Why not give extra points to minority students for every grade?

[American]

Let's give extra points to minority students on every test, quiz, presentation, and written paper. How would that be different than slanting college admission in their favor?



My personal view is this- you can handicap me all you want, I don't care. Even with that, I am going to crush you in terms of achievement, academics, and job performance.

There will be no affirmative action when my company puts yours out of business, because our solutions worked and we serve the market better than yours. You will find another job or head back to the welfare state while I secure retirement options and go looking to buy a new house.

That goes for all races- white, black, asian, hispanic, and other. I hate you all equally. ;)

[Tmy]

College admissions are slanted in many ways. (for example in state students will be judged to less stringet standard, or if you provide a letter of recommendation from George Bush that'll carry more weight than a letter from your English teacher.)

But to go with what you said, AA is not an advantage in test taking. These students still have to do the same work.

So if they are truley unqualified wouldnt they all fail out???

[Crossbow]

Why not you ask?

Because there is a very big difference between simply admitting one to a college and giving one an easy grade in a course at that college.

Seriously, think about it.

Do you want to have someone with poor math skills design a bridge?
Do you want to have someone unskilled in anatomy provide medical treatment?
Do you want to have someone who does not know the law very well to work as a lawyer?
And so on.

[c0rbin]

Maybe because minorities were systematically shut out of higher-education opportunities--simply because they were minorities--in even our recent past.

[American]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Maybe because minorities were systematically shut out of higher-education opportunities--simply because they were minorities--in even our recent past.

No they weren't, not ever, since many decades ago.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American


No they weren't, not ever, since many decades ago.

What, you think systematic racism stopped in the 70s??? Methinks you're taking the term to literal. I'll agree that its not "Oh this guy is black, well we wont let him in our school then" but systematic racism is a lot more complicated than that.

[American]

Originally posted by Tmy
What, you think systematic racism stopped in the 70s??? Methinks you're taking the term to literal. I'll agree that its not "Oh this guy is black, well we wont let him in our school then" but systematic racism is a lot more complicated than that.

Do tell, my friend! :confused:

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Maybe because minorities were systematically shut out of higher-education opportunities--simply because they were minorities--in even our recent past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No they weren't, not ever, since many decades ago.


If your definition of "many" is "four" than we can agree. :rolleyes:


But, you know, how does this effect us now in our inclusive utopia we have created here in the Americas?

Well, many universities use beautific non-race-based point systems for sliding in students of alumni. Funny, seems only a generation or two ago--not so long ago, is it?--minorities were shut out of higher education.

How are minorities going to compete against that?

[NoZed Avenger]

You post inflammatory notes against gays, against non-drinkers, and against affirmative action (in all cases setting yourself up as a parody or strawman in an essentially indefensible position).

Do you -ever- tire of trolling?

[Samus]

c0rbin, I love the avatar! Check me out! No, really, check me out. :)

American, the difference lies in opportunity. Affirmative action was meant to be a proactive way to open up opportunities for minorities who maybe haven't always had them.

Once someone seizes the opportunity, they are required to perform. Hence, if someone gets into college on AA, they still have to "make the grade", so to speak.

Giving extra points is unfair, and is an absurd idea. I suspect you're just trolling, but I just wanted to point out how wrong you are.

I have mixed feelings on AA, but one thing it isn't is a free ride.

Edited to add: It shouldn't be a free ride, but in some cases, it might be.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by American


Do tell, my friend! :confused:

Ok how about the SAT. Its a tool used to see just how smart a student you are. How accurate is that tool?

How many of us took an SAT prep course. For most people it helps to imrove their score. How? Did it make them smarter? No, they just learn some of the tricks of test taking.

Now lots of kids cant afford to take the prep course. Many poor minority kids for example (why they are poor can be a result of a history of racism) . So they miss out on a class that could improve their score.

Thats just an example on how AA tries to overcome some of the gaps in the system.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Because there is a very big difference between simply admitting one to a college and giving one an easy grade in a course at that college.

Seriously, think about it.

Do you want to have someone with poor math skills design a bridge?
Do you want to have someone unskilled in anatomy provide medical treatment?
Do you want to have someone who does not know the law very well to work as a lawyer?
And so on.

No, No and no and so no.

BUT, once the AA candidate has left school and has an AA place at university, they might get a lower degree but get an AA job designing bridges, giving you a vasectomy, defending you against a spurious rape allegation etc.

[c0rbin]

BUT, once the AA candidate has left school and has an AA place at university, they might get a lower degree but get an AA job designing bridges, giving you a vasectomy, defending you against a spurious rape allegation etc.

Slippery slope. There were incompetent people before AA and there will be incompetent people for the rest of time.

People do not get into a University if they are not qualified to do so. Someone might get wait-listed or rejected to make room for a more diverse incoming class. But that won;t kill the career of the would be applicant who should have back-ups in line anyway.

[c0rbin]

c0rbin, I love the avatar!

Thanks, dwb. I think it's pretty freakin' awesome.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Tmy



How many of us took an SAT prep course. For most people it helps to imrove their score. How? Did it make them smarter? No, they just learn some of the tricks of test taking.

Now lots of kids cant afford to take the prep course. Many poor minority kids for example (why they are poor can be a result of a history of racism) . So they miss out on a class that could improve their score.

Thats just an example on how AA tries to overcome some of the gaps in the system.

Any student can go into just about any library and check out a video, DVD or book on preSAT preparation. No one that I sat through the SAT with had paid to take any formal prep class... I don't know that the SAT prep tests make you any smarter , anyway. I mean, they simply pose questions similar to what you might expect to see on an SAT. Let's face it, if you haven't applied yourself throughout high school, there's no prep class in the world that's gonna help you get a significantly higher score on the SAT than you would have gotten without it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Slippery slope. There were incompetent people before AA and there will be incompetent people for the rest of time.

People do not get into a University if they are not qualified to do so.

You make it seem like an illiterate bum off the street will get into the school just casue he's an Eskimo.

You still need qualifications. If they these people are as incompetent as you say then they would fail out of school. Not pass the bar, not pass any licencing exam. Theres no AA points in the tests. So of these poeple are getting in and passing then they have shone that they are "qualified".

[c0rbin]

You make it seem like an illiterate bum off the street will get into the school just casue he's an Eskimo.

Ooops. I had hoped quite the contrary. I have often said in these threads that there are thousands of people who are qualified to get into, say, Harvard. And that Harvard can only accept, say, 100.

That means some applicants will not be admitted.

Now if an Eskimo is one of those 1000 qualified, I think it would behoove (sp?) Harvard to consider admitting that Eskimo to spread the opportunity around a little.

That Eskimo would never be considered if he/she was not qualified to enter the school.

Further, the students who are qualified and apply to schools like Harvard have at least 2 or 3 back ups schools because they know that getting into Harvard is a competative deal.

I thought that Jon_in_London was putting forth the idea that AA would create incompetence. I disagree. There will always be sub-par performers out there in any field. Bridges do collapse.

[American]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
You post inflammatory notes against gays, against non-drinkers, and against affirmative action (in all cases setting yourself up as a parody or strawman in an essentially indefensible position).

Do you -ever- tire of trolling?

If "trolling" means "soft liberals don't like my opinion"... no, I don't get tired of that.

[c0rbin]

soft liberals

Firstly, when you say "liberal" do you mean "democrat" here? Or one who is willing to embrace change?

Next, where do you draw the line, or make the distinction between a "soft liberal" and a "hard liberal"?

[American]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Next, where do you draw the line, or make the distinction between a "soft liberal" and a "hard liberal"?

I used a redundant term. Good point. :p