential is a huge thing for B school admissions

not nearly as grade oriented
Click to expand...

The point is you're selective. You take someone you have no evidence on, weave a narrative without support, using the weak anti evidence argument "it's obvious," but express no issue with white Affirmative Action. Like I said in the beginning with the question, I was looking for consistency of thought.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't know what that has to do with Obama's affirmative action seat at Harvard.


B School=Harvard Business School. Executive potential is a huge thing for B school admissions

not nearly as grade oriented
Click to expand...

Also, this and the other post disputes what you claim to be the criteria for getting into Harvard.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If he made high honors at Harvard, why would he have needed affirmative action help?
Click to expand...

Seriously, you actually ask that question? You cannot make high honors, or any honors, until you're in the school. People use affirmative action to get into the school in the first place. Or didn't you think of that?
 
Dittohead not! said:
yet he evidently had the ability.

and how do you know he didn't have the grades?
Click to expand...

If he had the grades, he would have made it into the school on them. Besides the schools publish their high-performing students and he wasn't on the list. That's how we know.
 
Boo Radley said:
Also, this and the other post disputes what you claim to be the criteria for getting into Harvard.
Click to expand...

what are you braying about? Law schools are extremely grade and LSAT oriented. Other than Chicago, none of the top schools interview candidates. B schools generally don't take people straight out of college Executive potential (i.e. how you are doing in the work force)is a major factor.
 
Cephus said:
If he had the grades, he would have made it into the school on them. Besides the schools publish their high-performing students and he wasn't on the list. That's how we know.
Click to expand...

If Obama had been a 4.0 student at columbia, I guarantee he would have made that fact public
 
TurtleDude said:
what are you braying about? Law schools are extremely grade and LSAT oriented. Other than Chicago, none of the top schools interview candidates. B schools generally don't take people straight out of college Executive potential (i.e. how you are doing in the work force)is a major factor.
Click to expand...

Apparently not as much as you think.


Many of you may be asking the logical next question: If the LSAT is so determinative, how did those 24 students get admitted to BC Law? Remember that the LSAT (and GPA) review is just the first step. Based on where your numbers fall relative to the school’s target range, your application is then placed in one of three categories: presumptive admit, presumptive deny, and “everybody else.” In the second step, each application is reviewed based on the category it falls into: The presumptive admits will generally be accepted barring any serious negative information in the file. Likewise, the presumptive denies will generally be rejected unless there is some compelling information in the file—something that makes the candidate stand out as truly extraordinary and worth admitting notwithstanding the negative impact the applicant’s LSAT score will have on the school’s target LSAT range. The majority of applicants at any particular school—the “everybody else” pile— will fall somewhere in the middle of the school’s range. With these candidates, the admission committee explores the rest of the files to see what each individual might bring to the law school community and legal profession, and how s/he fits in with the rest of the incoming class. (For more on what makes a candidate “extraordinary” and on how to demonstrate what you might bring to the table, please see the pages on compiling your overall application profile.)

Just how important is the LSAT? : LSAT (Law School Admission Test) : UMass Amherst Pre-Law Advising Office

As I said earlier, such scores weed out, and are just the first step. It is not only conceivable, but likely that even without any race consideration someone with higher scores will lose out to someone with lower scores, even among white males.
 
Boo Radley said:
Apparently not as much as you think.


Many of you may be asking the logical next question: If the LSAT is so determinative, how did those 24 students get admitted to BC Law? Remember that the LSAT (and GPA) review is just the first step. Based on where your numbers fall relative to the school’s target range, your application is then placed in one of three categories: presumptive admit, presumptive deny, and “everybody else.” In the second step, each application is reviewed based on the category it falls into: The presumptive admits will generally be accepted barring any serious negative information in the file. Likewise, the presumptive denies will generally be rejected unless there is some compelling information in the file—something that makes the candidate stand out as truly extraordinary and worth admitting notwithstanding the negative impact the applicant’s LSAT score will have on the school’s target LSAT range. The majority of applicants at any particular school—the “everybody else” pile— will fall somewhere in the middle of the school’s range. With these candidates, the admission committee explores the rest of the files to see what each individual might bring to the law school community and legal profession, and how s/he fits in with the rest of the incoming class. (For more on what makes a candidate “extraordinary” and on how to demonstrate what you might bring to the table, please see the pages on compiling your overall application profile.)

Just how important is the LSAT? : LSAT (Law School Admission Test) : UMass Amherst Pre-Law Advising Office

As I said earlier, such scores weed out, and are just the first step. It is not only conceivable, but likely that even without any race consideration someone with higher scores will lose out to someone with lower scores, even among white males.
Click to expand...

what you are ignoring is that blacks admitted into the very top law schools (BC isn't one of them BTW) had substantially lower scores than more than a thousand whites who were rejected.

as I noted blacks had .5 added to their GPA (i.e. a black with a 3.3 from say Hamilton College) was treated the same as a white from Hamilton College with a 3.8.
 
TurtleDude said:
what you are ignoring is that blacks admitted into the very top law schools (BC isn't one of them BTW) had substantially lower scores than more than a thousand whites who were rejected.

as I noted blacks had .5 added to their GPA (i.e. a black with a 3.3 from say Hamilton College) was treated the same as a white from Hamilton College with a 3.8.
Click to expand...

No, they too have to fall within the range. After that, other things matter.

Btw, for me, the difference between 3.3 and 3.8 by itself is meaningless.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they too have to fall within the range. After that, other things matter.

Btw, for me, the difference between 3.3 and 3.8 by itself is meaningless.
Click to expand...

from the same school its a huge difference: and pretending it means nothing when there are 10,000 students competing for less than 500 spots is idiotic
 
TurtleDude said:
from the same school its a huge difference: and pretending it means nothing when there are 10,000 students competing for less than 500 spots is idiotic
Click to expand...

In terms of skill, it means nothing. The likely had different instructors with different grading standards. There's always som subjectivity. So, such small differences mean very little.
 
Boo Radley said:
In terms of skill, it means nothing. The likely had different instructors with different grading standards. There's always som subjectivity. So, such small differences mean very little.
Click to expand...

that is moronic to claim that two students from the same school are equally qualified when one has a 3.8 and the other a 3.3

or when blacks were given 130 points (800 point scale) on the LSAT
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they too have to fall within the range. After that, other things matter.

Btw, for me, the difference between 3.3 and 3.8 by itself is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Have you never applied to college? .5 on a GPA is a ****ING MOUNTAIN of a difference.

Why should we not just have college applications without names or races?

Candidate #2849: 3.9 GPA, X extracurriculurs
Candidate #2850: 3.8 GPA, X extracurriculurs
Candidate #2851: 3.7 GPA, X extracurriculurs

Why does race even need to be on there? Do you not think someone should achieve something based on their merit and not their skin color?
 
TurtleDude said:
his transcript is sealed from columbia-what does that tell you
and Columbia posted its honors graduates. He wasn't one of them
Click to expand...

If his transcript is sealed, it tells me that we don't know anything about his grades there.

You're trying to make a point that Obama couldn't have gotten in to Harvard without AA, correct?
You may be right about that, or not. I don't know. So far, there is no proof showing that he couldn't have been admitted on his own. If he was an honor student after he got there, then that's an indication that he should have been able to get in on his own.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is moronic to claim that two students from the same school are equally qualified when one has a 3.8 and the other a 3.3

or when blacks were given 130 points (800 point scale) on the LSAT
Click to expand...

Do you suggest professor A is the same as professor B?

And last I looked, Michigan gave 20 points in their admission scale. Try getting past any bias and address what is said here.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Have you never applied to college? .5 on a GPA is a ****ING MOUNTAIN of a difference.

Why should we not just have college applications without names or races?

Candidate #2849: 3.9 GPA, X extracurriculurs
Candidate #2850: 3.8 GPA, X extracurriculurs
Candidate #2851: 3.7 GPA, X extracurriculurs

Why does race even need to be on there? Do you not think someone should achieve something based on their merit and not their skin color?
Click to expand...

Not sure race has to, but other things are, like legacy, which likely favor whites over minorities. If I saw equal outrage, I might be more inclined to agree.

I also have little concern over exaggerated complaints. Whites have not been run out of college by minorities in any measurable way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom