|
White Only Scholarship Fund at BU (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
And how does the anti-affirmative action crowd feel about legacy entrances such as Bush and the like?
I have to admit that my views are slowly moving away from being pro-affirmative action for so many years, but it is a slow process. However, I do think it would only be fair that legacy entrances (i.e. your mommy and/or daddy are alumni) should be equally crossed out as much as race or ethnicity. Would anyone care to disagree, and if so, why? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And how does the anti-affirmative action crowd feel about legacy entrances such as Bush and the like?
I have to admit that my views are slowly moving away from being pro-affirmative action for so many years, but it is a slow process. However, I do think it would only be fair that legacy entrances (i.e. your mommy and/or daddy are alumni) should be equally crossed out as much as race or ethnicity. Would anyone care to disagree, and if so, why? |
Mixed views. I can certainly see the side of the argument that claims that students are getting into schools that they otherwise might not be accepted into. I can say that I got accepted to a school that would've otherwise been quite a stretch for me had it not been for the fact that a sibling was already attending. I think at the end of they day, provided a student can hack it at a school academically, I do not have any serious problems with legacy programs.
Now, with respect the legacy program and its difference between scholarships--a couple of points:
1. Colleges and Universities obviously have a vested interest in taking in money, building their endowments, etc., so that they can continue to improve their ranking and the quality of the education they can offer. Given that their alumni are generally their most dependable and significant contributors, it makes obvious sense to pander to them a bit, even if it means accepting a student who might've been on the fence, or just on the other side of it. It's like a good business relationship--you maintain your network and it is mutually beneficial.
2. Colleges and Universities have a vested interest in maintaining/improving their overall ranking (as stated above), so it does not behoove them to just accept a second-rate student just because his/her family may have donated a few extra bucks. Obviously as more money is on the line, more exceptions will be made, but a university isn't going to dilute their classes with bad apples in any pervasive manner that I could see. If they do, why would anyone want to go there? Isn't the prestige in the quality of the education, not the names of the people who attend?
3. If a college or university is private, do they not reserve the right to admit who they please? If they are public, can anyone show a study that shows that the amount of legacy admissions that otherwise might not have been accepted are significant or material relative to the number of non-merit, non-need based scholarships available?
4. Edit: I'd add that legacy programs are, in theory, color blind/race blind, so it's not exactly and apples-to-apples comparison, though I still think it's a relevant debate. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Who said that? In that sentence you have managed to comingle economic status and race when the point of the argument was to isolate the two issues and toss out the race-based portion.
|
True, you can strike the first part. My point was that minorities tend to be underprivileged. Also Caucasians being the majority of the population in the US (in general even if they are the minority in a few places), if scholarships were to be race blind the proportions of scholarships would not be balanced due to the fact that by default there are more whites than minorities. So even if we turn the scholarships into race blind grants the minorities would once again be on the losing side of things.
I understand you're argument that they should earn they're scholarships but minorities tend to have lower income than even poor white people. Now i can't find the numbers at the moment, and i'm sleepy and just finished an exam, ill look for them later. But on average even when a white family is poor they have more benefits than minorities. Due to this it's is usually harder for minorities to 'achieve' enough to earn a scholarship by merit. This is why there is affirmative action. Even if in principle i think it's a good idea to have race blind scholarships, due to the overrepresentation of caucasians in the US it would be unfair to the minorities. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
True, you can strike the first part. My point was that minorities tend to be underprivileged. Also Caucasians being the majority of the population in the US (in general even if they are the minority in a few places), if scholarships were to be race blind the proportions of scholarships would not be balanced due to the fact that by default there are more whites than minorities. So even if we turn the scholarships into race blind grants the minorities would once again be on the losing side of things. |
More scholarships, numerically, should go to white people than minorities, because they are the majority. If 60% of college aged people are white, white people should get roughly 60% of the scholarships. Just because minorities get less as a number doesn't put them on the "losing side of things." It puts them equal, not behind. What you're advocating is giving them additional benefits, which requires you to take them from the majority simply based on race. Also, I have no idea where you're getting this notion that poor minorities are worse off than poor whites. Maybe it's based on where poor minorities live compared to poor whites (rural vs. urban), but other than that, I don't know how you can make that statement.
Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based. |
Right. Except when you have merit based scholarships that are targeted at specific races/ethnicities (or limit their applicant pools to said groups). |
|
|
| LazFX |
I see nothing wrong with it....in 20 years Hispanics will be damn near take over! Sooooooooooo like i said, I see nothing wrong.
Viva la Raza!! :toothless |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
More scholarships, numerically, should go to white people than minorities, because they are the majority. If 60% of college aged people are white, white people should get roughly 60% of the scholarships. Just because minorities get less as a number doesn't put them on the "losing side of things." It puts them equal, not behind. What you're advocating is giving them additional benefits, which requires you to take them from the majority simply based on race. Also, I have no idea where you're getting this notion that poor minorities are worse off than poor whites. Maybe it's based on where poor minorities live compared to poor whites (rural vs. urban), but other than that, I don't know how you can make that statement.
|
Yes, i say it because i believe that white people are still more privileged in the US than minorities. The playing field is not leveled so minorities need an little extra help. And as far as where i draw my comparison from, poor whites suffer less from stereotyping than do minorities, because even though they're poor they're not as salient as minorities. You may think that this is not a big deal, and that they should just suck it up and get to it, but it's been shown that being the target of stereotypes can cause decrease in performance on tests causing minorities to loose out on 'merit' based financial aid (Stereotype Threat). I think this bit of extra help will in the long wrong help the states more than do it any harm.
| quote: |
Lastly, you guys are combining need-based financial grants with scholarships, which are merit based. |
Wasn't aware that there was this difference. If so the need base grants should cover the extra help needed by minorities that i argue for. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Yes, i say it because i believe that white people are still more privileged in the US than minorities. The playing field is not leveled so minorities need an little extra help. And as far as where i draw my comparison from, poor whites suffer less from stereotyping than do minorities, because even though they're poor they're not as salient as minorities. You may think that this is not a big deal, and that they should just suck it up and get to it, but it's been shown that being the target of stereotypes can cause decrease in performance on tests causing minorities to loose out on 'merit' based financial aid (Stereotype Threat). I think this bit of extra help will in the long wrong help the states more than do it any harm. |
Don't you think that being on the side where you don't benefit from affirmative action could have a similar negative psychological effect on white people, who as mentioned in LazFX's comment, will be the minority in a short matter of years? Also, at that point, will we completely reverse affirmative action to help whites who have become the minority?
| quote: | | Wasn't aware that there was this difference. If so the need base grants should cover the extra help needed by minorities that i argue for. |
The school that I went to only gave out need based financial aid and any scholarships that my fellow classmates may have had came from private foundations, not my school. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Don't you think that being on the side where you don't benefit from affirmative action could have a similar negative psychological effect on white people, who as mentioned in LazFX's comment, will be the minority in a short matter of years? Also, at that point, will we completely reverse affirmative action to help whites who have become the minority?
|
But that's the thing, people don't realize affirmative action has been around for ages, only it's been for white people. It's only recently that other races have been benefiting from affirmative action. I think it will get to a point where it will not be necessary anymore but you have to remember that minorities in the states are playing catch up in an environment ridden with disadvantages. And as far as negative psychological effects from whites not getting affirmative action there could be some, but whites are in general not subjected to stereotype threat, unless they belong to some salient group (fat, 'white trash', etc...).
| quote: |
The school that I went to only gave out need based financial aid and any scholarships that my fellow classmates may have had came from private foundations, not my school. |
Well im not very well versed as to how this system works in the US. Certainly i think that a mix of both need based and merit based financial aid would be optimal. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Actually, I know tons of people, who go to school with me, that told me how much harder it is to get into school/get aid if you're white. I'm not sure what my views on affirmative action are, as I'm not sure if there really is a need for it anymore, but I think it's pretty damn unfair to have a much harder time getting an education/funding for it just because you're white. Don't know about you guys, but I know I'd be pretty pissed off about it if I were white. |
|
|
| BiG-_BoSS |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
I see nothing wrong with it....in 20 years Hispanics will be damn near take over! Sooooooooooo like i said, I see nothing wrong.
Viva la Raza!! :toothless |
you shouldn't be proud. Those people coming from Mexico are of the inferior kind. They will ruin the US. And as a result, the US will have a surge in hate crimes. Thank you, mexicans.
And another thing. It isn't in twenty years, it is in 44yrs, when the US will have more people of hispanics. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by BiG-_BoSS
you shouldn't be proud. Those people coming from Mexico are of the inferior kind. They will ruin the US. And as a result, the US will have a surge in hate crimes. Thank you, mexicans.
And another thing. It isn't in twenty years, it is in 44yrs, when the US will have more people of hispanics. |
Wow i can't believe you just said that. I hope you're being sarcastic. People being inferior? So you're presupposing that some other people are superior no? Good thing modern racism was supposed to be subtle. |
|
|
|
|
