No Lives Matter
Last edited by Black Dog; 03-31-12 at 04:07 PM.
No Lives Matter
Less likely to WIN or receive MERIT-BASED....
Now lets talk about the real misinformation you are spouting...
[B]A national report released this week by financial aid guru Mark Kantrowitz finds minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian students – a pattern that also holds true in CA
And that just HAS to be due to racism. It couldn't possibly be because they are less qualified. Always has to be because of racism. Always have to blame someone else.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
No the article says nothing about racism being the cause or being less qualified. You have been wrong so many times at this point why don't you just shut it and try and learn something. It is simple if you would actually read the article before showing your ignorance of the subject matter yet again...
This does not appear to be due to deliberate discrimination, but rather as a natural result of the personal interests of the scholarship sponsors. Scholarship sponsors tend to establish scholarships that select for characteristics, activities and talents of interest to them. These factors, in turn, tend to resonate with students of the same racial background as the sponsor. For example, African-American students are much less likely to participate in equestrian sports (horseback riding, polo, rodeo), water sports (scuba diving, sailing, surfing, swimming, crew, water polo) and winter sports (ice hockey, skiing, snowboarding, figure skating) than Caucasian students.
Has nothing to do with racism.
Last edited by Black Dog; 03-31-12 at 05:30 PM.
No Lives Matter
Of course, in reality, hiring and admissions isn't meritocratic even on a good day. There is an artificially scarce number of feasible job opportunities and an artificially scarce number of admissions slots for college education. As such, employers and colleges necessarily engage in all kinds of filtering and discrimination to figure out who will and who will not be offered a position or admission. The question is not IF such institutions will discriminate -- as they're currently set up, they HAVE to -- rather the question is to who extent are the bases of that discrimination grounded in some kind of substantive assessment of applicants.
Specific institutions may have conscientious -- and even well-designed and implemented -- systems for not *adding onto* the "normal"/ "background radiation" level of unjust discrimination, but they cannot possibly fully cancel out the already-manifest forms of discrimination applicants have been living with before they apply. All the usual disparities -- attached to the usual bases of discrimination -- affect applicants' chances by impacting their lives long before any of them fills out an application. Furthermore, job opportunities are based upon a combination of connections (access to/knowledge of opportunities) and bargaining power, which is NOT the same thing as competence in the job/work role itself. Academic admissions is heavily tilted in favor of compliance with authority and high grades, which also do NOT reliably measure competence in a subject (rather, they measure competence in complying with external demands imposed upon them by authority figures).
A REAL meritocracy would be very messy, time consuming to switch to, and most of all it would be revolutionary, as it would inevitably force a resolution of the conflict between merit-based full employment (damn near everyone can do something well enough to warrant making a living...IF merit is truly the basis of recognition and hire...vs. the artificial scarcity of gainful employment imposed by capitalism (no substantial surplus labor pool = loss of the primary means of forcing people to accept underpayment for their work).
So these issues cut much deeper than superficial (and rarely examined) notions of merit.
I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.
Race baiting posts are suppose to be offensive are they not?
Repeatedly repeating extremist right wing talking points about race and people of other races are suppose to be offensive are they not?
Starting threads for the purpose of bashing other races or getting out the extremist message on race are suppose to be offensive are they not?
That is fundamental and basic to the role of the provocateur.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers