- This topic has 194 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
ocrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM #771644March 7, 2014 at 3:03 PM #771656
FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=ocrenter]
Essentially the majority will always try to use their raw number to suppress the minority, as Hispanics become California’s majority, they will also do their very best to suppress other minorities. I actually fear the new Hispanic majority more than I fear the old white majority as the Hispanic is going in with the idea that they are disadvantaged and need all of these extra rights.[/quote]What extra rights are you talking about?
When Hispanics become the majority then won’t benefit from affirmative action anymore. This not about the person sponsoring the bill but the eventual end-result of policy.
As you pointed out, Hispanics enrollment has increased. I personally believe that we are seeing a shift in demographics with more urban professionals from Latin America sending their kids to UC.
As Hispanics increase to become the majority, by sheer numbers, there will be some thousands bright kids who have the grades it takes to enroll at UC.
The chart/data you provided shows that Hispanic enrollment, with an initial drop which makes perfect sense, increased since Prop 209.
Looking objectively at SCA5, it will benefit Blacks first, Hispanics somewhat, and Whites when they become a minority. Not good for Asians.
March 7, 2014 at 4:16 PM #771661CA renter
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]I never understand the mindset of people like CAR. They’re so willing to give disadvantaged teens a leg up at the university level, yet they vehemently oppose giving the same disadvantaged kids a leg up at the elementary/middle/high school level. If they’re so inclined to have quotas at the University level, why not do the same for the elementary/middle/high school level?[/quote]
Because now it interferes with the unions, which has a lock on secondary schools.
It is ok to push the Asians aside at the college level to satisfy that guilt about disadvantaged minorities (no union members were hurt in the process). But it is not ok to make actual reform that makes a difference because union toes would be step upon.[/quote]
It has nothing at all to do with unions, and I don’t think anyone wants to “push aside” any group of students, either. That’s not the focus of Affirmative Action (which, as I’ve pointed out, I’m opposed to…I’m just trying to explain the thought process of those who advocate for it).
People who push for the preferential treatment of certain disadvantaged minorities do so out of a concern for fairness. The circumstances into which one is born (SES status, IQ, etc.) are no more the fault of the child than the color of their skin. When you insist on admitting students that simply have a higher IQ, then you are “pushing aside” the students who don’t. Either way, someone is being pushed aside due to circumstances that are beyond their control. So, while you might think that discriminating based on IQ (and, usually, family resources) is more “fair,” others think that trying to help those who have had a more difficult childhood and/or are born with a lower IQ is more fair. IMO, there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of different perspectives.
March 7, 2014 at 6:50 PM #771667ocrenter
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]I never understand the mindset of people like CAR. They’re so willing to give disadvantaged teens a leg up at the university level, yet they vehemently oppose giving the same disadvantaged kids a leg up at the elementary/middle/high school level. If they’re so inclined to have quotas at the University level, why not do the same for the elementary/middle/high school level?[/quote]
Because now it interferes with the unions, which has a lock on secondary schools.
It is ok to push the Asians aside at the college level to satisfy that guilt about disadvantaged minorities (no union members were hurt in the process). But it is not ok to make actual reform that makes a difference because union toes would be step upon.[/quote]
It has nothing at all to do with unions, and I don’t think anyone wants to “push aside” any group of students, either. That’s not the focus of Affirmative Action (which, as I’ve pointed out, I’m opposed to…I’m just trying to explain the thought process of those who advocate for it).
People who push for the preferential treatment of certain disadvantaged minorities do so out of a concern for fairness. The circumstances into which one is born (SES status, IQ, etc.) are no more the fault of the child than the color of their skin. When you insist on admitting students that simply have a higher IQ, then you are “pushing aside” the students who don’t. Either way, someone is being pushed aside due to circumstances that are beyond their control. So, while you might think that discriminating based on IQ (and, usually, family resources) is more “fair,” others think that trying to help those who have had a more difficult childhood and/or are born with a lower IQ is more fair. IMO, there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of different perspectives.[/quote]
While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.
It is the law of unintended consequence.
March 7, 2014 at 6:53 PM #771668Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ocrenter]
Essentially the majority will always try to use their raw number to suppress the minority, as Hispanics become California’s majority, they will also do their very best to suppress other minorities. I actually fear the new Hispanic majority more than I fear the old white majority as the Hispanic is going in with the idea that they are disadvantaged and need all of these extra rights.[/quote]What extra rights are you talking about?
When Hispanics become the majority then won’t benefit from affirmative action anymore. This not about the person sponsoring the bill but the eventual end-result of policy.
As you pointed out, Hispanics enrollment has increased. I personally believe that we are seeing a shift in demographics with more urban professionals from Latin America sending their kids to UC.
As Hispanics increase to become the majority, by sheer numbers, there will be some thousands bright kids who have the grades it takes to enroll at UC.
The chart/data you provided shows that Hispanic enrollment, with an initial drop which makes perfect sense, increased since Prop 209.
Looking objectively at SCA5, it will benefit Blacks first, Hispanics somewhat, and Whites when they become a minority. Not good for Asians.[/quote]
As long as Hispanics are underrepresented compared to their proportion in the overall population, this admendment will be used to extract extra rights.
March 7, 2014 at 8:13 PM #771673
CoronitaParticipant.
March 7, 2014 at 8:46 PM #771676ucodegen
Participant[quote=ocrenter]While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.
It is the law of unintended consequence.
As long as Hispanics are underrepresented compared to their proportion in the overall population, this admendment will be used to extract extra rights.[/quote]
And this is how education spirals to the lowest common denominator. The real fix is to address the cause, at the cause. That is fix how public education is run. Jaime Gutierrez proved it could be done. The fix needs to be applied before college. Public schools don’t want to admit to their failure, so they push the ‘fix’ onto Colleges.We can’t compete against other nations if we are teaching to the lowest common denominator.
March 8, 2014 at 2:07 AM #771685Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=ocrenter]While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.
It is the law of unintended consequence.
As long as Hispanics are underrepresented compared to their proportion in the overall population, this admendment will be used to extract extra rights.[/quote]
And this is how education spirals to the lowest common denominator. The real fix is to address the cause, at the cause. That is fix how public education is run. Jaime Gutierrez proved it could be done. The fix needs to be applied before college. Public schools don’t want to admit to their failure, so they push the ‘fix’ onto Colleges.We can’t compete against other nations if we are teaching to the lowest common denominator.[/quote]
I don’t think they want us to teach to the lowest common denominator. They honestly believe that many (not all!) of these disadvantaged students can rise to the occasion of given the opportunity.
Again, IQ is fairly fixed — it can be affected by environment by a few points, but you can’t take someone with a 90 IQ and turn them into someone with a 130 IQ. What do we do with those who have low or average IQs? Do we change our system to be more like the European systems where students are tracked according to ability, and their futures are basically determined by the time they are ~14 years old (or younger!) as they are shunted to either the university track or the vocational track ? (FWIW, I like their system because it truly prepares students for good occupations, but many think it’s incredibly unfair, especially for those who are “late bloomers.) It is incredibly controversial.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/klein.356/tracking
—————
I’m guessing that you’re referring to the story about Jaime Escalante and the inner city AP calculus students. That’s a fantastic story, but you also have to realize that very few of the students who started with him actually finished with him. Not only that, but the students and parents had to sign contracts agreeing to do a TON of work at home, on weekends, and during after-school hours in order to remain in his program.
If every teacher could be assured of this type of environment, the sky would be the limit, indeed. He worked with AP students (AP classes that he insisted on and started) who are a very different set of students than the “traditional” students in basic math (self-selection bias). And he had control over the teachers and classes that fed into his classes, as well as cooperation from a local junior college that offered these students intensive math courses over the summer.
Could we learn a lot from his work? Absolutely. But don’t think this is an easily workable process. It took him many years to develop this program, and it was too dependent on too few people. As important as the teacher is, it is every bit as much about the students, parents, and the system created around the teacher.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/07/01/stand-and-deliver-revisited
A great article from him about why he thought he was successful:
March 8, 2014 at 2:09 AM #771686Participant[quote=ocrenter]
While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.
It is the law of unintended consequence.[/quote]
But you and I disagree about their being unable to excel. Admittedly, they would have a higher failure/attrition rate, but many of them would succeed, and those are the students who the Affirmative Action folks are trying to protect and encourage.
March 8, 2014 at 7:13 AM #771687Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]
While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.
It is the law of unintended consequence.[/quote]
But you and I disagree about their being unable to excel. Admittedly, they would have a higher failure/attrition rate, but many of them would succeed, and those are the students who the Affirmative Action folks are trying to protect and encourage.[/quote]
But why would you stack the deck against them?
Nationwide, African American graduation rate is only at 40%. In California, after prop 209, African American graduation rate is 70%. Of course the national rate includes states such as CA and Michigan that disallow racial preference. So essentially graduation rate is 100% better when you don’t create artificial mismatch of students and schools.
March 8, 2014 at 7:43 AM #771688scaredyclassic
Participantfairness is never all that simple…
somhow i dont think colleges or credentials will be irrelevant in 10 years. like real estate, there are huge financial interests at play, large piles of debt, and powerful teacher interests at play.
will it matter as much? i don’t know. but i doubt it will ever be all about competence or knowledge…
is it worth the money?
no….
March 8, 2014 at 10:14 AM #771697GuestIt is worth the money to Asians. They spend huge amount of their income on education and they are raising the bar.
It’s not quite fair to talk about graduation rates. The schooling in itself is great experience.
Plus economics plays a big role in graduation success. The Ivy League has affirmative action for the children of the social, political, and cultural elites who have lower IQs. But they graduate just fine because they don’t have to worry about housing and money.
I think that academic merit is fine in a growing economy with plenty of jobs. But if there is economic stagnation, should the best jobs go first to those who have perfect scores?
It’s interesting that STEM is a big topic here. It’s the one growth sector of the economy. Many of the older engineers started out with no credential and help build the industry. They now find themselves jobless competing with new entrants with masters and minimum. 3.9 GPA.
March 8, 2014 at 11:18 PM #771702Participant[quote=ocrenter]
But why would you stack the deck against them?
Nationwide, African American graduation rate is only at 40%. In California, after prop 209, African American graduation rate is 70%. Of course the national rate includes states such as CA and Michigan that disallow racial preference. So essentially graduation rate is 100% better when you don’t create artificial mismatch of students and schools.[/quote]
It’s not necessarily stacking the deck against these students. For the 40% (just taking your numbers) of the disadvantaged students who DO manage to graduate, many Affirmative Action advocates would say that the degree of improvement in their lives is far greater than the relative degree of improvement in the life of a person who always had an academic edge (IQ, parental resources, better schooling, etc.). One might also argue that by using these students as role models for other upcoming students in the disadvantaged communities, they can change whole communities and the expectations of the students from those communities…getting far more “bang for the buck” from the Affirmative Action programs, relatively speaking.
March 12, 2014 at 8:10 PM #771809CoronitaParticipant[quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]For folks that are interested in writing to your congressman, but aren’t sure what to write, here’s a tip/sample letter…
Enough said…
[img_assist|nid=17929|title=no on sca 5|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=461|height=600][/quote]
Dude, you need to mail this letter to that Hernandez clown. That’s powerful, flu, you should be proud.[/quote]
Bump…..Hey, my kid actually got a letter back from Assemblyman Maienschein… Pretty cool…I’ll wait until my kid opens it….
March 13, 2014 at 7:00 AM #771832Participant[quote=flu]
Bump…..Hey, my kid actually got a letter back from Assemblyman Maienschein… Pretty cool…I’ll wait until my kid opens it….[/quote]
nice.
let’s hope it isn’t his form letter.
if not, please post.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.