California Colleges Mull Return of Affirmative Action

What I posted and the point I've been making is diversity improves the education of those at the school. That would include the largest ethnic group at the school whatever they would be.

The studies show not that students are only better at courses which seem to involve a lot of classroom discussion which it seems like you're trying to say.

The studies say that schools with greater diversity create students with improved cognitive skills, leadership, problem solving, etc. Now not every course will have the discussion component. I don't disagree. But even business majors take classes that aren't strictly business related. And as has been pointed out many businesses classes will have an element of discussion.

 

http://www.hbs.edu/coursecatalog/2240.html

FB has pointed out studies that show that diversity helps with that. You seem to agree with those yet think they aren't that important.

And you don't wonder why do schools like Harvard, Cal and Columbia offer them but your's doesn't?

 

Your first link:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pgurin/benefits.html

Your second link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip...b_4057759.html

Your third link:

http://www.arizona.edu/diversity/how...nefit-students

 

Thanks, I was wrong.

He's misapplying their results.

If I had to guess, it's b/c they figure their students will eventually become upper level management. Regardless, I still believe that negotiation is a natural ability. There are multitudes of successful businessmen who negotiate on a constant basis and didn't take any negotiation classes. In fact, the founder of the company for which I work didn't even finish high school.

 

Yes those results all make the point I'm making. Diversity increases critical thinking, and cognitive skills, etc.

In which college majors is that not a positive?

The fact that diverse classrooms do that may indeed argue against an education like you've described where no discussions ever take place.

I'm not misapplying the studies. I'm talking about the results. The ones you posted which talk about things like this

So yes students that go to schools which grant degrees to majors where students never engage in classroom discussions then those Universities aren't providing as good an education as the vast majority of Universities where almost every major will have classes with discussion. If you can get a degree without having classroom discussions you should be going to a better University. The studies would back that up.

 

Sorry, but you're misapplying the results. I think I explained it clearly in post #235.

Once again, even if there are class discussions in colleges, they're pertinent to the topic at hand. As such, having the most intelligent group of students as possible would contribute more to improved cognitive thinking/problem solving than having a culturally diverse group of students.

Honestly, I think you're conflating cultural diversity with intellect, and you're overestimating the amount of discussion in non-liberal arts classes. Teachers lecture and the students take notes. What do you think happens? Students and teachers discuss ways to reinvent the wheel? I think you've watched "Good Will Hunting" one too many times.

You keep drawing illogical conclusions from the studies you're citing...

 

I guess we're going to agree to disagree about the studies then.

I will point out that you claim that class discussions only help improve in the area the class is about. The studies show that diversity helps not in just singular areas, but in cognitive ability, problem solving, etc. Those skills apply to a wide range of subjects. Maybe a liberal arts class provides the arena to improve those skills through diversity, but the skills mentioned learned there will apply to other areas.

I think the better students (and better universities will foster) would be able to apply lessons learned to a variety of areas.

The skills which are improved from diversity in the studies are applicable to many different areas in an education. You seem to be the one misapplying the results by claiming improved cognitive ability somehow only applies to certain classes. That isn't true. Cognitive ability would work in almost every single class and major.

 

My course has a lot of diversity (lots of international students and people who get in for reasons other than academic results) and because of this diversity the reputation of the school significantly dropped.

Yay diversity.

 

I'm sorry for your experience. Reputation doesn't always match content. So I wouldn't worry too much if you're getting a good education. CU has the reputation of a party school. It doesn't mean that anyone with a degree from Colorado didn't get a good education.

 

SCA5.. Screw California Asians

 

No matter what selection process is used, someone will be unhappy with it.

 

This ruling isn't actually saying that race can't be used as a selection process but that states can decide that so I don't think this needs a new thread. Posting this here to add to the debate.

http://news.msn.com/us/high-court-upholds-mich-affirmative-action-ban

High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban



WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions despite one justice's impassioned dissent that accused the court of wanting to wish away racial inequality.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

The decision bolstered similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences, presumably because such a system could give rise to race-based resentment. Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court's prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

"This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it," Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically.

"But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups," said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

Judges "ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society," Sotomayor said. She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.

At 58 pages, Sotomayor's dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Thomas agreed with Kennedy.

Responding to Sotomayor, Roberts said it "does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate."

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case, presumably because she worked on it at an earlier stage while serving in the Justice Department.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of race among many factors in college admissions in a case from Michigan.

Three years later, affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to change the state constitution to outlaw any consideration of race.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the issue was not affirmative action, but the way in which its opponents went about trying to bar it.

In its 8-7 decision, the appeals court said the provision ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment because it presents an extraordinary burden to affirmative action supporters who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to repeal the constitutional provision.

Black and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the ban took effect. At California's top public universities, African-Americans are a smaller share of incoming freshmen, while Latino enrollment is up slightly, but far below the state's growth in the percentage of Latino high school graduates.

The case was the court's second involving affirmative action in as many years. In June, the justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the University of Texas admissions plan in a ruling that could make it harder for public colleges to justify any use of race in admissions.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

 

good. It's time we abolish discrimination in all forms, including affirmative action.

 

could not agree more..
Saw the historic ruling and glad the only way to overturn California prop 209 is at the ballot which i don't see it happening.

 

what a bunch of crap by Sotomayor.. yup let's combat inequality by making the admissions process unequal. Also more crap about how it oppresses minorities and tramples on their rights.. NO IT DOESN'T. She should stop lumping minorities all into one group. Study hard, get good grades and you have all the same opportunities to get in to the college of your chioce as anyone else regardless of skin color. I can definitely see how she was an affirmative action admission student.

 

No, the educational system in this country oppresses minorities and tramples on their rights and affirmative action is the very poor remedy that has people like you screaming bloody murder yet you're strangely silent on the state of primary and secondary education in this country that causes the entire situation in the first place. So your solution is what?

You sound like Nancy Reagan talking about drugs.

 

Please elaborate and describe in detail how our educational system oppresses minorities. Again stop lumping minorities into one category. Affirmative action actually hurts some minorities as discussed in this thread. What a great idea..Let's ignore all merit based qualifications and give preferential treatment to one group of minorities over another.

Let's call it what it is. Affirmative Action is a race-based quota system. Do we want a race based quota system or a merit based system in our society? Which is more fair? Choice is pretty obvious to me. Granted life isn't always fair and poor people (regardless of skin color) may have certain disadvantages. You already acknowledge affirmative action is a poor remedy but you need to take it one step further and realize it's not a remedy at all. It's a huge detriment for everyone including the people you think you are tying to help.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

 

So your solution is willful ignorance and quoting MLK? Okay.

 

It should never be about skin color. RIDICULOUSSSSS

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-race-college-admissions.aspx

Majority of Democrats as well. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans.