How about linking a racial group's crime rate to an admissions quota? If you burden our society by occupying police resources and prisons at a disproportionate rate, then you shouldn't be given handouts in other areas. Fair?
Really? That's what I meant? Wow. Sorry, I thought we were speaking English. He said that admissions are more elitist because of legacy admissions which would imply that there are a large number of legacy admissions otherwise it wouldn't make the entire system more elitist. I responded by asking for statistics. I did not say LEGACY ADMISSIONS ARE THE BEST!!! I don't agree with legacy admissions at all and any attempt to say that I do is dishonest on your part.
i said legacy makes it more elitist than affirmative action. the number is irrelevant. affirmative action isn't elitist. legacy is.
I'm tired of white kids crying about affirmative action. ohh boo hoo poor me I didn't get into [ insert generic state school ]. some stupid black kid stole my spot, its not my fault i couldnt get into the top third of my class, its not my fault i couldnt get above a 1200 on the sat, the system is rigged against me. Now I'm going to have to go to [ insert another generic state school ] , my life is over
business world cares little for race, except in finance. the awesome equalizer in business is that it's not what color your skin is, it's how much you understand what the color of money is - and how much of it you can bring in to a business. that's what's awesome about capitalism. i never liked affirmative action, but i do think there needs to be a push for diversity in our education system and create opportunities for those who did not have some of the privledges others were born into with.
What about a college student who graduates from a good state school in three years with a perfect 4.0 GPA as a physics and biochem double major, does research in a lab for two of those years, gets listed on several publications, and scores in the 99th percentile on the MCAT and can't get into a MD/PhD program while he sees one of his (female) friends with a lower GPA in an easier major, less research experience and a lower MCAT score get into all the places he didn't get in to? This happened to one of my friends as an undergrad. He ended up getting in to a program after being waitlisted.
This is what bothers me about these senarios If there was a similar guy like him Let's say your friend is white. . .and there is 3 white guys with inferior resumes 1 woman and another minority THEY NEVER QUESTION WHY THE 3 OTHER WHITE GUYS GOT IN AND NOT HIM He usually only Question the Minority and the Female as having 'gotten some help' So you telling . . in the whole school . . .that this Female was the only person with lessor Cridentials that got in over him? If not. . How do you explain the others getting in and not him? How does he? Is it easier to Hate on this woman? What about the others that look like him . .with lesser grades and experience that got in . . how did they get in and not him? Or does it even matter to him? All he know is *she* got in and he didn't . . the fact that other males got in and he didn't is irrelevent? Not trying to be harsh on your friend . . but I'm interested in why focus on this one chick? Rocket RIver
Good point. And you can never have a pure meritocracy in admissions until the playing field is even which it most certainly isn't. There certainly are tweaks that need to be made to the way affirmative action is structured but it still has relevance.
The problem with AA is that you will never get someone to support it who does not believe that a) social conditions in this country are favorable to certain races b) that its a situation needs rectifying for the sake of everyone (not just the disadvantaged). I think AA in its pure form - legal disincentives from selective interviewing, rather than 'quotas' per se - is pretty smart. 'quotas' are a bastardization of AA, and usually used as a misrepresentation of what it actually is.
I would guess it's because she had an advantage over him from the beginning. A white male (non-legacy) has an advantage over nobody so if one of them gets in it's not like it was inherently unfair from the beginning.
if they have no Advantage. . . how did they get in and not him? SOMETHING has to make a difference. . what was it? Rocket RIver
This is a perfectly reasonable question. One obvious reason he was pointing out the fact that SHE got in over him is that he personally knew her. So he was positive that her credentials were inferior. Maybe he wasn't sure about the other people that got into the program. However, we are talking about a very small program (less than 10 people accepted), so maybe it is true that she was the only person admitted with lesser credentials.
maybe she did better in the interviews, maybe she seemed like she'd make a better doctor. Everything isn't about grades and major and test scores. Schools these days try to take in a diverse group of students. Wouldn't it really suck if everyone you worked with was exactly the same?
Although I'll concede that my rant was a bit self-pitying and stereotypical, I actually think you're talking more about sales than other non-quantitative corporate jobs: which thrive on favoritism, nepotism and social networking. I'll also allow that college was actually the most egalitarian environment I was in, too much other crap to worry about (grades, tuition, de-facto poverty, internships and job offers) to care about age, race or gender. Work is as stressful for an adult as high school seems to be for a teenager, so they revert to the same social factionalism that served them back then (and takes property values down, via mass-selling, any time a neighborhood gets over 9 or 10% black).
