Posted on 03/17/2014 1:03:39 AM PDT by blueplum
SACRAMENTO -- A legislative push to permit California's public universities to once again consider race and ethnicity in admissions appears to be on life support after an intense backlash from Asian-American parents who fear it will make it harder for their children to get into good schools. :snip: A planned referendum sailed through the state Senate in January without fanfare on a party-line vote, but three Asian-American Democrats who initially backed the measure are now calling for it to be "tabled" before the state Assembly has a chance to vote on it -- a highly unusual move. And it seems unlikely to get the two-thirds majority in the Assembly without the support of the five Asian-Americans in the lower house.
Over the last several weeks, the three senators who have had second thoughts about the referendum -- Leland Yee, D-San Francisco; Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; and Carol Liu, D- La Cañada/Flintridge...
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
So if you're not a white male you're a semi-literate token? LOL
Kearney, you must be hitting the suds a little early on St. Patrick's Day.
You do know that they had to lower the standards for males in colleges because the women applicants had higher scores and grades. But don't let facts interfere with your world view. ;-) BTW Happy St. Paddy's Day.
Girls have higher grades but lower SAT scores. Grades measure consistency, whereas SAT scores measure innate talent.
Why are so many Asian-Americans Democrats anyway?
Asians are a “smart” minority,affirmative action is for “dumb” minorities.
Sad,but true.
.
Not exactly correct. The averages are about the same. IIRC there are differences in spread and there are more high end scores in the quantitative section for males. The test alleges that it only measures scholastic aptitude.
Re consistency, that’s a very valuable trait. I’d rather hire an engineer who is consistent with a 700 SAT-Q than an inconsistent one with straight 800’s.
“Except the majority of colleges now have lower entry standards for men than for women.”
That is absurd, as it would never be tolerated (unless those men are “preferred minorities”). It is no accident that 59% of college classes are female; it is designed that way.
“the difference between women and racial or ethnic affirmative action groups is that the majority of women still qualified without the boost—whereas the majority of the favored ethnic groups usually did not.”
If that was true gender wouldn’t be included on the application (and by further extension we wouldn’t have “minority and WOMEN owned businesses”).
When they dump white women off the gravy train, buy popcorn
“So if you’re not a white male you’re a semi-literate token?”
Usually, because of the design of affirmative action. For example, while members of “protected classes” may qualify as a lieutenant in the army, affirmative action takes those candidates and makes them captains. Those that would qualify as captains are pushed up to major, etc.. The same occurs in higher education: candidates that would be qualified for a county college are admitted to state schools, work that would qualify for a bachelor’s degree is taken for a master’s degree, and so on. The problem is that the “beneficiary” is always out of their league, surrounded by better-qualified & trained people, and in most cases, they know it. It is a recipe for failure, and results in real dishonesty in appraising such workers/students.
In college I watched “preferred students” who would have never graduated high school in a “white” system spend a semester looking confused in a state college before dropping out; nobody did them any favors (whatever the intentions/goals were).
Depends on the ethnic group. East Indians skew the numbers. They tend to be hostile to and fearful of Christians.
Blacks are pushing for it, and Hispanics will soon have the political power to make it so.
“This business of dividing up the country into ethnic groups will frankly destroy us.”
The America of the 1980s is already completely destroyed; few vestiges of it remain. The original meritocracy is gone, along with opportunity.
“Work towards a common culture and the idea of a common good.”
Anyone even proposing a common culture is viewed as hateful and narrow-minded, and the definition of a “common good” has been so diluted as to require inclusion of every godless act the left can imagine.
That is the very sad part about affirmative action. Promising students are admitted to schools for which they are not prepared. They get beaten down by the system and wash out. It’s a shame because some of these students end up feeling like losers for the rest of their lives when, in fact, they were among the best.
The “Melting Pot” is dead, replaced with the “Tossed Salad” and Balkanization.
“You are correct and there is only one race that gets those advantages, along with a lifetime supply of race cards to play.”
?
At least two races (black, Hispanic) and one gender.
“That is the very sad part about affirmative action. Promising students are admitted to schools for which they are not prepared. They get beaten down by the system and wash out. It’s a shame because some of these students end up feeling like losers for the rest of their lives when, in fact, they were among the best.”
I guess that depends on your point of view; to me the sad part is that a better-qualified student (who wasn’t a “preferred minority/woman”) lost that opportunity that in the end was squandered for political correctness. Nobody can dispute that these policies are de facto admissions by the leftist government that in fact these “protected groups” can’t compete on a level playing field.
“The “Melting Pot” is dead, replaced with the “Tossed Salad” and Balkanization.”
And it was deliberately done by enemies of this country with a divide-and-conquer strategy to remove power from a WASP majority and place it in the hands of a Bolshevik minority.
Nope—you’re way behind the times. Schools are deathly afraid of hitting too high a female to male ratio—since both men and women then start to avoid it—so they end up favoring men in order to get closer to a balanced ratio.
Other than the top schools, they simply don’t have as many qualified men applying, so they drop the standards on grades and tests.
“Nope—you’re way behind the times. Schools are deathly afraid of hitting too high a female to male ratio—since both men and women then start to avoid it—so they end up favoring men in order to get closer to a balanced ratio. Other than the top schools, they simply don’t have as many qualified men applying, so they drop the standards on grades and tests.”
I’ve followed this issue closely; they just don’t want the student bodies to reach 60% female (59% is fine with them).
60% is the turning point of pretty much no return in being an attractive school to prospective students. But to keep from hitting that dread point they accept boys with lesser records than girls.
You need to follow it a little more closely.
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.