captainawesome
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,568
- Reaction score
- 487
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
why then did you add race to your argument if a black kid has the same advantage as a white kid in a rural area race had nothing to do with it
Graduation rate. UT has a good graduation rate. About half of all admissions graduate in 4 years.
Base on your post, it appears affirmative action in admissions has increased the number of "minorities" accepted into UT. Is that diversity reflected in the graduation rates.
Meaning are those minorities who receive special preference for admission actually completing their college education and graduating?
The law is to benefit rural whites. It does what it was designed to. The op is about race. Rural whites benefit from our college admissions.
Because standardized testing is bull****.
That is not "good", it is below average for top universities, since many more are taking 5 and 6 years to graduate.
http://www.utexas.edu/graduation-rates/documents/GRAD-REPORT.pdf
why does it only benefit rural whites? doesn't it also benefit rural blacks?
Yes it is wrong.
The reason is to battle the long term effects of institutional racism that were built into our laws and culture after hundreds if years of slavery then Jim Crow.
I would make a Texas crack, but UTA has a pretty respectable business school. It's not U of M (then again, not many are) but it's still pretty respectable.
I can understand why she may think that her race is a negative factor, but she has one thing going for her - vagina.
You want to talk about getting dicked over by AA? Be a white male.
Right the list is things they are supposed to know.
It doesnt just benefit whites. It is just most of the people who benefit are white. Rural Tx is mostly white.
I don't know, perhaps this link will help:
http://www.utexas.edu/graduation-rates/documents/GRAD-REPORT.pdf
Oh please. AA doesnt dick over white males. If you have the grades and skills you will get admission.
Marginal white students who used to get in when they didnt deserve to no longer do. Those people are complaining.
Except it's not a measure of what they know, it's a measure of whether or not they know a specific list of things.
Except on a lot of subjects, that's a very subjective concept. (no pun intended)
History example: What was the civil war about? Despite what the southerners claim about "states rights", it really was about slavery. The Confederacy even put it in their declarations of secession, and actually limited states rights in several ways that the US Constitution did not. (example: states could not abolish slavery in their borders!)
Except Texas is very influential when it comes to textbooks. So a lot of them emphasize the states rights thing.
Which answer do I put on the test?
then the next question why are there not more rural blacks?
then the next question why are there not more rural blacks?
When I was a child I thought like you. Then I went to Texas A&M and learned how wrong I was and how socially and deeply and institutionally off-balance the real world is. In 1977 the only black students at A&M were jocks or soldiers (had been or were to be). All other black students connected to the A&M school went to a place called Prairieview, iirc, which was nothing really more than a glorified high school. There were however plenty of blacks working the low-end jobs at the mess hall and bldg maintenance, ie janitors.The SCOTUS, to its credit, didn't think that enough was heard to justify a decision either way .. so they sent it back down for a re-hearing.
Regardless, in America, appeal to race for any reason is simply wrong.
Hiring, admitting, politicking, etc. because of preference or aversion to a race(s) is simply wrong and should not be employed in any sense or for any reason.
I look forward to the end of both biased glass ceilings and compensatory mandates.
Hopefully the re-hearing and return to the SCOTUS will lead to that end.
Funny that you say that, since my school is just a few years removed from legitimate allegations of Affirmative Action run amok in regard to their law school.
So some marginal white didnt get in. White students who deserve to be there will be there.
I have never had a problem. Got into UH law and they have a diversity program.
Actually, the argument is that some white applicants with considerably better scores and CVs were getting passed over for minorities that didn't even come close to the pedigree.
I'm not sure that it ever made headlines, as U of M did some self-correction. Since Michigan has one of the top law programs in the country with among the highest scores, they'd only cut themselves off at the knees to force diversity over legitimacy.
No student at UT or UH law schools dont deserve to be there.
If you know someone out them.
Affirmative Action changed the definition of "deserve" greatly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?