Hypothetical: Additional Enrollemnt for Minorities in Schools

Redress said:

This is a hypothetical, though it may very well be something some schools do. Please read the situation and respond accordingly.

A college decides to increase it's overall enrollment by 100 students, but those 100 students would be selected only from minorities. All other enrollment would be decided based on the same process as in the past, with the 100 students being the best of the minority students who would not normally get accepted at the school due to grades or test scores or whatever.

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

Click to expand...

This is unfair to the white students as well as other achieving (grade wise) minorities.

You've pointed out two issues: Race being a factor in acceptance and lower-scores being overlooked.

Entry Scores:
When grades and pre-existing knowledge as a standard requirement for entry is overlooked or put aside intentionally then those who do already qualify and would benefit most from said available courses are being shafted.
For those who don't, grade wise, qualify for immediate enrollment - they should take the necessary steps to step *up* to a college entry-level first so, when in class, they can actually keep up and have more success.
Seats are limited, giving favor to under-achieving students will make it more difficult for everyone.

Race:
Race is not permitted as a criteria for determining if you're going to hire someone - likewise - it should not be permitted as qualification for entry into any type of program or activity. That is the basis of discrimination, even if the guise is to help out someone who's "purple" or "blue"

Redress said:

A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, at its truest sense, its still discrimination as its setting aside a block of enrollment for people that fit a very specific requirement. Now, that being said, ALL enrollment is discrimination in some way as you're discriminating against those with low test scores, low grades, etc. I have far more issues with discrimination based on race, which is something that you are born as and is impossible to change, than I do with things such as grades or even incomes because, while its harder to potentially change those things, it IS possible.

I agree with Caine I think. If it was 100 spots for "low income" that basically was an assisted tuition program to make it possible for them to attend when money is the only thing that would've disqualified them, I'd have really little issue with it. It'd essentially be the equivilent of the school giving a shcolarship. If it was instead 100 spots for "low income" people only, and with lower requirement for entry based on that low income, then I'd may feel a bit worse about it but not as strongly as I would likely with race or sex based discrimination.

And yes, this isn't just about race. JMU at one point was I believe rated as 65% female students, making males a significant minority on the school. I'd have issues, even though it would've benefited me, if JMU decided to set aside spots specifically for males only.

Now here's where I'll throw some people off. I don't mind to much, especially if there's some kind of point based system to rank people once they're over the minimum requirements, that takes into account things like race, sex, out of state/country status, low income, etc in the hopes of providing a diverse student base in hopes that such will add to the education, both in life and academia, of students more than simply having the best test takers present. As long as its not a major factor in the decision, equal or less to something like the entry paper many want you to write. Something that may break a tie, but not likely to put someone over another candidate whose better all around.

I do see the advantage of having a diverse college experience...one with people who may not be the best test takers but are great thinkers. People from various income levels and thus various experiences. People from other countries or even other states, bringing different culture to the campus. Different races and sexes, allowing people to be able to interact as they would in much of society. There IS a definite advantage to that, however not such an advantage that you should actively attempt to pick fully underqualified individuals over qualified ones or that you should punish people for the color of their skin or their gender by disallowing them entry based souly on that fact.

Redress said:

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

Click to expand...

They would not have a ligitimate grievance while discrimination against minorities still exists. Society is being deprived of what these minorities can potentially add to it, while the minorities are not receiving the opportunities needed to develop their potential.

Areopagitican said:

Why can't minorities compete on an even playing field, again?

Click to expand...

Again?!

When did they ever get the opportunity to compete in an even playing field, in the first place? Positive discrimination has to force an even playing field, or else one wont happen.

Mell said:

Again?!

When did they ever get the opportunity to compete in an even playing field, in the first place? Positive discrimination has to force an even playing field, or else one wont happen.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you didn't just use one of the most idiotic phrases out there today - "Positive Discrimination".

Not to mention, “force an even playing field”? The very fact that the word “force” is involved means the playing field isn’t even.

It’s impossible to force such a thing.

The only way to get anywhere near a level playing field is to work at providing an equal K – 12 educations to everyone, no matter the area they live in.

But the main issue I have with discriminating for minorities (which is the true meaning of the so-called “positive discrimination) is that it implies they can’t make it on their own.

The Mark said:

But the main issue I have with discriminating for minorities (which is the true meaning of the so-called “positive discrimination) is that it implies they can’t make it on their own.

Click to expand...

Well, having experienced discrimination against myself because of my gender in the workplace, I do think the protection of things such as positive discrimination is needed. It is often the case that it matters more which gender you are, or which race you are, then what your abilities and qualifications are, in a workplace. And, taking any kind of action including reporting incidents takes more courage than those who have experienced repeated gender and race unfairness have left. We need something more than us as individuals, to stand up for us, to prevent things such as feelings of defeat and burn out.

Also, minorities need something to put them into certain positions, in order for their presence in these positions to ever become mainstream. I still remember the 80s, when females students were mocked by male students to harassment levels, because of how they looked in the protective clothing they needed to perform science experiments for example. This harassment in schools no longer happens, because it has become normal for male students to share a class with female student. This did not happen, without the relentless and dedicated work of womens rights groups.

Caine said:

I understand this. But I don't believe it is as important as providing education to those who have proven themselves to have a higher chance of sucess. That is, if you are a college that is selective based upon Merit.

Click to expand...

SAT does not prove this. Merit is relative.

Ahh the mantra of the race baiter.

Click to expand...

Just sayin' biggots and xenophobes won't be comfortable in a racially/cultural mixed environment. Do you disagree?

Upper black/hispanic middle class kids have an advantage over urban kids when it comes to gpa and SAT.

Click to expand...

Sure. And they have an advantage over rural whites. Good colleges take that into consideration when they review transcripts and grades. Coming from an upper class school district can be a handicap unless you're at the top of the class.

Mell said:

Well, having experienced discrimination against myself because of my gender in the workplace, I do think the protection of things such as positive discrimination is needed. It is often the case that it matters more which gender you are, or which race you are, then what your abilities and qualifications are, in a workplace. And, taking any kind of action including reporting incidents takes more courage than those who have experienced repeated gender and race unfairness have left. We need something more than us as individuals, to stand up for us, to prevent things such as feelings of defeat and burn out.

Click to expand...

So called “positive discrimination” is not the correct way to solve the issues you mention, IMO.

Harsh punishment for violation of anti-discrimination policies and strict guidelines for what can be used as determining factors when choosing people for a job, raises, and promotion is a better method, IMO.

“Positive discrimination” is negative discrimination from someone’s point of view. Which is why I think the phrase is stupid.

Mell said:

Also, minorities need something to put them into certain positions, in order for their presence in these positions to ever become mainstream.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree.
I personally think rules and regulations designed to eliminate discrimination are a far better option than more discrimination.

Mell said:

I still remember the 80s, when female students were mocked by male students to harassment levels because of how they looked in the protective clothing they needed to perform science experiments, for example. This harassment in schools no longer happens, because it has become normal for male students to share a class with female student. This did not happen, without the relentless and dedicated work of women’s rights groups.

Click to expand...

I think it likely that rules and regulations preventing harassment had something to do with it.

Mell said:

Again?!

When did they ever get the opportunity to compete in an even playing field, in the first place? Positive discrimination has to force an even playing field, or else one wont happen.

Click to expand...

Translation: Aww da poor poor minorities need our pity and sympathy so we can artificially prop them up.

Redress said:

This is a hypothetical, though it may very well be something some schools do. Please read the situation and respond accordingly.

A college decides to increase it's overall enrollment by 100 students, but those 100 students would be selected only from minorities. All other enrollment would be decided based on the same process as in the past, with the 100 students being the best of the minority students who would not normally get accepted at the school due to grades or test scores or whatever.

Would white students and potential white students have a legitimate grievance that this is unfair to them?

Click to expand...

This would be totally fine...especially if your goal was to embarass and minimize the accomplishments of the minority students that busted their ass and qualified under legitimate circumstances. That way they could ALL be judged and seen as chronic underachievers, incapable of success without lowering standards.

And hey...maybe we could do the same thing at med schools. Mind you...in order to not let them fail you would have to socially promote them regardless of their qualifications. And dont worry about whether or not the students walked around knowing they were inferior...maybe they could have special buses for them....and special classes...

And hopefully...you would get one of those as your doctor...

Oh...wait...this is just about whether or not the white students would have a legit beef...not if it is a bad idea...

Redress said:

A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

Click to expand...

The role that finances play in getting a decent education is in favor of those who can afford to pay their way in.
Money, also, is not something you're born with as a permanent part of you - unlike gender and race.

Mell said:

Also, minorities need something to put them into certain positions, in order for their presence in these positions to ever become mainstream. I still remember the 80s, when females students were mocked by male students to harassment levels, because of how they looked in the protective clothing they needed to perform science experiments for example. This harassment in schools no longer happens, because it has become normal for male students to share a class with female student. This did not happen, without the relentless and dedicated work of womens rights groups.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. The idea that minorities need some arbitrary advantage in addition to merit to achieve success is racist in of itself. That statement implies that by default many minorities are unable to compete solely based on merit. Using your example, one could argue that this legislation artificially increased in the percentage of women in a status quo male culture. By admitting students who fall short on merit but gain admission because of a civil rights law only serves to validate resentment when men see women who possess inferior educational qualifications. In addition, the implication that minorities need an extra bump reduces the legitimacy of individuals who would have achieved admission without a given civil rights law. If we want to see genuine respect for minorities, society must first recognize the honest merit of minority students.

Redress said:

A kind of follow up question: If we changed it from minority students to low income students, would it be unfair to middle class/upper class students?

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be unfair to middle and upper class students. Although less politically loaded, income does not generate merit. Sure, low income students might have to work harder than middle/high income students because they cant afford professional private tutors (as one example). Overcoming economic adversity generates valuable work ethic skills, but a low income status itself does not generate merit by default. By avoiding an system of entitlement for low income candidates we predicate success on individual characteristics, not economic situation. The fact that America provides for a child education for primary and secondary school, for 12 years, is sufficient time to demonstrate the student's worthiness of a university level education, regardless of economic factors. In addition, the upper class already contributes significantly more revenue to public education than low income families because taxes (such as federal income tax) are generally progressive.

While the results of affirmative minority rights might create a superficial sense of social or economic diversity, the societal harm created by implying inadequacy is far more detrimental to the desired result.
Respectfully, HTTP

HTTP(Heh, just got the initials, if that was your intention), the idea is that, right now, minority students largely do not have the same opportunities prior to college. They tend to be poor, and live in poor areas, with lower quality schools, less attentive parents, a more disruptive environment. This is not insulting, it is simple fact. So the idea behind the 100 students from minorities would be to help those who started at a real disadvantage. Part of the intent of the question is whether helping those with a disadvantage is unfair to those without it.

Thank you all for the replies so far. I was worried that this thread would go bad, as so many that touch on race issues do, but you all have been very reasonable and measured in your responses.

The one issue I ran into while attending a community college in which ACT or SAT scores weren't equated when accepting students is that when you permit lesser-educated students into college level course it puts them in more of a disadvantage.

The instructor cannot tutor.
All entry level college students should have a grasp of grammar, spelling and other basic components of math and so on.
One should, also, know how to type . . . and so on.
These things should at least be brought up to level with the average entry-level student because when they're not it throws the entire balance of a class off.

I became a teacher's aid for a while and helped check countless essays - spelling and grammar were far more horrid than I thought possible, yet these students were in college level classes.
Essay after essay - small measures of improvement from the beginning to end of the semester but no one who was disadvantaged actually learned anything that would benefit them to advance to the next class - most had to repeat that same course.

If people were truly concerned with helping those who are predisposed to lesser-quality education then they should focus wholeheartedly on improving all other factors, first, in an effort to bump those students up to a college-entry level when they do enter college. You can't just toss them into the fray and hope they survive because they won't. It's quite cruel, honestly.

Aunt Spiker said:

The one issue I ran into while attending a community college in which ACT or SAT scores weren't equated when accepting students is that when you permit lesser-educated students into college level course it puts them in more of a disadvantage.

The instructor cannot tutor.
All entry level college students should have a grasp of grammar, spelling and other basic components of math and so on.
One should, also, know how to type . . . and so on.
These things should at least be brought up to level with the average entry-level student because when they're not it throws the entire balance of a class off.

I became a teacher's aid for a while and helped check countless essays - spelling and grammar were far more horrid than I thought possible, yet these students were in college level classes.
Essay after essay - small measures of improvement from the beginning to end of the semester but no one who was disadvantaged actually learned anything that would benefit them to advance to the next class - most had to repeat that same course.

If people were truly concerned with helping those who are predisposed to lesser-quality education then they should focus wholeheartedly on improving all other factors, first, in an effort to bump those students up to a college-entry level when they do enter college. You can't just toss them into the fray and hope they survive because they won't. It's quite cruel, honestly.

Click to expand...

Type? Really? God, when I went to college I was a 2 finger typer. I could maybe hit ten to twelve words a minute, and that not particularly accurately. And this was before home computers with printers or word processors...

Most larger colleges do offer remedial courses for people behind in certain areas, so there is a potential solution there.

I do agree that helping low income children should happen before college, and have made that point on these boards repeatedly.

Redress said:

HTTP(Heh, just got the initials, if that was your intention), the idea is that, right now, minority students largely do not have the same opportunities prior to college. They tend to be poor, and live in poor areas, with lower quality schools, less attentive parents, a more disruptive environment. This is not insulting, it is simple fact. So the idea behind the 100 students from minorities would be to help those who started at a real disadvantage. Part of the intent of the question is whether helping those with a disadvantage is unfair to those without it.

Thank you all for the replies so far. I was worried that this thread would go bad, as so many that touch on race issues do, but you all have been very reasonable and measured in your responses.

Click to expand...

And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.
Its also racist to assume that whites do not come from poor, uneducated, less than attentive parents and/or were raised in disruptive environments. For that explains about 75% of the whites in my hometown.

Caine said:

And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.
Its also racist to assume that whites do not come from poor, uneducated, less than attentive parents and/or were raised in disruptive environments. For that explains about 75% of the whites in my hometown.

Click to expand...

It's not an assumption they do, it's an assumption that it is more likely. Of course, when dealing with individuals, stats like that are meaningless.

Redress said:

HTTP(Heh, just got the initials, if that was your intention), the idea is that, right now, minority students largely do not have the same opportunities prior to college. They tend to be poor, and live in poor areas, with lower quality schools, less attentive parents, a more disruptive environment. This is not insulting, it is simple fact. So the idea behind the 100 students from minorities would be to help those who started at a real disadvantage. Part of the intent of the question is whether helping those with a disadvantage is unfair to those without it.

Thank you all for the replies so far. I was worried that this thread would go bad, as so many that touch on race issues do, but you all have been very reasonable and measured in your responses.

Click to expand...

As general argument of philosophy, perhaps I would start with a base admission of zero (or 1 or some other minimum number) and continually add 100 students under minority criteria? What if a institution with a 1% merit based student then decides to admit an additional 99% with disadvantaged criteria, this would be wrong? At what point between that institution and an educational institution admitting 99% students based on merit and 1% based on minority criteria is okay? Weather its the first, middle or the last 100 students admitted, that does not matter because all selected students receive admission to that educational institution. Suppose that you had admitted those 100 students based on merit and X of them would have been white. Those X number of students that are no longer candidates because of a racially discriminatory criteria. I can't justify that.

With respect to disadvantages I think its a state of mind. No middle/upper income student could reasonably claim that they had to do odd jobs in the summer to afford that new scientific calculator. Nor could middle/upper income student could legitimately claim they took school into their own hands by studying hard even when the parents were not supportive. The middle/upper income student could not claim that the choices that education presented overruled the temptation to deal drugs for a quick buck. The negative situations are being perpetuated by a self-pitying state of mind. They are two sides of the same coin. It could be used to empower and motivate or shoot down aspirations because of "limited opportunity."

As an anecdotal point the Boston, Massachusetts with the highest per-student spending ($16,879) yet produces a mediocre 57% high school graduation rate. Inversely Mesa, Arizona with the lowest per-student spending ($6,558) in the study boasts a 77% high school graduation rate. (http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/57EAC2158291FB1057F142C86F169A7F.gif)

More importantly, when you look spending and high school graduation rates there is only minimal correlation. Oddly enough, that minimal correlation shows that less money is better. Of the 25 the lowest spending districts, 20 have 50% graduations rates or better. The top 25 spending districts have 11 that exceed 50% graduation rates. (Forgive me if I made a mistake, I counted quickly. But its very clear from the graph you can see here: http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/57EAC2158291FB1057F142C86F169A7F.gif)

This would lead me to believe that not a matter of money, the students are limiting educational performance. This is supported by the Heritage Foundation's study finding that, "Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to similarly improved student performance." Depicted here: (http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/796DF8C7C231CFFE366308277E88CF57.gif )

I agree that, it takes a village to raise a child, but I think the village already contributed significantly and its time for the students to step up.

If there is a problem, any motivated individual can find the solution; but, the guy that sits and pouts never finds the answer.
Respectfully, HTTP


On a side note: This is a great study if you have time to read it. Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

HeresToThePoint said:

As general argument of philosophy, perhaps I would start with a base admission of zero (or 1 or some other minimum number) and continually add 100 students under minority criteria? What if a institution with a 1% merit based student then decides to admit an additional 99% with disadvantaged criteria, this would be wrong? At what point between that institution and an educational institution admitting 99% students based on merit and 1% based on minority criteria is okay? Weather its the first, middle or the last 100 students admitted, that does not matter because all selected students receive admission to that educational institution. Suppose that you had admitted those 100 students based on merit and X of them would have been white. Those X number of students that are no longer candidates because of a racially discriminatory criteria. I can't justify that.

Click to expand...

You are extending the hypothetical in directions which I did not intend, which is fine. However, the intention was that the exact same number of nonminoity students would be enrolled as before. It's not starting from zero, it's starting from some number larger(I live near Michigan State, so I was thinking in the 20k+ range, but that is really not important).

With respect to disadvantages I think its a state of mind. No middle/upper income student could reasonably claim that they had to do odd jobs in the summer to afford that new scientific calculator. Nor could middle/upper income student could legitimately claim they took school into their own hands by studying hard even when the parents were not supportive. The middle/upper income student could not claim that the choices that education presented overruled the temptation to deal drugs for a quick buck. The negative situations are being perpetuated by a self-pitying state of mind. They are two sides of the same coin. It could be used to empower and motivate or shoot down aspirations because of "limited opportunity."

Click to expand...

I commented on this a bit earlier. Statistics work on groups, not individuals. Poor people, in general, have more obstacles in place to a good education than wealthier students. On an individual level, it falls apart since each persons situation is different. It only works out on the aggregate.

As an anecdotal point the Boston, Massachusetts with the highest per-student spending ($16,879) yet produces a mediocre 57% high school graduation rate. Inversely Mesa, Arizona with the lowest per-student spending ($6,558) in the study boasts a 77% high school graduation rate. (http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/57EAC2158291FB1057F142C86F169A7F.gif)

More importantly, when you look spending and high school graduation rates there is only minimal correlation. Oddly enough, that minimal correlation shows that less money is better. Of the 25 the lowest spending districts, 20 have 50% graduations rates or better. The top 25 spending districts have 11 that exceed 50% graduation rates. (Forgive me if I made a mistake, I counted quickly. But its very clear from the graph you can see here: http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/57EAC2158291FB1057F142C86F169A7F.gif)

This would lead me to believe that not a matter of money, the students are limiting educational performance. This is supported by the Heritage Foundation's study finding that, "Taxpayers have invested considerable resources in the nation's public schools. However, ever-increasing funding of education has not led to similarly improved student performance." Depicted here: (http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/796DF8C7C231CFFE366308277E88CF57.gif )

Click to expand...

Some of this is new information to me, so thank you. The problems with these studies is that it is impossible to isolate variables. It does not make them wrong, only that it is not a good idea to draw conclusions from them.

I agree that, it takes a village to raise a child, but I think the village already contributed significantly and its time for the students to step up.

If there is a problem, any motivated individual can find the solution; but, the guy that sits and pouts never finds the answer.
Respectfully, HTTP

Click to expand...

I agree, individual motivation is always better than anything else. However, when looking at two people with the same level of motivation, the one with other advantages will rise above the other as a general(ie not 100 %) rule.

On a side note: This is a great study if you have time to read it. Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link, and for the well reasoned, well expressed response. I do not disagree with your view, nor am I 100 % sold on it. I kinda thought about this while thinking on a completely different subject(the recently announced "Gay Pride" month), and the question kinda grew in my mind.

Let me ask you the followup question I asked earlier in this thread: If instead of minority students, it was students from poor backgrounds, or rural backgrounds, or from school systems that traditionally lagged? How about special scholarships for minority students? Lastly, does public or private Colleges make a difference? Getting way off the original intent of this poll, but this is kinda the direction my mind is going with it now.

Redress said:

You are extending the hypothetical in directions which I did not intend, which is fine. However, the intention was that the exact same number of nonminoity students would be enrolled as before. It's not starting from zero, it's starting from some number larger(I live near Michigan State, so I was thinking in the 20k+ range, but that is really not important).

Click to expand...

Indeed that was the plan, its a legitimate argument tactic known as "reductio ad absurdum". Basically I'm reducing the reasoning to absurdity by revealing a flawed line of logic. The proposition is that racially discriminatory criteria, regardless if 1 or 100 students were admitted at any stage of the process, is unconditionally wrong.

Redress said:

I commented on this a bit earlier. Statistics work on groups, not individuals. Poor people, in general, have more obstacles in place to a good education than wealthier students. On an individual level, it falls apart since each persons situation is different. It only works out on the aggregate.
...
Let me ask you the followup question I asked earlier in this thread: If instead of minority students, it was students from poor backgrounds, or rural backgrounds, or from school systems that traditionally lagged?

Click to expand...

Yes I provided 2 anecdotes in my response, but I backed it up with statistical data showing that being in a poor school district does not effect education.

The study shows that the economic factor, with regard to education is not demonstrated to hold much water. Students with huge funding don't perform better than students with low funding. Its so much easier to blame a another or non-person than be personally accountable. Every mother and father (rich or poor) would want to believe that their kid isn't at fault for poor performance. And as is probably the case in America, the parents are happy to throw money at the problem to shrug off responsibility. I simply suggest a high degree of correlation between motivation and success. However, measuring motivation and success is highly subjective and for the moment, I doubt we will see such a study. But in the process of researching other possible factors, I've not seen much that contradicts that conclusion (economic factors being one of them).

In addition, I think the study does error in favor of the preposition because, the data is collected in the largest cities in the US. Cities are generally where high rates of delinquency/crime and have the highest concentrations of wealth disparity. This study uses the 50 largest cities in America to look into, that is a statistic that covers a wide range of circumstances. I haven't found a study that represents a bigger sample population.

I understand that you may not agree with the conclusion that student's motivations are purely to blame, certainly random violent acts and other issues are localized. It is certainly up for interpretation. I just see people like Revered Al Sharpton getting air time on the news, taking a constant victimized position and can only think how does this guy not even remotely think of solving the problem from within? Everything is someone else's fault?

Redress said:

How about special scholarships for minority students?

Click to expand...

As long as the scholarships are provided by private individuals I don't have much of an issue with them. People can do whatever they want with their money. If they want to alienate worthy submissions based on the color of their skin, thats their money and their choice. I'm also against legislating this kind of social change results in hasty laws, like Affirmative Action, probably hurts society more than it helps. I've defend this point in a response to hazlnut on page 2 of this thread.

That being said, personally I'm against racial discrimination both affirmative and negative forms because the logic is flawed. Is a scholarship that only allows African heritage submissions any better than a scholarship that denies Indian/Asian/Hispanic/European heritage? Its the exact same thing. Both scholarships deny certain groups eligibility solely based on race.

Redress said:

Lastly, does public or private Colleges make a difference? Getting way off the original intent of this poll, but this is kinda the direction my mind is going with it now.

Click to expand...

I think the data shows that private schools and voucher options are the way to go. By voting with our money we phase our educational institutions that provide poor educational service and move money into schools that provide funding to institutions with a high value. I'll keep the response to this question short (LoL) since its not the focus of this thread.

Cheers.
Respectfully, HTTP

Edit: Please read following post before reply.

Just a quick comment, as I should be in bed right now instead of still posting. What I meant by the problem with the studies on school funding not being entirely reliable due to not being able to isolate variables is best illustrated by an example. I live in Michigan, a small town. Detroit schools get the most money, Schools in Grand Rapids(next largest town) somewhat less, and in small towns like I live, significantly less. Detroit schools have among the worst records of any of the schools in the state(at least some years ago when I looked into this), the local school here somewhat better, and the Grand Rapids schools even better. The thing that factors in is that Grand Rapids is one of the nicer big cities, with even the ghettos having tree lined streets. The small town schools have an advantage that there is no real bad areas, and thus less disruption in classrooms, but don't have the overall buy power to buy good facilities, and Detroit suffers due to large areas with huge gang problems and schools where surviving is more of a goal than learning. There are just too many factors to really isolate one out as causal.

Before I forget, I want to make another point clear. When I refer to poor students, I am not talking about the funding for the school. You can take a school in a very poor neighborhood with active drug dealing and prostitution and gangs on the streets, and poor as much money as you want into the school there, and the students as a whole will do poorly. They are more worried about not getting caught up in gang troubles, not getting killed, their friends are dealing with high teen pregnancy rates, their parents are more likely to be in jail , or dropouts, or not particularly supportive. Vandalism and drug dealing are common problems in schools in these type areas.

I lived a year in Detroit, and a friend of mine who was still in High School went to a school for gifted students, and yet still had to pass through a metal detector, and if she took a book bag, the security guards would search it before she could even go into the school. And this was a good school. The stresses these kids had on them outside of just doing well in school was unreal. I grew up in a rural town in Michigan, and the worst thing we had to worry about in school was maybe getting into a fight.

So when I talk about poor areas, it's not to suggest the schools are underfunded, it's the area itself which does not lend itself well to education.

Redress said:

Edit: Please read following post before reply.

Just a quick comment, as I should be in bed right now instead of still posting. What I meant by the problem with the studies on school funding not being entirely reliable due to not being able to isolate variables is best illustrated by an example.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm saying the study takes in to account a wide range of situations to make a collective statement, that money does not guarantee a good school. Detroit is properly represented in the study because its a top 25 high spender and a failure with respect to graduation rates. The study wont represent all cases, but with respect areas like Detroit its consistent.

Redress said:

I live in Michigan, a small town. Detroit schools get the most money, Schools in Grand Rapids(next largest town) somewhat less, and in small towns like I live, significantly less. Detroit schools have among the worst records of any of the schools in the state(at least some years ago when I looked into this), the local school here somewhat better, and the Grand Rapids schools even better. The thing that factors in is that Grand Rapids is one of the nicer big cities, with even the ghettos having tree lined streets. The small town schools have an advantage that there is no real bad areas, and thus less disruption in classrooms, but don't have the overall buy power to buy good facilities, and Detroit suffers due to large areas with huge gang problems and schools where surviving is more of a goal than learning. There are just too many factors to really isolate one out as causal.
...
Before I forget, I want to make another point clear. When I refer to poor students, I am not talking about the funding for the school. You can take a school in a very poor neighborhood with active drug dealing and prostitution and gangs on the streets, and poor as much money as you want into the school there, and the students as a whole will do poorly. They are more worried about not getting caught up in gang troubles, not getting killed, their friends are dealing with high teen pregnancy rates, their parents are more likely to be in jail , or dropouts, or not particularly supportive. Vandalism and drug dealing are common problems in schools in these type areas.

I lived a year in Detroit, and a friend of mine who was still in High School went to a school for gifted students, and yet still had to pass through a metal detector, and if she took a book bag, the security guards would search it before she could even go into the school. And this was a good school. The stresses these kids had on them outside of just doing well in school was unreal. I grew up in a rural town in Michigan, and the worst thing we had to worry about in school was maybe getting into a fight.

So when I talk about poor areas, it's not to suggest the schools are underfunded, it's the area itself which does not lend itself well to education.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you agree that throwing more money at it is not going to improve the situation. So the question is: what does?

I think that poor student judgment in this case, propagates the problem. The appeal and glamour of a gangster life is highly promoted by the music industry. Add this to the profitability of illegal sale of drugs, in the short-term makes a life in a gang seem like the logical path to take. The student has the ultimate choice to choose between school and a gang no matter how you cut it. The students in such locations need to adjust their attitude toward education by becoming more informed of the long-term benefits, at the expense of a short-term gain. Its a choice between limited-term illegal income and long-term legitimate income. Same thing with sex - choose a life without a child by using protection or observing abstinence instead of short-term bliss. All these choices and countless others, when made correctly, build on one another to make a student eligible for higher education or a better life in general. Take these choices and multiply them by a few thousand students you increase the voice of student body resulting in a reduction a gang's life appeal.

Unfortunately, I think many parents in America tell their kids "you have to go to school, just because," or some other equally unsubstantial answer thinking the child won't understand. The answer should be something to the effect of, you go to school to get an education which is an investment in yourself. If you achieve X, Y, Z goal you can go start your own business, apply to a trade school, community college or university. If every student chose school over a gang life, gangs would become less of an issue. But for now, being in a gang is simply profitable in the short term.

Detroit certainly suffers from a gang issue and it plays an influential role in damaging the education process. To reduce gang influence, we should take away a large part of their business by legalizing and regulating the sale of "soft" drugs in legitimate store would severely limit the motivation for gangs to exist. No/less product, means less reason to protect a stash with illegally acquired weapons, means more kids are free to pursue education. But that's a topic for another thread.

Gangs and other external forces might be influential, but individual students have the ultimate choice and suffer the consequences of their own decisions.
Respectfully, HTTP

Aunt Spiker said:

The one issue I ran into while attending a community college in which ACT or SAT scores weren't equated when accepting students is that when you permit lesser-educated students into college level course it puts them in more of a disadvantage.

The instructor cannot tutor.
All entry level college students should have a grasp of grammar, spelling and other basic components of math and so on.
One should, also, know how to type . . . and so on.
These things should at least be brought up to level with the average entry-level student because when they're not it throws the entire balance of a class off.

I became a teacher's aid for a while and helped check countless essays - spelling and grammar were far more horrid than I thought possible, yet these students were in college level classes.
Essay after essay - small measures of improvement from the beginning to end of the semester but no one who was disadvantaged actually learned anything that would benefit them to advance to the next class - most had to repeat that same course.

If people were truly concerned with helping those who are predisposed to lesser-quality education then they should focus wholeheartedly on improving all other factors, first, in an effort to bump those students up to a college-entry level when they do enter college. You can't just toss them into the fray and hope they survive because they won't. It's quite cruel, honestly.

Click to expand...

Many universities have remedial programs. They are looked down on by the professors (because liberal professors really are a bunch of classist snobs, if you want the gospel truth) and are taught by adjuncts. Most of the professors simply believe those kids dont belong in college and they look down on the students, the adjuncts and the program itself. The classes offer no credit but still charge the same. They teach the same materials they didnt get in high school in the same ineffective manner to the same ineffective students.

You are 100% correct. The change needs to become institutional through the elementary, jr High, and High School programs. it would be exceptionally beneficial if the changes involved effective parental support.

Caine said:

And its highly racist of anyone in society to assume that because someone is a minority they came from a poor, uneducated, and have less attentive parents, and that they were raised in a disruptive environment.

Click to expand...

I dont think anyone would presume that. But, wealth does not eliminate prejudice against one because of ones skin colour or gender. It does provide more opportunites and a safety net to help overcome difficulties, but it does not prevent race or gender prejudice.