I would think minority students would be insulted to be let in just because of their race—or to be left wondering if that were the main factor in their acceptance,—as if that's the only way they're expected to get in.
Give all schools equal funding and support and you will get a naturally diverse student body. Keep funneling money only to areas full of conservative, white, middle class constituents, and their children will be the ones who dominate colleges.
Until that happens, I think it profoundly unfair to admit students based on anything other than academic merit.
On 5/1/2006 3:16:27 PM redleg wrote: i think "diversity" is overrated. it's more important to admit people based on merit.
On 5/1/2006 3:20:00 PM redleg wrote: what i am trying to say is that diversity isn't important enough to be forced. if it happens on its own that's great, but we should not resort to discrimination in order to have diversity.
On 5/1/2006 3:46:38 PM grrlygirl wrote: But diversity IS important, and especially so when talking about government.
I think these 3 quotes are a perfect example of just how complicated an issue this is. Let's say you have room for 100 freshmen (yeah, I know, that's a Hell of a small university). The top 100 applicants are White and the 101st is Black. Is it reasonable to say, "Gee, maybe we ought to diversify and let this 101st candidate in over someone else"? Yeah, I think so. Is it fair to that 100th-ranked kid who is going to get jumped? No. But where do you draw th
...the line? I submit that it should be drawn in different places according to different circumstances. Anyone suggesting that it is as simple as... well, that it is remotely simple at all- that person is simple himself or herself. It's much more complicated than that. Fielding a baseball team is not as simple as starting the best 9 hitters in your line-up. You need to fit people into positions, both in the batting order and in the field. If you have a guy who can't hit a lick, but he can run down every single ball hit to center field and make a bull's eye throw to the cut-off man, he's going to play ahead of the guy who hits pretty well but can't field or throw worth a lick. On a college campus, the experiences inherent to people based on the socially created phenomenon of, say, race, can contribute to the overall mission of the school.
If the college is allowed to consider diversity of experience and a different worldview as a qualification, I agree. Otherwise, you're basically just sticking with the hardline, narrow view of what makes a college student.
i dont see how this is very different than a university or US college having a quota saying a certain percentage have to be foreign... which most already have do they not? Therefore isnt that already prioritising some before others despite abilities?
I don't think that it should be 100% based on brains. If you grew up in a rough neighborhood with a horrible education system, it's a hell of a lot harder to succeed than it is in a rich town with state of the art schools.
They should take into account what kind of a school the applicant came from, but I am totally against any kind of racial quota system. That's blatantly racist.
On 5/1/2006 7:02:27 PM UncleLaughie wrote: The top 100 applicants are White and the 101st is Black. Is it reasonable to say, "Gee, maybe we ought to diversify and let this 101st candidate in over someone else"? Yeah, I think so. Is it fair to that 100th-ranked kid who is going to get jumped? No.
How can you say it's "fair" if you yourself admit that it isn't? "Fairness" isn't relative; it can't be fair to one person and not fair to the other. That's the very definition of unfairness. So, no, it's not reasonable at all.
If it came down to something other than academic acheivement, such as, two kids are equally qualified, but the black kid doesn't have as much money as the white kid, then I think you have a "fair" argument for letting in the black kid in the name of fairness. But being of a certain race isn't in itself an asset to any college, and to say it is one is actually pretty racist.
On 5/4/2006 7:14:16 PM kitten_soup wrote: How can you say it's "fair" if you yourself admit that it isn't?
What I should have said was that it certainly *seems* unfair to that 100th White kid, and that the rankings, 1-101, were based solely on the strict standards proposed earlier in this thread. I should have said that because there is a disconnect between what some people will call "fair" and what is actually fair, or right, in this situation, according to the goals the school set forth. If I'm a university admissions director and my standards result in such an imbalanced selection from all the candidates, demographically speaking, I'm thinking something is wrong with my standards, not that the excluded people simply need to suck it up, get over it, and work harder.
"I would think minority students would be insulted to be let in just because of their race."
It's not about race. There seems to be a general assumption in this thread that it's about race, but race wouldn't even be commented upon.
As it stands, the system here says the 100 (for example) best students, irregardless of school, will get into a course. What they might otherwise say is that they HAVE to take 20 students from government schools, even if the top 20 government school students get lower scores and it's cutting out higher scoring private school students.
Would it really encourage diversity, though? Wouldn't you just get parents sending their kids to tutors to get them into accelerated/exam-entry public schools so that all the government school students came from that same background, anyway?
And also, in the US, aren't public schools in affluent areas sometimes good, also?