Affirmative Action

[JohnLarue]

It does not have to be poor vs great marks. It could be they score average but go on to be very successful.

sure
academic success does not automatically translate into business success
and outstanding communication, interpersonal and/ or organization skills not taught in text books are often the springboard for many successful people

conversely
if a student struggles with high school level math, they will get over whelmed in physics, chemistry, engineering, finance, iT programs . etc

 

[Nathan 88]

your ideologically position on affirmative action indicts otherwise


good for you
are you not relieved their acceptance was not bumped by affirmative action applications ?




too funny
a common trait of the loony left is attack character when they run out of factual arguments

full scholarships are more of a USA deal, so not at all relevant to me
although most parents would be very proud if their child receives an academic scholarship
Very proud indeed if their child worked hard and made personnel / social sacrifices usually required to achieve the marks required for an academic scholarship

but in your loony left world, you managed to portray a kid receiving an academic scholarship as a negative
a common trait of the loony left is to find fault everywhere

You’re the one who attacked my character, first, which is more in line with the wacko right.
When you’re losing an argument like you, are, you tend to make stuff up like accusing me of portraying a kid receiving an academic scholarship as a negative, I never said that.
You’re the one who thinks it’s just fine to buy your way into university rather than earning it.
The bottom line is I like fairness for all, an equal chance for everybody and you want people with money to jump the queue.

 

[JohnLarue]

You’re the one who attacked my character, first, which is more in line with the wacko right.

I do not think so

post #211

I understand that money trumps grades with you.

that is character assignation & you made it personal

When you’re losing an argument like you, are, you tend to make stuff up like accusing me of portraying a kid receiving an academic scholarship as a negative, I never said that.

post # 243

unlike you who are depending on donors to pay for your kids education.

that definitely portrays my kid receiving an academic scholarship as a negative
it also completely disregards the effort & sacrifices the kid made to earn the scholarship

You’re the one who thinks it’s just fine to buy your way into university rather than earning it.
The bottom line is I like fairness for all, an equal chance for everybody and you want people with money to jump the queue.

Alumni donations in the USA are massive and pay the way for many kids to go to university via scholarships
it is only natural the Alumni donners will want their kids to be accepted @ their Alma mater
note: the Alumni know their kids need to apply with something better than C+, B- marks

Strick adherence to your ideology would eliminate legacy admissions.
However that would put the Alumni donations / scholarships at risk.

the good of legacy admissions out weighs the perceived bad
-the donations pay the way for many kids to go to university via scholarships

another trait of the loony left is failure to apply critical thinking / reasoning to a complex issue and instead default to the politically correct position as demanded by their ideology

the loony left also tend to ignore/ ( not even consider) the negative / unintended reactions their policy ideas would drive.

 

[Nathan 88]

I do not think so

post #211



that is character assignation & you made it personal





post # 243



that definitely portrays my kid receiving an academic scholarship as a negative
it also completely disregards the effort & sacrifices the kid made to earn the scholarship



Alumni donations in the USA are massive and pay the way for many kids to go to university via scholarships
it is only natural the Alumni donners will want their kids to be accepted @ their Alma mater
note: the Alumni know their kids need to apply with something better than C+, B- marks

Strick adherence to your ideology would eliminate legacy admissions.
However that would put the Alumni donations / scholarships at risk.

the good of legacy admissions out weighs the perceived bad
-the donations pay the way for many kids to go to university via scholarships

another trait of the loony left is failure to apply critical thinking / reasoning to a complex issue and instead default to the politically correct position as demanded by their ideology

the loony left also tend to ignore/ ( not even consider) the negative / unintended reactions their policy ideas would drive.

Look, this thread was about the affirmative action ruling which I agreed with, and it certainly seems like you do too.
I would prefer that all inequities be eliminated for college admissions, you don’t.
It seems that you would like people with a lot of money to have preferential treatment. if that’s the way you think, then fine that’s your opinion.
It really doesn’t help your argument to call me names and Loonie left(which I’m not) you’d be surprised how I vote.

 

[canada-man]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1674614633565388801

 

[Darts]

High marks do matter. When I applied to McGill many years ago the minimum standard to even be considered for admission was 70%.

To get ahead in to-day's world one needs at least an undergrad degree and possibly a graduate degree. Let's use Bank of Nova Scotia as an example.

The late Cedric Ritchie at age 17, the son of a potato farmer, began working as a teller in The Bank of Nova Scotia's Bath, New Brunswick branch. He rose to become CEO and Chairman. He was followed by Peter Godsoe,

Peter Godsoe
"he graduated from the University of Toronto Schools before receiving a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Toronto and a MBA from the Harvard Business School. He is also a Chartered accountant and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (post-nominal FCA)."

The days when a person could join one of the big banks (or most employers) with just high school leaving and rise to CEO or even much lower in the ranks are long gone. Employers also look where you got your degree. In Canada, degrees from the major universities are the most valued.

 

[Gooseifur]

I wish when I got a loan from a bank to start my business many years ago that a few years later they said "Fuck it, just keep it, you don't have to pay us back. We will get it from the Tax payers"

 

[toguy5252]

High marks do matter. When I applied to McGill many years ago the minimum standard to even be considered for admission was 70%.

To get ahead in to-day's world one needs at least an undergrad degree and possibly a graduate degree. Let's use Bank of Nova Scotia as an example.

The late Cedric Ritchie at age 17, the son of a potato farmer, began working as a teller in The Bank of Nova Scotia's Bath, New Brunswick branch. He rose to become CEO and Chairman. He was followed by Peter Godsoe,

Peter Godsoe
"he graduated from the University of Toronto Schools before receiving a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Toronto and a MBA from the Harvard Business School. He is also a Chartered accountant and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (post-nominal FCA)."

The days when a person could join one of the big banks (or most employers) with just high school leaving and rise to CEO or even much lower in the ranks are long gone. Employers also look where you got your degree. In Canada, degrees from the major universities are the most valued.

If course marks and the school from which you received those marks matter. I do not recall anyone including myself disagreeing.

That is not the point. The point is should marks be the only determining factor in getting into school or a job or should other factors be considered.
On this point you and I disagree.

 

[Darts]

When someone applies for a job at our company we look at a number of factors and the more strenuous review of these factors the higher up the job grade.

1) At the top of the list is their academic record.
2) A psyche test.
3) Police reference check
4) Credit report
Public Service Commission approval of psychological tests - Canada.ca
Police Reference Check – City of Toronto

 

[toguy5252]

When someone applies for a job at our company we look at a number of factors and the more strenuous review of these factors the higher up the job grade.

1) At the top of the list is their academic record.
2) A psyche test.
3) Police reference check
4) Credit report
Public Service Commission approval of psychological tests - Canada.ca
Police Reference Check – City of Toronto

No idea where you work but I find it hard to believe that an interview is not involved particularly as you go up in hierarchy.

 

[Valcazar]

Pilot isn't a profession, it's a job and pilots aren't professionals. Got it. Same with air traffic controllers, police, firefighters, paramedics. I'm pretty sure there's a big list of "jobs" that pretty much everyone would consider a career and that pretty much everyone would consider professional that your definition doesn't count.

You might want to rethink it.

"Professional" as "governed by a standards body" (one which can remove your standing) is a definition that is used fairly often. (See the fight over whether or not journalists should become a profession.) That's a version of "professional" that isn't about the standard to which you do your job, of course. It's a contested definition.

The idea that professions never unionize is... weird.

 

[toguy5252]

If they were just as good, you wouldn't need the quota. Under a pure merit system, for example entry based solely on standardized test scores, they would have an equal chance of getting in, if their test scores were just as good as the white males.

Unless you are a legacy or you can afford to go to a very expensive feeder school or daddy endowed a building or your cousin knows the admissions officer or any number of exceptions which take spots away from people who have to apply on merit. SAT's GMAT's and the other srttanadardized testing advantage peole who went to better scools. There are any number of studies that show for example inner city schools which tend to be more black have been sufferring more that suburban schools so thos students atr less equipped to succeed on those tests.

Affirmative action is only an issue whn it involves black students. Legaccies etc are just affirmative action for rich whites. I don't see anyone objecting to that. Similar to there being no outcry from the right when it comes to welfare for the rich. Only the poor.

 

[tiberius6675]

If they were just as good, you wouldn't need the quota. Under a pure merit system, for example entry based solely on standardized test scores, they would have an equal chance of getting in, if their test scores were just as good as the white males.

Who told you people who get in on a quota, do not have scores or other qualifications/traits that are equal to or better than white males? What kind of racist bullshit is this? You also understand that admissions to schools are not solely based on scores right? It is scores + past academics + your unique profile that adds to the diversity of experiences of the student body, that determines your admissability. It is the combined package, not just a number on a test.

 

[Darts]

I wish when I got a loan from a bank to start my business many years ago that a few years later they said "Fuck it, just keep it, you don't have to pay us back. We will get it from the Tax payers"

The SCOTUS judgment is intelligent and rational.

 

[Darts]

Our company hold at least two in person interviews before we hire or de-hire anyone.

 

[JohnLarue]

Look,

no need to start with a command
its not like I was not paying attention

this thread was about the affirmative action ruling which I agreed with, and it certainly seems like you do too.

i firmly believe in equality of opportunity
however equality of outcomes is unachievable & it discriminates

is the goal not to end discrimination ?

I would prefer that all inequities be eliminated for college admissions, you don’t.

by all means, remove barriers to opportunity

then let merit be the determining factor
quotas are discriminatory

is the goal not to end discrimination ?

It seems that you would like people with a lot of money to have preferential treatment.

you are having a difficult time clueing into the fact Alumni donations send a lot of kids to university / collage in the USA
kids who could not attend without a scholarship
the good outweighs the perceived bad
think of legacy admissions as a tax on the donations
if its a tax, i am sure you will be ok with it

or do you prefer several talented students be denied an education , so you can claim social justice over legacy admissions

It really doesn’t help your argument to call me names and Loonie left(which I’m not) you’d be surprised how I vote.

odd how being insulted encourages me to respond with a more critical view

I understand that money trumps grades with you.

i hope you learned something

 

[canada-man]

White women benefited more from Affirmative Action than all minorities combined.

When California outlawed Affirmative Action in 1996, white Americans were more underrepresented in college by race than Black Americans.
This again proves whites benefited more than Blk Americans.

 

[canada-man]

 

[Nathan 88]

no need to start with a command
its not like I was not paying attention




i firmly believe in equality of opportunity
however equality of outcomes is unachievable & it discriminates

is the goal not to end discrimination ?


by all means, remove barriers to opportunity

then let merit be the determining factor
quotas are discriminatory

is the goal not to end discrimination ?



you are having a difficult time clueing into the fact Alumni donations send a lot of kids to university / collage in the USA
kids who could not attend without a scholarship
the good outweighs the perceived bad
think of legacy admissions as a tax on the donations
if its a tax, i am sure you will be ok with it

or do you prefer several talented students be denied an education , so you can claim social justice over legacy admissions





odd how being insulted encourages me to respond with a more critical view


i hope you learned something

Obviously, you haven’t learned anything.

 

[Nathan 88]

no need to start with a command
its not like I was not paying attention




i firmly believe in equality of opportunity
however equality of outcomes is unachievable & it discriminates

is the goal not to end discrimination ?


by all means, remove barriers to opportunity

then let merit be the determining factor
quotas are discriminatory

is the goal not to end discrimination ?



you are having a difficult time clueing into the fact Alumni donations send a lot of kids to university / collage in the USA
kids who could not attend without a scholarship
the good outweighs the perceived bad
think of legacy admissions as a tax on the donations
if its a tax, i am sure you will be ok with it

or do you prefer several talented students be denied an education , so you can claim social justice over legacy admissions





odd how being insulted encourages me to respond with a more critical view


i hope you learned something

The only thing I learned from you is that you like a minority of people [the very wealthy] to be able to buy their way into university rather than working hard for it.
I want fairness for all, you don’t.