• 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!

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
hazlnut said:
What's most disturbing about this thread is that people with high SAT/ ACT scores think they're more qualified than people who scored slightly lower. As if that is the ONLY thing an admissions office should look at.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. There's club activities, awards, extra-curricular activity, community service, etc.
 
Blackdog said:
Admissions based on at least partly by race/ethnicity.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The only unfair admissions going on today are those based on legacy, where a rich parents gets you in even if you don't measure up. The law says race can't be the crititeria for admissions. But anything other than race, religion and sex can be. :doh
 
Boo Radley said:
Nonsense. The only unfair admissions going on today are those based on legacy, where a rich parents gets you in even if you don't measure up. The law says race can't be the crititeria for admissions. But anything other than race, religion and sex can be. :doh
Click to expand...

And yet it is done using AA as an excuse? Where have you been?
 
Blackdog said:
And yet it is done using AA as an excuse? Where have you been?
Click to expand...

I can't say no one has done it, but the problem is more made up than real. And it has always been against the law, so anyone who felt that way was free to sue. Some did, and they won. So the really small probelm isn't AA, but the few who don't understand the law. And even among them, they did very little, having gotten in few minorities while still getting in overwhelming white candidates. So as is common practice today, a small segment of the population whines over a false problem and can't even see the fact that all they ahve to do is follow the law.
 
Blackdog said:
Because it is unfair.
Click to expand...

That a University should strive for a diverse student body??

How is that unfair?

It's not a hundred-yard dash with a photo finish. It's not that kind of race or contest. A higher GPA/SAT does not mean you're a better candidate. It means you were very good at memorization, which is the lowest level of critical thinking. What were you like in the interview? In any of these 4 (four) law suits that you sighted, were any of the application essays made public? I'd like to see how these 4 cry-babys wrote. Did they have anything interesting to say? Were they honest and thoughtful, or just going through the motions?

There's a book called Nation of Advisories you should read. It's about people overusing the courts to seek remedy for perceived wrongs. Cheerleaders suing to get back on the squad, parents suing to get their kids into a private school, etc.

Whatever happened to the American notion of knowing in your heart that rejection only means you were destined for something else, something bigger. If they don't want me, it means they don't deserve me.

These kids were not being denied access to a ALL SCHOOLS, which was the case for black kids prior to Brown v Board of Education.
 
hazlnut said:
Whatever happened to the American notion of knowing in your heart that rejection only means you were destined for something else, something bigger. If they don't want me, it means they don't deserve me.
Click to expand...

Why should that not be held to everybody regardless of race?
 
Ikari said:
Certainly not. There's club activities, awards, extra-curricular activity, community service, etc.
Click to expand...

And the interview. The essay you write.

Admissions people love to discover the diamond in the rough. The kid who got a mixture of A's and B's because he was caring for sick relative while holding down a part-time job, while going to school. No time or money SAT camp. But the kid has something they can't teach in an SAT class.... CHARACTER.
 
hazlnut said:
And the interview. The essay you write.

Admissions people love to discover the diamond in the rough. The kid who got a mixture of A's and B's because he was caring for sick relative while holding down a part-time job, while going to school. No time or money SAT camp. But the kid has something they can't teach in an SAT class.... CHARACTER.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but nothing based on race. SAT/ACT camps are a waste. I destroyed those tests without even trying that hard. But there's a lot of merit by which you can gauge candidacy, and none of them rely on race. At the University level of academics, it should be very competitive and performance based.
 
Ikari said:
Why should that not be held to everybody regardless of race?
Click to expand...

In the post, I though I made it clear, I was talking about the difference between being rejected by one or two school and barred from attending ANY schools SPECIFICALLY because of your race.

If you didn't get into your first choice, obsessing about the minorities who did get into 'your' school is not healthy. Going to another school for two years, bringing home grades that show your first choice what a mistake they made not picking you us, that feels more American.
 
Boo Radley said:
I can't say no one has done it, but the problem is more made up than real. And it has always been against the law, so anyone who felt that way was free to sue. Some did, and they won. So the really small probelm isn't AA, but the few who don't understand the law. And even among them, they did very little, having gotten in few minorities while still getting in overwhelming white candidates. So as is common practice today, a small segment of the population whines over a false problem and can't even see the fact that all they ahve to do is follow the law.
Click to expand...

Then why don't they just get rid of it?? I mean really if this is the case why is it needed today?
 
hazlnut said:
That a University should strive for a diverse student body??

How is that unfair?

It's not a hundred-yard dash with a photo finish. It's not that kind of race or contest. A higher GPA/SAT does not mean you're a better candidate. It means you were very good at memorization, which is the lowest level of critical thinking. What were you like in the interview? In any of these 4 (four) law suits that you sighted, were any of the application essays made public? I'd like to see how these 4 cry-babys wrote. Did they have anything interesting to say? Were they honest and thoughtful, or just going through the motions?

There's a book called Nation of Advisories you should read. It's about people overusing the courts to seek remedy for perceived wrongs. Cheerleaders suing to get back on the squad, parents suing to get their kids into a private school, etc.

Whatever happened to the American notion of knowing in your heart that rejection only means you were destined for something else, something bigger. If they don't want me, it means they don't deserve me.

These kids were not being denied access to a ALL SCHOOLS, which was the case for black kids prior to Brown v Board of Education.
Click to expand...

That was 1954, this is 2011 almost 2012. I think we are past that. Hell the athletic scholarships dominated by black people for football and basketball should clue you in on that.

Race should play no part and give anyone an advantage because you have no choice in race, it's a crap shoot. It should only be judged by your accomplishments etc. Things you directly contribute to, period.
 
Blackdog said:
Admissions based on at least partly by race/ethnicity.
Click to expand...
Not anymore unfair than considering any other factor that the college feels improves the contributions a student will make to a campus.
 
Blackdog said:
Then why don't they just get rid of it?? I mean really if this is the case why is it needed today?
Click to expand...

Because the law requires that we prove we DO NOT discriminate due to race. This is a good law to have, and what was used by those who won the suits we speak of. If you don't understand the law, you reach a lot of mistaken conclusions.
 
theplaydrive said:
Not anymore unfair than considering any other factor that the college feels improves the contributions a student will make to a campus.
Click to expand...

Yea because something you have no control over, had nothing to do with is definitively a way to judge how well people will do in college.
 
Blackdog said:
Yea because something you have no control over, had nothing to do with is definitively a way to judge how well people will do in college.
Click to expand...
Which is why colleges don't and can't consider race alone in the admissions process.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because the law requires that we prove we DO NOT discriminate due to race. This is a good law to have, and what was used by those who won the suits we speak of. If you don't understand the law, you reach a lot of mistaken conclusions.
Click to expand...

I understand the law, and it is unfair. No mistake, it is outdated and unneeded. It adds to the racial divide rather than helping heal it, period.
 
Blackdog said:
Yea because something you have no control over, had nothing to do with is definitively a way to judge how well people will do in college.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not legal. But, you personally ahve no control on whether your parents are rich, or went to the school, or donated thousands, or you happen to live a preferenced area, all of which are legal critieria used by schools.
 
hazlnut said:
In the post, I though I made it clear, I was talking about the difference between being rejected by one or two school and barred from attending ANY schools SPECIFICALLY because of your race.

If you didn't get into your first choice, obsessing about the minorities who did get into 'your' school is not healthy. Going to another school for two years, bringing home grades that show your first choice what a mistake they made not picking you us, that feels more American.
Click to expand...

....so minorities are currently barred from attending ANY schools?
 
Blackdog said:
I understand the law, and it is unfair. No mistake, it is outdated and unneeded. It adds to the racial divide rather than helping heal it, period.
Click to expand...

I wish you would say something that suggested you did understand the law. You keep complaining about things the law forbids.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because the law requires that we prove we DO NOT discriminate due to race. This is a good law to have, and what was used by those who won the suits we speak of. If you don't understand the law, you reach a lot of mistaken conclusions.
Click to expand...
Well, college can consider race with other factors, but it just can't be the only factor.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, it's not legal. But, you personally ahve no control on whether your parents are rich, or went to the school, or donated thousands, or you happen to live a preferenced area, all of which are legal critieria used by schools.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing, and you know that. I mean equal opportunity means nothing with programs like AA.
 
Ikari said:
....so minorities are currently barred from attending ANY schools?
Click to expand...

I speak from experience, they are not allowed to attend some schools, though they the school won't say it is race. That does still happen. Saw it at a school (k-12) in Mississippi.
 
Blackdog said:
Not the same thing, and you know that. I mean equal opportunity means nothing with programs like AA.
Click to expand...

Why is it not the same thing, other than AA says it's illegal to use race?
 
Blackdog said:
It should not be considered at all.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this and then you say things like "it lowers standards" and "it isn't a definitive way to judge how well students will perform" to substantiate your claim, but AA doesn't lower standards and it doesn't rest on the premise that race is a definitive way to judge how well students will perform. So you can keep repeating "it's unfair" and "it shouldn't be considered at all" over and over again, but you have yet to offer a single true line of reasoning to support those claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom