http://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-says-using-race-160358515.html
Looks like schools can discriminate as much as they want.
Looks like schools can discriminate as much as they want.
Supreme Court says affirmative action is ok
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Yeah, 'cause like every college should like take everyone, okay? Because high school is sometimes hard, you know? And like, why should grades matter anyway, you know? Because, like, she totally worked really hard for those mediocre grades, you know? And like, shouldn't be like punished for not being like super smart and all. Grades are like totally unfair, and like discrimatory.
.
.
I want to know what her grades were in HS and the extra curricular stuff they like to see.
It seems pretty simple though, look at grades, SAT/ACT score, personal statement if you care, and extra curricular and you're in or you're out
It seems pretty simple though, look at grades, SAT/ACT score, personal statement if you care, and extra curricular and you're in or you're out
So did she end up going to college somewhere else or did this situation destroyed her will to further her career?
This isn't 20 years ago when universities were much more competitive and were the only way to obtain an education. Back then it made sense to ensure diversity in the higher education system. Now there's community colleges and online degrees; if you can't get an education, it's because you're not trying.
Why didn't she stay in Texas? Is she claiming now all the extra expenses that came from having to go to college in a different state?
LOL, I don't think money was the issue. She was a legacy, who always wanted to go there. She however didn't finish in the top 10% of her class which dumped her in a pool of thousands vying for less than 1000 spots.
Now hold on, it's not that simple.
This was actually W.'s "10% rule" that the left media demonized, but came about after the Hopwood v. Texas ruling. It actually attempts to take race out of the equation, which the NAACP didn't like, but the Urban League did. It's also the 2nd time the SCOTUS has heard it. The law has also, greatly improved acceptance and graduation rates for Hispanic-Americans in Texas, almost par with White Americans.
Unfortunately, it's done little for African-Americans, who still have a high failure rate. In fact, as much as the media demonized Scalia, and I have to admit, he used "politically incorrect" language, he did point out that simple fact ... if African-Americans who go to a 2-year or non-university 4-year and transfer to an university have higher graduation rate than those start at the university level, then how is the serving the interest of African-Americans?** Especially when it's benefiting the affluent minority more than the disadvantaged minority.
Because the law is based on the graduation ranking from each school, and not race, I don't find it Unconstitutional. The US media has just downplayed that reality, because it was actually signed into law during W.'s administration, largely because direct Affirmative Action was banned by Hopwood v. Texas. After all, if they said, "Court Upholds W.'s 10% School Rule" wouldn't fly with the Liberals. So they sensationalized it as Race-based Affirmative Action.
Again, I don't disagree with some naysayers, it does help more affluent minorities than non-affluent. But it does catch a lot of non-affluent minorities too, just far more Hispanic than African.
This was actually W.'s "10% rule" that the left media demonized, but came about after the Hopwood v. Texas ruling. It actually attempts to take race out of the equation, which the NAACP didn't like, but the Urban League did. It's also the 2nd time the SCOTUS has heard it. The law has also, greatly improved acceptance and graduation rates for Hispanic-Americans in Texas, almost par with White Americans.
Unfortunately, it's done little for African-Americans, who still have a high failure rate. In fact, as much as the media demonized Scalia, and I have to admit, he used "politically incorrect" language, he did point out that simple fact ... if African-Americans who go to a 2-year or non-university 4-year and transfer to an university have higher graduation rate than those start at the university level, then how is the serving the interest of African-Americans?** Especially when it's benefiting the affluent minority more than the disadvantaged minority.
**Kinda like UCF's DirectConnect, it works far better for minorities coming from crappy schools in a smaller classroom setting honing their academics (especially if their high school was failing to prepare them), unlike universities that have >>100 kids/class.
Because the law is based on the graduation ranking from each school, and not race, I don't find it Unconstitutional. The US media has just downplayed that reality, because it was actually signed into law during W.'s administration, largely because direct Affirmative Action was banned by Hopwood v. Texas. After all, if they said, "Court Upholds W.'s 10% School Rule" wouldn't fly with the Liberals. So they sensationalized it as Race-based Affirmative Action.
Again, I don't disagree with some naysayers, it does help more affluent minorities than non-affluent. But it does catch a lot of non-affluent minorities too, just far more Hispanic than African.
So many of them were taught that they are special snowflakes and that the world will accommodate them and make exceptions for them, because they are special snowflakes.
.
