<p>Tyler09:</p>
<p>
[quote]
you personally may support based on intellectual merit, but the overwhelming majority support it based off of a particular religion which, as you said, is just a personal belief.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Many conservatives' basic foundation is religious in nature. That doesn't encompass the entire group tho (which you note).</p>
<p>Um dontno, I am obviously Christian so <em>gasp</em> I believe in Satan. And if you read my post you would realize that everything I posted about science people (and humanities ppl for that matter) is ancedotal i.e. personal experience, so everything you posted does not even adress what I was talking about. I am personally devoutly Christian and very science inclined, so I am more likely to believe that the two systems overlap (at least they do in me).</p>
<p>In regards to Affirmative action, I am opposed to it bc not only is it unfair to Asians (which alot of my friends are and they work SO hard it is completely wrong that they are disadvantaged-and I don't like the way that Asians are grouped into one single group. I mean Laosians are different from Koreans who are different from Indians who are different from Afghanis, but that is something for a different day).
I am also against affirmative action bc it adversely affects qualified minorities like myself. I mean I take the same classes as the Asians, get the same As, get the same test scores, do the same science competitions, do the same debate competitions, same leadership in school activities but if I am admitted people will think that it was because I am black.
I would LOVE if there was AA based on conservative beliefs, bc that is something that brings a TRUE depth of diversity. And in all honesty ppl are not going to get a good learning experience if they are only presented with one way of thinking. But I think this is a bad idea.</p>
<p>I think alot of the animosity (especially from Asian and white applicants) is the feeling of an institutionalized policy that adversely acts against them. Take for example when colleges are admitting classes they like diversity of ECs we know that right? So if a person had a unique EC that others did not have it gives them an advantage. We all know that but we are not angry. Why? Because a)the person took initiate in pursuing the activity and therefore meritously earned it and b) there is no hard and fast rule that states which ECs are better than others. Basically if colleges started to say that they preferred violin players over cello players, then all the cello players woud feel as if they had been unjustly shafted. Why? Because there is a clear institutional hierarchy that adversely affects the cello players.
To rectify this i think that colleges should abolish AA, and instead use an non-institutionalized policy of seeking diversity. Basically nothing would change (bc diversity is important) but it would alleviate the feeling that ppl are being discriminated against and also lessen the stigmas for minority acceptance.
I realize that it is a change that is more perceptual than actually, but overwhemling perception is what causes ppl to be offended not the practice itself in my opinion.</p>
<p>Dontno said:"I agree. Many conservatives' basic foundation is religious in nature. That doesn't encompass the entire group tho (which you note)."</p>
<p>That is true but I would argue that many moral principles can logically be upheld independent of religious. Look at the ten commandments can anyone justify (in a universal sense, because situational caveats are insufficient to negate universal rules) killing someone, or lying, or adultery, or dishonoring parents.
In fact many moral laws are found in almost every religion bc they are principles that are universally true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
@ icfireball:</p>
<p>A: The margin swung about 2%. The split is ROUGHLY 50/50. The specific candidates (including that ignorant dolt Sarah Palin) can affect the 2-3 percentage point swing.</p>
<p>B: Once again, can be applied to both conservatives and URM's.</p>
<p>Quote:
While the entire population of America may be closer to 14% black, the population of college-bound high-school seniors is far more white/Asian than black.
Again, affirmative action programs are intended to minimize the racial disparity. Both situations have a significant disparity amongst the applicant pool and AA programs attempt to lessen this.</p>
<p>C: Gibberish. You don't make a concise point here. I think what you're trying to say is that, in general, conservatives aren't as likely to be qualified for elite universities. Thus, it's acceptable to not admit them considering they're not as qualified (or don't have the appropriate amount of good applicants) as more liberal applicants.</p>
<p>Again, same exact thing can be said for racial applicants. Blacks aren't as likely to be qualified and AA programs use race and creating diversity to ignore this fact. </p>
<p>DBate: Since you're the only other conservatirve who's posted this page, what do you think?</p>
<p>Let me reiterate my point: I don't advocate colleges admit less qualified conservative applicants. i just think if they intend to create a diverse class, then conservative politics should be considered commensurate with racial make-up (as both are underrepresented).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A. It was actually a 9.6% swing... a considerable swing.
2004 POP. VOTE; R-D: 50.7% - 48.3% (MARGIN: +2.4)
2008 POP. VOTE; R-D: 45.7% - 52.9% (MARGIN: – 7.2)
TOTAL SWING: 2.4-(-7.2) = 9.6</p>
<p>B. Your not looking at relevant data/numbers.</p>
<p>NOTE: ALL POPULATIONS ARE FOR AGE GROUP 18-24
RACE: Total Population, College Students (% college students)
TOTAL (100%): 27,143,454, 9,203,090 <a href="33.9%">b</a>
WHITE (69%): 18,761,162, 6,756,030 <a href="36.0%">b</a>**
BLACK (14%): 3,804,437, 1,024,774 <a href="26.9%">b</a>**
HISPANIC (25%): 6,764,761, 944,701 <a href="14.0%">b</a>**
ASIAN (4%): 1,133,431, 633,193 <a href="55.9%">b</a>**
Source: <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-26.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-26.pdf</a>
Note: percentages of total population for race do not add up to 100% because hispanic includes multiple categories.</p>
<p>Now do you see how certain race groups are underrepresented? Whites are slightly over-represented, asians are extremely over-represented, blacks are underrepresented, hispanics are very underrepresented. </p>
<p>C. No. I'm not saying conservatives aren't as qualified for elite universities. What I am saying is that political/ideological beliefs, unlike race, are influenced by a person's experiences and qualifications to be at an elite university. I did not, however, say the converse, that political/ideological beliefs influence someone's qualifications for an elite university.</p>
<p>I've got a question that is really off topic.</p>
<p>Does Princeton Superscore for the SAT?</p>
<p>@ Tyler09:</p>
<p>I just thought of something. You clearly advocate that affirmative action be used to increase a college's diversity. That racial diversity is an end in itself. That racial diversity is a significantly impactful (and almost required aspect) of a college experience. That racial diversity should be present to ensure the students' growth.</p>
<p>OK, I think that's the gist of your point as to why diversity is such an important goal in college admissions.</p>
<p>So then what do you make of historically black colleges like Howard, Spelman, and Morehouse? Consistent with the view above, these colleges do not provide a sufficient racially diverse environment. Thus, wouldn't it follow that these schools should be aggressively criticized for not fostering a diverse environment? These schools are surely failing their students. I can't imagine you supporting the continued existence of these racially homogeneous schools given the notion that racial diversity is an imperative facet of college life.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>(I'm aware these schools are 90% and not 100% black, but I think that distinction is inconsequential to the argument.)</p>
<p>Dontno-</p>
<p>Are hisorically black colleges largely black because more black people apply to them (are attracted to them) or because there is an admissions preference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just thought of something. You clearly advocate that affirmative action be used to increase a college's diversity. That racial diversity is an end in itself. That racial diversity is a significantly impactful (and almost required aspect) of a college experience. That racial diversity should be present to ensure the students' growth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes and no. Racial diversity on college campuses is, I believe beneficial to race relations in future generations and beneficial to a learning environment. But I personally also believe that because underrepresented minorities benefit most economically from attending a top school (whites and asians don't financially benefit at all over time) and those top schools train students to be a certain type of leader that goes on to fill spots that those same minorities are underrepresented in, I also support AA for those reasons. Additionally, I believe that creating a greater reward for black students to excel academically helps create a "college culture" in the black community, which lacks one due to a history of discrimination. However, I cannot legally justify those reasons, so they are not valid arguments that I would impose on others. </p>
<p>And in addition to icefireballs point, HBCs have been actively recruiting more diverse student bodies. In fact, the recent valedictorian at Howard was white. It is just that many non-blacks do not consider them. But the schools DO have a commitment to remain majority black. </p>
<p>But I think I may have noted earlier, but it might have been on another thread, I support a school's right to create its own mission and ideal of a student body, and to pursue that ideal so long as they can show that it is beneficial. There are definite upsides to black students attending a university where the majority of academic students and high achieving students are also black. HBCs have it in their mission to pursue that environment, and I don't think I have a right to interfere with that. Now, if those HBCs were putting caps on certain non-black groups, then I would not support that. But the applicant pool tends to be more self-selected, so there has yet to be that problem.</p>
<p>dontkno: Just a little FYI. If a white person were to apply to a historically black college or university they would most likely get in as long a they can show competence on their application and most of them get full ride scholarships.</p>
<p>Just to continue my slew of non-PC comments- One of the "historically" black colleges has a white guy for student body president. Now THAT is hilarious.</p>
<p>it's not really hilarious, did you read that Howard recently had a black valedictorian? There have been plenty of black student body presidents at non-black universities, so it's really not a big deal. And it is only a certain kind of white student who would value the experience at an HBC. You aren't non-PC, just kind of ignorant.</p>
<p>"it's not really hilarious, did you read that Howard recently had a black valedictorian?" </p>
<p>Uhmmmmmmmmm...so? Wouldn't it be kind of odd if the valedictorian wasn't black?</p>
<p>" There have been plenty of black student body presidents at non-black universities, so it's really not a big deal."</p>
<p>Tell me something. Do you think about your posts before you type them? This statement doesn't say ANYTHING that's remotely unique or intelligent. What does this have to do with anything?</p>
<p>"You aren't non-PC, just kind of ignorant."</p>
<p>Ah ha. I hope the 09 means you graduate high school in 09. And not college, cuz if it's college... oh man.</p>
<p>white valedictorian, I figured you would catch the typo. </p>
<p>Person A: One of the "historically" black colleges has a white guy for student body president. Now THAT is hilarious.</p>
<p>Person B: There have been plenty of black student body presidents at non-black universities, so it's really not a big deal.</p>
<p>Person A: This statement doesn't say ANYTHING that's remotely unique or intelligent. What does this have to do with anything?</p>
<p>The Whole World: <em>Face-palm</em></p>
<p>Relevant to the turn this conversation has taken:</p>
<p>CHECK OUT MY OTHER THREAD </p>
<p>You can't take an inverse of that statement and assume that it can automatically rebut my post. And I was talking about Howard's white guy as well. Non-black universities is not the opposite of black universities. That would be retarded. Having a black president happens all the time. My statement was clearly and explicitly talking about a white president at a black university like Howard.</p>
<p>Anyway I was reading through the Stanford EA decision and I saw that Tyler09 was accepted and I wanted to say congrats. It is always nice to see other smart minorities excel. So congrats.</p>
<p>There are way too many asians on our campus.</p>
<p>Lol.</p>
<p>...10 char</p>
<p>asians be crazy</p>