Posted on 09/25/2010 5:03:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
“Really? How nice that you are sinless.”
I don’t understand it. Help me understand is all I’m trying to say.
You claim to speak for all people who worked and got their degrees, when you don’t. You speak for yourself, and yourself only.
“No I don’t. That’s just an attempt to “win” the argument by discrediting your opponent, without discussing the issue on its merits.”
Your argument, as I understand it is that you are unimpressed by this woman’s achievements. That’s not an argument based on merit, or facts, but on emotion. I am trying to understand why you feel that way.
“Or is it impressive because she’s a woman?”
Have I suggested that why I find it impressive is because she is a woman? Hardly. I find it impressive because she made something of herself, when many in identical situations have failed. That is all.
“the huge waste of human capital represented by affirmative action,”
Ahh, there we go. That’s what I was looking for. She had good grades. I agree with you about affirmative action, but we aren’t talking about someone who didn’t have the marks to get in. We are talking about someone who did work hard, earned the grades, and earned a scholarship to Harvard.
That’s right, she EARNED the scholarship.
“Those that were intelligent and talented succeeded on their own”
As this woman did.
“it was precisely those that were not who were affirmative-actioned into slots they could never have earned their way into.”
Clearly this woman succeeded, so she was cut out for Harvard. That is why I said I was impressed by her achievement in graduating from Harvard. I see nothing to indicate affirmative action is the reason why she was given a slot.
Like yourself, I paid my way through. Wasn’t easy had to quit and go back and finish. Is there going to be an article writing about me and how cool I am? No, and I’m happy that there won’t be. I’m just an ordinary college graduate, and quite happy with that tyvm.
“I don’t understand it. Help me understand is all I’m trying to say.”
All right. It’s either a figment of your imagination, or a fabrication cooked up for the purpose of slurring someone for disagreeing with you.
“You claim to speak for all people who worked and got their degrees, when you don’t.”
So, outright lies are not beneath you. I made no such claim nor implication.
“I am trying to understand why you feel that way.”
No, you’re just slinging mud. I’ve explained my opinion at some length. You’d understand my position if you had any interest in doing so.
“She had good grades.”
If she had good grades and high scores on the entrance exams, universities would have been trampling each other to get to her first. Why weren’t they?
“and earned a scholarship to Harvard.”
She didn’t earn a scholarship with grades. She earned it by (a) being the perfect liberal cliché, and (b) writing an essay. By the way, what was her high school GPA?
“As this woman did.”
No, she didn’t. She got admitted to and graduated from Harvard through the good graces and financial support of the NY Slimes.
“Clearly this woman succeeded, so she was cut out for Harvard.”
Are you under the impression that Harvard is academically rigorous?
“I see nothing to indicate affirmative action is the reason why she was given a slot.”
Not statutory, nor regulatory. She got her scholarship through the voluntary affirmative action of liberal putzes at the Slimes. If she’d been a man, they wouldn’t have given her the time of day.
“Like yourself, I paid my way through. Wasn’t easy had to quit and go back and finish. Is there going to be an article writing about me and how cool I am? No, and I’m happy that there won’t be. I’m just an ordinary college graduate, and quite happy with that tyvm.”
And you don’t see the wrong-headedness in lionizing this person, who got a free ride through Harvard? They *ought* to be writing an article about you, and men like you. They ought to be writing an article about the fact that men are increasingly crowded out of universities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html
http://www.thecampusslate.com/the-new-math-on-campus-1.1277237#4
Good night.
“Here’s a clue: you’re not going to impress people who got through college without a scholarship by holding up someone who cruised through without having to sweat food and shelter.”
This is the statement I’m referring to. You claimed to speak for all of us.
I am not trying to slander you. Arguing that she is a case of affirmative action, etc, I really don’t think flies. I understand your suspicion of the Times and Harvard, but the fact is she finished, got her degree. So she’s not an affirmative action case, which crashes and burns at the higher levels. This is what stood out to me.
As for myself, yeah, I’ve written articles about that before. I’ve been very critical of higher education. I think there are many ways to fix it to make it better, but those fixes are not going to be implemented because the system has no stake in improving them.
There’s no reason why it should have taken me 4 years of school to get the degree, and I honestly believed the courses that I took in high school to be of higher rigor. That combined with the expense made it clear to me that it was a waste of time.
1. Every course can be challenged. You’ve read up on Chaucer beforehand? Great. Take my exam, and score 80 percent and be on your way. Want your entire university experience to be 40 examinations on a daily basis over two months? Good luck. Finish those, get your degree and move on.
2. Accelerated schedules. Say you don’t pass the challenge threshold. Now you have to take the courses. Wouldn’t you learn better if you stuck with one thing at a time and then moved on? 3 course hours a week for 13 weeks? Why don’t we spend 40 hours and learn the material in a week? Rinse and repeat. On this model of 3 credits a week, you’d finish up in roughly a year. 40 credits a semester.
3. Apprenticeships. You’re going to teach? Get a placement with a high school. Work with them for 2 years. After you finish the apprenticeship, you go on to being a teacher. This would happen after the qualification, which if it only takes a year makes much more sense.
4. 20 percent of each graduating class makes the cut for the entry exams. Entry based on all prospective students writing an entry examination invigilated at the school in September of the year you wish to enter. Make the threshold, get in.
5. Get rid of the Women’s study department. All courses should be content-driven not the ‘cause of the day’. Urban/Educational history is not content driven. History of the British Empire is content driven.
“This is the statement I’m referring to. You claimed to speak for all of us.”
A few weeks ago, I stole this from another poster and modified it to suit myself:
“I can explain (some alleged contradiction) quite easily. I see it here on FR all the time. Somebody latches onto a simple misinterpretation of a statement because it gives that person the perfect venue to strut and preen in defense of his own ecclesiastical/political/moral existence. Thus has Satan snuck in to the discussion all unnoticed. The saints—I believe it was a hated Jesuit as a matter of fact—have taught us that in a dispute, the disputing parties have a duty to attach the most innocent and least malicious motives and explanations to the other’s statements. It is part of the virtue of charity. It is what anyone would want from you, and it is plain common sense.”
It is simply not reasonable to say that my statement was an attempt to “speak for all of us.”
“I am not trying to slander you.”
And how well you succeeded, without even trying.
“the fact is she finished, got her degree.”
A fresh, steaming pile of bear crap could get a degree from Harvard—or most other universities, these days. It just ain’t no major achievement, unless you’re in one of the hard sciences and come out competent in your field. The hardest part of college is keeping body and soul together, about which she had not to worry.
“So she’s not an affirmative action case, which crashes and burns at the higher levels.”
The “higher levels” of our government and, to a lesser extent, corporate America, are stuffed to the rafters with incompetent affirmative action cases, who are not allowed to crash and burn. Competent people are fired for “sexism” and “homophobia,” but affirmative action cases are not fired for incompetence. Similarly, universities will do what they have to do to ensure that affirmative action cases graduate, up to and including changing course content and grades.
“those fixes are not going to be implemented because the system has no stake in improving them.”
The only way to fix it is to get the leftard scum out of education, and keep them out. I advocate branding them on the cheek for easy identification.
“There’s no reason why it should have taken me 4 years of school to get the degree, and I honestly believed the courses that I took in high school to be of higher rigor.”
I wonder what year you graduated. I went to very strict primary schools (My high-school class had only one dropout, and even the jocks, greasers, and hoods scored highly enough on the entrance exams to get into a state university). My college courses, though (with the exception of touchy-feely crap taken for an easy A), were immensely more rigorous than any high-school class. (I’m thinking of algebra 1 and 2, geometry, foreign languages, English, biology, history, chemistry, and a few others that my antiquated synapses won’t cough up just now.) Even college psychology was on a much higher level than high school (still, as they say in Psychology departments, BS = Bull Scat, MS = More of the Same, and Ph.D = Piled Higher and Deeper).
“That combined with the expense made it clear to me that it was a waste of time.”
A person can waste his time in college, or he can learn useful things. Provided, of course, that there’s a slot after they get through admitting women and minorities with half his SAT score.
“Every course can be challenged.”
A good professor brings things to the classroom that you don’t get if you challenge. The professor who taught my molecular genetics class actually knew, and got phone calls from, Watson and Crick. We heard about some things even before they were published.
“Why don’t we spend 40 hours and learn the material in a week?”
I’ve had courses like that. Here’s the thing: the human brain doesn’t work like that. If you want something to stick in long-term memory, you need to read it once, hear it in the classroom, study for a test, put it away, then bring it out and study it again for finals. There are exceptions, of course, but that principle holds in almost all cases.
“You’re going to teach? Get a placement with a high school. Work with them for 2 years. After you finish the apprenticeship, you go on to being a teacher.”
Problem is, most education majors only end up there after failing at several, more difficult majors. It takes time for them to sift down to the filter at the bottom of the pool.
“Make the threshold, get in.”
As the case of Winston Churchill shows us, examinations are a hit-and-miss method of identifying intelligence and talent. They work most of the time, but relying solely on examinations would result in a huge waste of human capital. In addition, I oppose one-size-fits-all solutions as a matter of principle.
“Get rid of the Women’s study department.”
Oh, Hell yes, and all the rest of that nantoka-studies crapola, too.
Should also exclude any group or celebration that starts with a race. Black Supremacy, Hispanic Revanchism, all of it. That mess is balkanizing America.
“A good professor brings things to the classroom that you don’t get if you challenge. The professor who taught my molecular genetics class actually knew, and got phone calls from, Watson and Crick. We heard about some things even before they were published.”
True, and the same is also true of the bad professors. I’d say in my 4 years I had 7 “good” professors. Out of 40 or so courses, that’s not a very good ratio. Below the Mendoza line.
“to ensure that affirmative action cases graduate, up to and including changing course content and grades.”
And you have evidence to suggest that this was the case here?
“In addition, I oppose one-size-fits-all solutions as a matter of principle.”
I sincerely doubt that the current system would nourish someone like Sir Winston. I agree, it’s not a perfect system, but heck, you fail one year, you can try again. It’s not like you only get one chance.
Many of us grew up hungry--even starving--lived through pure hell, and succeeded despite it. What we didn't have was a liberal newspaper trying to sell a feminist angle to sponsor us. In short, we survived, got through college and even further without any damn assistance at all.
And we are proudly conservative.
But, being male and white, I had no liberal organizations looking to make me into a pop star and no affirmative action quotas being tossed my direction. I went to state universities because they were all I could afford. That's alright. I'm very happy where and how I ended up. I don't think I would have enjoyed a liberal enclave like Harvard even if I had qualified and could afford to go to such a place.
Tried to correct some words but was hard to do on this IPad. Just ignore them.
Most people who got through college without a scholorship have the benefit of supportive families and a decent upbringing, and those of us who have that should be grateful enough to realize what a blessing that is. Would you trade your family and your childhood for a scholarship? If not than maybe you should stop whining and realize you are the lucky one. The people on here griping about this woman’s accomplishments are really nothing more than the flip side of what she could have become. Only she didn’t sit around pissing and moaning about how easy other people have it and how hard it is for her, she just went ahead and succeeded in whatever way presented itself. So deal with it, you can’t have everything. Such a tragedy that you had to scrape your way through college. At least you weren’t eating chapstick and icechips as a child to stay alive.
“If I am bitter about anything, it’s about the huge waste of human capital represented by affirmative action, which wrenched opportunities out of the hands of more intelligent, more talented white men so that they could be given to women and minorities.”
So I guess if she were a white male, it would be automatically assumed that she was deserving of a scholarship and we wouldn’t be having this discussion? Funny how no one ever complained about affirmative action until it was no longer just for white men.
Some people, and I certainly don’t refer to anyone here on FR, are crushingly, staggeringly, gob-smackingly stupid enough to say things like, “So I guess if she were a white male, it would be automatically assumed that she was deserving of a scholarship and we wouldn’t be having this discussion?” Amazing, isn’t it?
I mean, even a single-celled organism, like an amoeba living in the filth of a democrat’s bowels, has enough intelligence to understand that nothing is “automatically assumed” of white males, and that even merit is often insufficient to win them scholarships.
Even the dullest of those amoebas has enough intelligence to understand that you don’t end racial strife by shifting the focus of discrimination, but by ceasing to discriminate.
Twenty years ago one could say with confidence that a huge majority of racists in America were black.
However, with the possible exception of blatant black racism, affirmative action and similar atrocities have done more to create racism among whites than any other force in history. I’m not sure if blacks still have a monopoly on racism in America.
Congratulations. You got what you wanted, and destroyed the good will you needed to keep it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.