View Poll Results: Read the question and respond accordingly.

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, this os unfair to white students

    38 79.17%
  • No, this is fair to whites since it is additional enrollment

    5 10.42%
  • Maybe. I can see the arguments for both sides, it's not clear cut

    3 6.25%
  • Other

    2 4.17%
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 97

Thread: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

  1. #41
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    HTTP(Heh, just got the initials, if that was your intention), the idea is that, right now, minority students largely do not have the same opportunities prior to college. They tend to be poor, and live in poor areas, with lower quality schools, less attentive parents, a more disruptive environment. This is not insulting, it is simple fact. So the idea behind the 100 students from minorities would be to help those who started at a real disadvantage. Part of the intent of the question is whether helping those with a disadvantage is unfair to those without it.

    Thank you all for the replies so far. I was worried that this thread would go bad, as so many that touch on race issues do, but you all have been very reasonable and measured in your responses.
    And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.
    Its also racist to assume that whites do not come from poor, uneducated, less than attentive parents and/or were raised in disruptive environments. For that explains about 75% of the whites in my hometown.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  2. #42
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.
    Its also racist to assume that whites do not come from poor, uneducated, less than attentive parents and/or were raised in disruptive environments. For that explains about 75% of the whites in my hometown.
    It's not an assumption they do, it's an assumption that it is more likely. Of course, when dealing with individuals, stats like that are meaningless.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #43
    User HeresToThePoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California, United States Capital of Public Debt
    Last Seen
    06-17-10 @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    HTTP(Heh, just got the initials, if that was your intention), the idea is that, right now, minority students largely do not have the same opportunities prior to college. They tend to be poor, and live in poor areas, with lower quality schools, less attentive parents, a more disruptive environment. This is not insulting, it is simple fact. So the idea behind the 100 students from minorities would be to help those who started at a real disadvantage. Part of the intent of the question is whether helping those with a disadvantage is unfair to those without it.

    Thank you all for the replies so far. I was worried that this thread would go bad, as so many that touch on race issues do, but you all have been very reasonable and measured in your responses.
    As general argument of philosophy, perhaps I would start with a base admission of zero (or 1 or some other minimum number) and continually add 100 students under minority criteria? What if a institution with a 1% merit based student then decides to admit an additional 99% with disadvantaged criteria, this would be wrong? At what point between that institution and an educational institution admitting 99% students based on merit and 1% based on minority criteria is okay? Weather its the first, middle or the last 100 students admitted, that does not matter because all selected students receive admission to that educational institution. Suppose that you had admitted those 100 students based on merit and X of them would have been white. Those X number of students that are no longer candidates because of a racially discriminatory criteria. I can't justify that.

    With respect to disadvantages I think its a state of mind. No middle/upper income student could reasonably claim that they had to do odd jobs in the summer to afford that new scientific calculator. Nor could middle/upper income student could legitimately claim they took school into their own hands by studying hard even when the parents were not supportive. The middle/upper income student could not claim that the choices that education presented overruled the temptation to deal drugs for a quick buck. The negative situations are being perpetuated by a self-pitying state of mind. They are two sides of the same coin. It could be used to empower and motivate or shoot down aspirations because of "limited opportunity."

    As an anecdotal point the Boston, Massachusetts with the highest per-student spending ($16,879) yet produces a mediocre 57% high school graduation rate. Inversely Mesa, Arizona with the lowest per-student spending ($6,558) in the study boasts a 77% high school graduation rate. (http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...C86F169A7F.gif)

    More importantly, when you look spending and high school graduation rates there is only minimal correlation. Oddly enough, that minimal correlation shows that less money is better. Of the 25 the lowest spending districts, 20 have 50% graduations rates or better. The top 25 spending districts have 11 that exceed 50% graduation rates. (Forgive me if I made a mistake, I counted quickly. But its very clear from the graph you can see here: http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...C86F169A7F.gif)

    This would lead me to believe that not a matter of money, the students are limiting educational performance. This is supported by the Heritage Foundation's study finding that, "Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to similarly improved student performance." Depicted here: (http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...277E88CF57.gif )

    I agree that, it takes a village to raise a child, but I think the village already contributed significantly and its time for the students to step up.

    If there is a problem, any motivated individual can find the solution; but, the guy that sits and pouts never finds the answer.
    Respectfully, HTTP


    On a side note: This is a great study if you have time to read it. Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

  4. #44
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by HeresToThePoint View Post
    As general argument of philosophy, perhaps I would start with a base admission of zero (or 1 or some other minimum number) and continually add 100 students under minority criteria? What if a institution with a 1% merit based student then decides to admit an additional 99% with disadvantaged criteria, this would be wrong? At what point between that institution and an educational institution admitting 99% students based on merit and 1% based on minority criteria is okay? Weather its the first, middle or the last 100 students admitted, that does not matter because all selected students receive admission to that educational institution. Suppose that you had admitted those 100 students based on merit and X of them would have been white. Those X number of students that are no longer candidates because of a racially discriminatory criteria. I can't justify that.
    You are extending the hypothetical in directions which I did not intend, which is fine. However, the intention was that the exact same number of nonminoity students would be enrolled as before. It's not starting from zero, it's starting from some number larger(I live near Michigan State, so I was thinking in the 20k+ range, but that is really not important).

    With respect to disadvantages I think its a state of mind. No middle/upper income student could reasonably claim that they had to do odd jobs in the summer to afford that new scientific calculator. Nor could middle/upper income student could legitimately claim they took school into their own hands by studying hard even when the parents were not supportive. The middle/upper income student could not claim that the choices that education presented overruled the temptation to deal drugs for a quick buck. The negative situations are being perpetuated by a self-pitying state of mind. They are two sides of the same coin. It could be used to empower and motivate or shoot down aspirations because of "limited opportunity."
    I commented on this a bit earlier. Statistics work on groups, not individuals. Poor people, in general, have more obstacles in place to a good education than wealthier students. On an individual level, it falls apart since each persons situation is different. It only works out on the aggregate.

    As an anecdotal point the Boston, Massachusetts with the highest per-student spending ($16,879) yet produces a mediocre 57% high school graduation rate. Inversely Mesa, Arizona with the lowest per-student spending ($6,558) in the study boasts a 77% high school graduation rate. (http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...C86F169A7F.gif)

    More importantly, when you look spending and high school graduation rates there is only minimal correlation. Oddly enough, that minimal correlation shows that less money is better. Of the 25 the lowest spending districts, 20 have 50% graduations rates or better. The top 25 spending districts have 11 that exceed 50% graduation rates. (Forgive me if I made a mistake, I counted quickly. But its very clear from the graph you can see here: http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...C86F169A7F.gif)

    This would lead me to believe that not a matter of money, the students are limiting educational performance. This is supported by the Heritage Foundation's study finding that, "Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to similarly improved student performance." Depicted here: (http://www.heritage.org/static/repor...277E88CF57.gif )
    Some of this is new information to me, so thank you. The problems with these studies is that it is impossible to isolate variables. It does not make them wrong, only that it is not a good idea to draw conclusions from them.

    I agree that, it takes a village to raise a child, but I think the village already contributed significantly and its time for the students to step up.

    If there is a problem, any motivated individual can find the solution; but, the guy that sits and pouts never finds the answer.
    Respectfully, HTTP
    I agree, individual motivation is always better than anything else. However, when looking at two people with the same level of motivation, the one with other advantages will rise above the other as a general(ie not 100 %) rule.


    On a side note: This is a great study if you have time to read it. Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation
    Thank you for the link, and for the well reasoned, well expressed response. I do not disagree with your view, nor am I 100 % sold on it. I kinda thought about this while thinking on a completely different subject(the recently announced "Gay Pride" month), and the question kinda grew in my mind.

    Let me ask you the followup question I asked earlier in this thread: If instead of minority students, it was students from poor backgrounds, or rural backgrounds, or from school systems that traditionally lagged? How about special scholarships for minority students? Lastly, does public or private Colleges make a difference? Getting way off the original intent of this poll, but this is kinda the direction my mind is going with it now.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #45
    User HeresToThePoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California, United States Capital of Public Debt
    Last Seen
    06-17-10 @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You are extending the hypothetical in directions which I did not intend, which is fine. However, the intention was that the exact same number of nonminoity students would be enrolled as before. It's not starting from zero, it's starting from some number larger(I live near Michigan State, so I was thinking in the 20k+ range, but that is really not important).
    Indeed that was the plan, its a legitimate argument tactic known as "reductio ad absurdum". Basically I'm reducing the reasoning to absurdity by revealing a flawed line of logic. The proposition is that racially discriminatory criteria, regardless if 1 or 100 students were admitted at any stage of the process, is unconditionally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I commented on this a bit earlier. Statistics work on groups, not individuals. Poor people, in general, have more obstacles in place to a good education than wealthier students. On an individual level, it falls apart since each persons situation is different. It only works out on the aggregate.
    ...
    Let me ask you the followup question I asked earlier in this thread: If instead of minority students, it was students from poor backgrounds, or rural backgrounds, or from school systems that traditionally lagged?
    Yes I provided 2 anecdotes in my response, but I backed it up with statistical data showing that being in a poor school district does not effect education.

    The study shows that the economic factor, with regard to education is not demonstrated to hold much water. Students with huge funding don't perform better than students with low funding. Its so much easier to blame a another or non-person than be personally accountable. Every mother and father (rich or poor) would want to believe that their kid isn't at fault for poor performance. And as is probably the case in America, the parents are happy to throw money at the problem to shrug off responsibility. I simply suggest a high degree of correlation between motivation and success. However, measuring motivation and success is highly subjective and for the moment, I doubt we will see such a study. But in the process of researching other possible factors, I've not seen much that contradicts that conclusion (economic factors being one of them).

    In addition, I think the study does error in favor of the preposition because, the data is collected in the largest cities in the US. Cities are generally where high rates of delinquency/crime and have the highest concentrations of wealth disparity. This study uses the 50 largest cities in America to look into, that is a statistic that covers a wide range of circumstances. I haven't found a study that represents a bigger sample population.

    I understand that you may not agree with the conclusion that student's motivations are purely to blame, certainly random violent acts and other issues are localized. It is certainly up for interpretation. I just see people like Revered Al Sharpton getting air time on the news, taking a constant victimized position and can only think how does this guy not even remotely think of solving the problem from within? Everything is someone else's fault?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    How about special scholarships for minority students?
    As long as the scholarships are provided by private individuals I don't have much of an issue with them. People can do whatever they want with their money. If they want to alienate worthy submissions based on the color of their skin, thats their money and their choice. I'm also against legislating this kind of social change results in hasty laws, like Affirmative Action, probably hurts society more than it helps. I've defend this point in a response to hazlnut on page 2 of this thread.

    That being said, personally I'm against racial discrimination both affirmative and negative forms because the logic is flawed. Is a scholarship that only allows African heritage submissions any better than a scholarship that denies Indian/Asian/Hispanic/European heritage? Its the exact same thing. Both scholarships deny certain groups eligibility solely based on race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Lastly, does public or private Colleges make a difference? Getting way off the original intent of this poll, but this is kinda the direction my mind is going with it now.
    I think the data shows that private schools and voucher options are the way to go. By voting with our money we phase our educational institutions that provide poor educational service and move money into schools that provide funding to institutions with a high value. I'll keep the response to this question short (LoL) since its not the focus of this thread.

    Cheers.
    Respectfully, HTTP

  6. #46
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Edit: Please read following post before reply.

    Just a quick comment, as I should be in bed right now instead of still posting. What I meant by the problem with the studies on school funding not being entirely reliable due to not being able to isolate variables is best illustrated by an example. I live in Michigan, a small town. Detroit schools get the most money, Schools in Grand Rapids(next largest town) somewhat less, and in small towns like I live, significantly less. Detroit schools have among the worst records of any of the schools in the state(at least some years ago when I looked into this), the local school here somewhat better, and the Grand Rapids schools even better. The thing that factors in is that Grand Rapids is one of the nicer big cities, with even the ghettos having tree lined streets. The small town schools have an advantage that there is no real bad areas, and thus less disruption in classrooms, but don't have the overall buy power to buy good facilities, and Detroit suffers due to large areas with huge gang problems and schools where surviving is more of a goal than learning. There are just too many factors to really isolate one out as causal.
    Last edited by Redress; 06-03-10 at 04:50 AM.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #47
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Before I forget, I want to make another point clear. When I refer to poor students, I am not talking about the funding for the school. You can take a school in a very poor neighborhood with active drug dealing and prostitution and gangs on the streets, and poor as much money as you want into the school there, and the students as a whole will do poorly. They are more worried about not getting caught up in gang troubles, not getting killed, their friends are dealing with high teen pregnancy rates, their parents are more likely to be in jail , or dropouts, or not particularly supportive. Vandalism and drug dealing are common problems in schools in these type areas.

    I lived a year in Detroit, and a friend of mine who was still in High School went to a school for gifted students, and yet still had to pass through a metal detector, and if she took a book bag, the security guards would search it before she could even go into the school. And this was a good school. The stresses these kids had on them outside of just doing well in school was unreal. I grew up in a rural town in Michigan, and the worst thing we had to worry about in school was maybe getting into a fight.

    So when I talk about poor areas, it's not to suggest the schools are underfunded, it's the area itself which does not lend itself well to education.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #48
    User HeresToThePoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California, United States Capital of Public Debt
    Last Seen
    06-17-10 @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Edit: Please read following post before reply.

    Just a quick comment, as I should be in bed right now instead of still posting. What I meant by the problem with the studies on school funding not being entirely reliable due to not being able to isolate variables is best illustrated by an example.
    Yes, but I'm saying the study takes in to account a wide range of situations to make a collective statement, that money does not guarantee a good school. Detroit is properly represented in the study because its a top 25 high spender and a failure with respect to graduation rates. The study wont represent all cases, but with respect areas like Detroit its consistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I live in Michigan, a small town. Detroit schools get the most money, Schools in Grand Rapids(next largest town) somewhat less, and in small towns like I live, significantly less. Detroit schools have among the worst records of any of the schools in the state(at least some years ago when I looked into this), the local school here somewhat better, and the Grand Rapids schools even better. The thing that factors in is that Grand Rapids is one of the nicer big cities, with even the ghettos having tree lined streets. The small town schools have an advantage that there is no real bad areas, and thus less disruption in classrooms, but don't have the overall buy power to buy good facilities, and Detroit suffers due to large areas with huge gang problems and schools where surviving is more of a goal than learning. There are just too many factors to really isolate one out as causal.
    ...
    Before I forget, I want to make another point clear. When I refer to poor students, I am not talking about the funding for the school. You can take a school in a very poor neighborhood with active drug dealing and prostitution and gangs on the streets, and poor as much money as you want into the school there, and the students as a whole will do poorly. They are more worried about not getting caught up in gang troubles, not getting killed, their friends are dealing with high teen pregnancy rates, their parents are more likely to be in jail , or dropouts, or not particularly supportive. Vandalism and drug dealing are common problems in schools in these type areas.

    I lived a year in Detroit, and a friend of mine who was still in High School went to a school for gifted students, and yet still had to pass through a metal detector, and if she took a book bag, the security guards would search it before she could even go into the school. And this was a good school. The stresses these kids had on them outside of just doing well in school was unreal. I grew up in a rural town in Michigan, and the worst thing we had to worry about in school was maybe getting into a fight.

    So when I talk about poor areas, it's not to suggest the schools are underfunded, it's the area itself which does not lend itself well to education.
    I'm glad you agree that throwing more money at it is not going to improve the situation. So the question is: what does?

    I think that poor student judgment in this case, propagates the problem. The appeal and glamour of a gangster life is highly promoted by the music industry. Add this to the profitability of illegal sale of drugs, in the short-term makes a life in a gang seem like the logical path to take. The student has the ultimate choice to choose between school and a gang no matter how you cut it. The students in such locations need to adjust their attitude toward education by becoming more informed of the long-term benefits, at the expense of a short-term gain. Its a choice between limited-term illegal income and long-term legitimate income. Same thing with sex - choose a life without a child by using protection or observing abstinence instead of short-term bliss. All these choices and countless others, when made correctly, build on one another to make a student eligible for higher education or a better life in general. Take these choices and multiply them by a few thousand students you increase the voice of student body resulting in a reduction a gang's life appeal.

    Unfortunately, I think many parents in America tell their kids "you have to go to school, just because," or some other equally unsubstantial answer thinking the child won't understand. The answer should be something to the effect of, you go to school to get an education which is an investment in yourself. If you achieve X, Y, Z goal you can go start your own business, apply to a trade school, community college or university. If every student chose school over a gang life, gangs would become less of an issue. But for now, being in a gang is simply profitable in the short term.

    Detroit certainly suffers from a gang issue and it plays an influential role in damaging the education process. To reduce gang influence, we should take away a large part of their business by legalizing and regulating the sale of "soft" drugs in legitimate store would severely limit the motivation for gangs to exist. No/less product, means less reason to protect a stash with illegally acquired weapons, means more kids are free to pursue education. But that's a topic for another thread.

    Gangs and other external forces might be influential, but individual students have the ultimate choice and suffer the consequences of their own decisions.
    Respectfully, HTTP
    Last edited by HeresToThePoint; 06-03-10 at 06:59 AM.

  9. #49
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    The one issue I ran into while attending a community college in which ACT or SAT scores weren't equated when accepting students is that when you permit lesser-educated students into college level course it puts them in more of a disadvantage.

    The instructor cannot tutor.
    All entry level college students should have a grasp of grammar, spelling and other basic components of math and so on.
    One should, also, know how to type . . . and so on.
    These things should at least be brought up to level with the average entry-level student because when they're not it throws the entire balance of a class off.

    I became a teacher's aid for a while and helped check countless essays - spelling and grammar were far more horrid than I thought possible, yet these students were in college level classes.
    Essay after essay - small measures of improvement from the beginning to end of the semester but no one who was disadvantaged actually learned anything that would benefit them to advance to the next class - most had to repeat that same course.

    If people were truly concerned with helping those who are predisposed to lesser-quality education then they should focus wholeheartedly on improving all other factors, first, in an effort to bump those students up to a college-entry level when they do enter college. You can't just toss them into the fray and hope they survive because they won't. It's quite cruel, honestly.
    Many universities have remedial programs. They are looked down on by the professors (because liberal professors really are a bunch of classist snobs, if you want the gospel truth) and are taught by adjuncts. Most of the professors simply believe those kids dont belong in college and they look down on the students, the adjuncts and the program itself. The classes offer no credit but still charge the same. They teach the same materials they didnt get in high school in the same ineffective manner to the same ineffective students.

    You are 100% correct. The change needs to become institutional through the elementary, jr High, and High School programs. it would be exceptionally beneficial if the changes involved effective parental support.

  10. #50
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Last Seen
    09-15-10 @ 05:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,008

    Re: Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.
    I dont think anyone would presume that. But, wealth does not eliminate prejudice against one because of ones skin colour or gender. It does provide more opportunites and a safety net to help overcome difficulties, but it does not prevent race or gender prejudice.

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •