::begins setting up argument::Where does the cycle of poverty begin?
Quote from: mugatu on April 21, 2007, 04:16:16 PM::begins setting up argument::Where does the cycle of poverty begin?It begins in education and based on history, but if education was adjusted and the home was focused on education and environment also less focused on other things, then education would and should be the equalizer. Everyone is socialized through 5 major arenas; Home, School, Religion, Government, can't remember the last one. Educationwould work better if the home environment were fixed, but yea poverty starts at the home and with education or lack there of.
I know as a URM that if I can study enough to get a 3.7 and 165, then I will get into Harvard So what's my motivation to get a 3.9 and 175?
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
Quote from: Miss P on April 21, 2007, 07:00:17 PMQuote from: bosco1385 on April 21, 2007, 04:04:31 PMI know as a URM that if I can study enough to get a 3.7 and 165, then I will get into Harvard So what's my motivation to get a 3.9 and 175? You are a URM?No - sorry I didn't mean to imply that...just speaking hypothetically.
Quote from: bosco1385 on April 21, 2007, 04:04:31 PMI know as a URM that if I can study enough to get a 3.7 and 165, then I will get into Harvard So what's my motivation to get a 3.9 and 175? You are a URM?
I agree with what I think is the overall point the proponents of AA are making on this board: bringing races together is good. Having a more equal society in terms of race is good.Struggles....my problem is not with a poor black kid with a 165 who "climbed mountains" getting into Harvard over a "privileged wealthy white kid" with a 175. If that black kid can talk about the mountains he climbed, and how that can add to the learning of others at Harvard, then fine let him in over the privileged white kid, because he'll add a different viewpoint that people at Harvard will benefit from. But that same opportunity isn't open to a poor white kid with a 170 who climbed mountains to get there. In addition, there are plenty of privileged URMs with 165s that can offer less than that poor white kid to the classroom discussion, but will get in over that poor white kid with a 170 who worked his ass off. Say in this country of about 300 million people, there's going to be 50 million "rich" people, 100 million "middle class" people, and 150 million "poor" people. Assuming those numbers are going to stay the same, why do I care what the color of the skin is of the 150 million poor people? Why is it better to have 50 million poor whites and 100 million poor minorities, as opposed to 150 million poor minorities? (this is kinda a weird and probably stupid way of demonstrating what I'm trying to say, but do you know what I mean?)And this is all assuming that 1) URMS benefit from AA as a whole and 2) that racial awareness, respect, tolerance, etc are increased by AA. I think in general AA is probably a good thing for that second notion of awareness and respect of other races, cultures, etc. But there is also oftentimes resentment by whites towards URMs, when the whites miss out on a job, or a college or law school admission, etc in favor of a URM with lower numbers. I think bringing different races together is overall a good thing, and AA is a good step toward this goal, but the positive effects are also mitigated by the fact that so many whites get angry and say things like "If I was black, I wouldn't have been rejected from Harvard," and turn that anger at being rejected from Harvard into an anger directed at URMs. I don't agree with these people, but anyone who's been on a college campus knows it exists.And again, I'm not sure that lowering the standards for URMs will benefit URMs in the long run. It's this paternalistic aspect of AA that I have the biggest problem with. I know as a URM that if I can study enough to get a 3.7 and 165, then I will get into Harvard So what's my motivation to get a 3.9 and 175? Keep in mind that I know admissions is not solely a numbers thing, and that people aren't only motivated by grades and getting into good colleges, law schools, etc, but it's the easiest way to give examples.So I'm just not sure that AA is a good way to accomplish what I see as it's two goals 1) bringing races together to increase awareness, respect, tolerance, etc 2) benefiting URMs
Well, from my point of view there's no true detriment cause by AA. I believe in equality and for things to get closer to equal some get pulled back and some get pushed up. Which, is not entirely "fair" if your not the one reaping the benefits. However, there's a greater good here. Yes, is unfair if some over priveledged wealhty white kid gets pushed out of their spot in school X (if that's even the reality of what happens, and I'm not saying it is). But, that poor black kid who climbed mountains to get there is just as deserving of the spot, even if that means a few less points on the LSAT. If the LSAT can even be used as a good measurement or predictor of a minorities qualifications to go to law school. It will take years and years to change society into one that brings up equal black and whites in terms of education. And small steps along the way help. Its not so much an individual thing, that white kid vs that black kid. Its more a macro picture, there's no detriment to society for giving that URM an extra push, but there's possibly a detriment to that losing idividual....In fact, the more and more URMs that get in push us somewhere closer to a more equal society. Whats on the other side of that coin? there's a few less spot for whites? doesn't seem like much detriment to me.
Page created in 0.767 seconds with 18 queries.