White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD

cawacko said:
The issue is the percentage of drop outs. No one is arguing about 2.0 or 3.0 GPA's. It's whether they graduate or not. And no one is arguing that zero beneficiarys of AA graduate. The question again comes down to is it better to go to a better school and not graduate than go to a lessor school and graduated.
Click to expand...

IMO there's something icky about that because I've never seen the argument made for non-AA people.
 
Bigdog said:
More kids end up in debt and with no degree. The Leftwing especially targets these young Black and Brown students to load them with debt; knowing they were never college material. :palm:
Click to expand...

You must be joking. Lots of people get loaded down with debt no matter their color.
 
christiefan915 said:
IMO there's something icky about that because I've never seen the argument made for non-AA people.
Click to expand...

The only two groups it would apply to are athletes and legacies. We here it debated all the time about athletes. See Josh Rosen's most recent comments and the response to that.

When we think legacies we usually think white parents and kids. The truth is white kids who families can pay full cost aren't going to get as much sympathy or concern if their kids don't do well.

It goes back to what is your goal with AA? There are multiple studies and stories out from liberal sources that say it's not effective public policy today (for Universities) based on results. Others want the program no matter the results because it represents something bigger.
 
cawacko said:
The only two groups it would apply to are athletes and legacies. We here it debated all the time about athletes. See Josh Rosen's most recent comments and the response to that.

When we think legacies we usually think white parents and kids. The truth is white kids who families can pay full cost aren't going to get as much sympathy or concern if their kids don't do well.

It goes back to what is your goal with AA? There are multiple studies and stories out from liberal sources that say it's not effective public policy today (for Universities) based on results. Others want the program no matter the results because it represents something bigger.
Click to expand...

If those are the only two alternatives I'll have to go with "represents something bigger."

I don't see the same amount of criticism for legacies and athletes. The arguments seem to be that those two draw money to the school.
 
christiefan915 said:
If those are the only two alternatives I'll have to go with "represents something bigger."

I don't see the same amount of criticism for legacies and athletes. The arguments seem to be that those two draw money to the school.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much college football or basketball you watch it gets discussed all the time. Often it's in the form of paying the athletes but it has differing effects.

What do you feel the something bigger is if it's hurting the kids it's supposed to help?
 
cawacko said:
I don't know how much college football or basketball you watch it gets discussed all the time. Often it's in the form of paying the athletes but it has differing effects.

What do you feel the something bigger is if it's hurting the kids it's supposed to help?
Click to expand...

I watch zero college sports. Do they discuss it like "It's a serious problem and we have to fix it"? I mean, look at people like Joe Paterno who let something far more egregious continue because he put the school's reputation first. These people are all about the money.

When I say "something bigger" it means that all kids are individuals and should be given the chance to prove themselves, not shut out because of statistics.
 
christiefan915 said:
I watch zero college sports. Do they discuss it like "It's a serious problem and we have to fix it"? I mean, look at people like Joe Paterno who let something far more egregious continue because he put the school's reputation first. These people are all about the money.

When I say "something bigger" it means that all kids are individuals and should be given the chance to prove themselves, not shut out because of statistics.
Click to expand...

Even if those statistics say more kids don't graduate as a result? (and the kids aren't being shut out from attending college)
 
cawacko said:
Even if those statistics say more kids don't graduate as a result? (and the kids aren't being shut out from attending college)
Click to expand...

What about the ones who do graduate, should they not have been given the chance? A lot of non-AA kids are slackers too.

I don't know what else to say except that it seems like a form of discrimination foisted on individuals because of statistics.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
Click to expand...



It is Obama's fault.

He gave the keys to the internet away, so the 1st amendment didn't have to be enforced.

We warned you...

First them, and next is you.
 
christiefan915 said:
What about the ones who do graduate, should they not have been given the chance? A lot of non-AA kids are slackers too.

I don't know what else to say except that it seems like a form of discrimination foisted on individuals because of statistics.
Click to expand...

It's discrimination to not put someone in a higher school than they could get into otherwise? If that was the case shouldn't we all be put into Ivy League/Stanford?
 
cawacko said:
It's discrimination to not put someone in a higher school than they could get into otherwise? If that was the case shouldn't we all be put into Ivy League/Stanford?
Click to expand...

Everybody doesn't want to go Ivy League or Stanford. It's not all or nothing. Parents, guidance counselors, friends etc. all have influence over where a kid goes to school.
 
christiefan915 said:
Everybody doesn't want to go Ivy League or Stanford. It's not all or nothing. Parents, guidance counselors, friends etc. all have influence over where a kid goes to school.
Click to expand...

Agreed but we were talking specifically about using race as points (or negative points in the case of Asians) which is what AA does in factoring in who gets accepted
 
cawacko said:
The only two groups it would apply to are athletes and legacies. We here it debated all the time about athletes. See Josh Rosen's most recent comments and the response to that.

When we think legacies we usually think white parents and kids. The truth is white kids who families can pay full cost aren't going to get as much sympathy or concern if their kids don't do well.

It goes back to what is your goal with AA? There are multiple studies and stories out from liberal sources that say it's not effective public policy today (for Universities) based on results. Others want the program no matter the results because it represents something bigger.
Click to expand...

That's because the VAST number of legacy admissions are decidedly white. You speak as if college admissions don't have its own built-in affirmative action for whites.

80% of all black judges in the US, 70 percent of all black dentists and doctors, 50 percent of black engineers and public school teachers, and 35 percent of black lawyers all graduated from HBCU's.

Some of the brightest and best Black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, and black multi-millionaire / billionaire entrepreneurs graduated from HBCU's.

Point is, unlike what you suggest, it was never a question of capability nor intelligence. It was about admission.

Your arguments about AA aren't solely based on an article. You don't support the program .. period. Based on that obvious truth, it's more than a bit curious why you talk about black students while ignoring / making excuses for the biggest beneficiaries of the program .. and it isn't just white women who benefit most from the program .. so do white men or anyone else married to the women who benefit.

Your constant moaning about black students damages your credibility on this issue.
 
And to be clear I would love to see more black (and Hispanic) kids go to college. I'm not coming from a position of F them. But a program that was designed over 40 years ago doesn't guarantee to be the most effective today and the numbers bear that out.
 
cawacko said:
And to be clear I would love to see more black (and Hispanic) kids go to college. I'm not coming from a position of F them. But a program that was designed over 40 years ago doesn't guarantee to be the most effective today and the numbers bear that out.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like you do.

You've turned the entire argument about AA into black students .. ignoring the obvious.
 
blackascoal said:
That's because the VAST number of legacy admissions are decidedly white. You speak as if college admissions don't have its own built-in affirmative action for whites.

80% of all black judges in the US, 70 percent of all black dentists and doctors, 50 percent of black engineers and public school teachers, and 35 percent of black lawyers all graduated from HBCU's.

Some of the brightest and best Black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, and black multi-millionaire / billionaire entrepreneurs graduated from HBCU's.

Point is, unlike what you suggest, it was never a question of capability nor intelligence. It was about admission.

Your arguments about AA aren't solely based on an article. You don't support the program .. period. Based on that obvious truth, it's more than a bit curious why you talk about black students while ignoring / making excuses for the biggest beneficiaries of the program .. and it isn't just white women who benefit most from the program .. so do white men or anyone else married to the women who benefit.

Your constant moaning about black students damages your credibility on this issue.
Click to expand...

White women don't need AA. The program should be killed for that reason alone. Millions more women go to college than men. White women need no advantages.

I've said before the biggest beneficiaries if we are going that route should be based on economics.

What I spoke on before in terms of black and Hispanic students are the results of Prop 209 in California, before and after. This is the data that's out there. I didn't make it up.
 
After Prop 209 Asians make up 40% of students at UCLA and 43% at Cal. The Ivey's saw that and that's why they assign negative points to Asians which is why there is the lawsuit against Harvard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top