<p>I am all for fixing the elementary schools but of course we would have to fix dysfunctional families at the same time and change cultural expectations and values. Money is seldom the root of the problem. Many urban school systems spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I live in the Washington metro area and guess which school system spends the most per student and which has the lowest test scores and highest drop out rate?</p>
<p>When 70% of Black kids are born in wedlock instead of out of wedloc, when parents stay married and commited to their families, when the neighborhood Dad instead of the neighborhood pimp is a culture hero, when single motherhood is shameful again instead of normative behavior everything else will begin to fall in place. We are a long ways away from that.</p>
<p>It is too late to fix the problem at the college level and sucking scarce public resources there as "compensation" means those resources are not available to fix the underlying problems. There is no justification to spend public money intended to create BA's and BS's and BBA's on students with a 72% chance of graduating when there is an ample supply of students with an 84% chance of graduating.</p>
<p>At some point everybody in this society needs to take a long hard honest look at a bunch of really ugly facts. Not all cultures or cultural values are equal. Some produce Somalias, Ugandas, Haitis, and yes Northern Irelands too. Dysfunctional cultures are not the sole domain of any one race or creed.</p>
[quote]
What the heck do you think public institution should do? They are in the business to make sure people are educated, ie graduated. In fact I just read recently that CSU are asked to do what they can to increase the rate of graduation. As a tax payer I demand that and I think it's the best use of my money as well. Think real hard what is the real mission of a public university, it is to educate the mass, and there is nothing more tangible to prove that than the rate of graduation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Think real hard? Okay! :)</p>
<p>Frankly, not every public institution embraces the mission to "educate the mass." What's rather unusual to me is that you couple this mission with a selective admissions policy! That's really not the norm in U.S. higher education. Those institutions most committed to access (allowing higher education for the masses) are even less likely to weed out people who look like poor graduation prospects. Educating the masses is about giving as many people as possible the chance to get a higher education. </p>
<p>Now it has to be said, I think, that's it's not a good use of public monies unless such an institution works very hard to help these students overcome barriers to graduating. That includes good academic support, excellent advising, ample financial aid, and so forth. Generally the idea behind "educating the masses" is not who you keep out. It's what you do with the students you admit. In that sense your message is a bit confusing to me. I think you're advocating something different than "educating the masses." </p>
<p>An alternative, of course, is to examine graduation rates of different groups and focus public resources only on those with the best rate of graduation (by not admitting others). I am not sure this qualifies as "educating the masses" -- it's awfully hard for the masses to be educated if no public institution will admit them. </p>
<p>Nor do I happen to agree this is good public policy. Research would recommend against admitting men, for one thing! Women graduate at a higher rate than men do, so "why waste public dollars on them?" Surely I don't have to answer that question.</p>
<p>Actually, I think focusing this discussion on "mission" risks derailing it. Public higher education overall has a pretty broad mission, including concepts not even discussed here, and different public institutions have different missions, as well.</p>
<p>I think you could take this one step further and suggest, that from a public policy perspective, a public institution need not accept anyone who could afford to go elsewhere, and, in aggregate, not accept white students at all. Since the income of white high school graduates is not very far different from that of African-American and Hispanic college graduates, the "value-added" to the public of accepting minority (or, in California, "majority") students is much greater. (Never happen, of course, as the political will for it isn't there.)</p>
<p>I'm also not quite sure why the infatuation with graduation rates. Income rises with number of years of higher education just as it does with graduation rates.</p>
<p>call me crazy, but maybe affirmative action's definition should be replace. Instead of focus on race how bout base it on economic background? I'm sure there are alot arguments for this already, but would helping a upper-middle class hispanic create a fairer field than a poor-white? A recent article release by U.S. News (i dont have the link) show that low income students is the biggest disenfrenchise group. Colleges should abandon the preference of race, isnt that what Brown v. Board of Education all about? They should instead choose economic challenge students. If you could provide additional aids and help for footplayers surely college can open their tutoring office and help poor students succeed. I rather have a poor kid succeed than an ethnic diverse kid, and I'm not a racist, I'm just color blind.</p>
<p>I went back and read my post and wondered where did I even mention selective admissions policy, you must jump to conclusion, I merely reponse to you statement that I think public institution such as UC, CSU not private institution such as Harvard, Yale, etc.. must have their goals is to educate the mass and one of the yardsticks to measure that is graduation rate.
CC is education for the mass, therefore you can transfer from CC to 4-year state college/university depends on your capability. So that is why it's for the mass, nobody can be kept away no matter how prepare they are.</p>
<p>I know you don't agree with me but it's what I read recently they(Arnold government) want to increase graduation rate especially for CSU.</p>
<p>mini, that would call double taxation, in my view. They tax you to pay for the public institution and then decide not to accept you if you can afford it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I went back and read my post and wondered where did I even mention selective admissions policy, you must jump to conclusion, I merely reponse to you statement that I think public institution such as UC, CSU not private institution such as Harvard, Yale, etc.. must have their goals is to educate the mass and one of the yardsticks to measure that is graduation rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess it was an assumption, but I didn't think it was a real leap of faith. UC is a relatively selective institution. So is U-M, whose defense of their afirmative action policy did much to spark recent debate. They are not "education for the masses" sort of places, despite their public funding. It's not their mission.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, places with high graduation rates tend to be more selective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
call me crazy, but maybe affirmative action's definition should be replace. Instead of focus on race how bout base it on economic background?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone here who found this idea revolutionary or crazy. This has been discussed over and over, and to my knoweldge most institutions embrace the view that students from lower SES could use programs that help their admission and their probability of success once enrolling. Such a program was already in place at Michigan before the suit was even brought, for example.</p>
<p>However, it's been posited that an SES focus alone won't be enough to correct a troubling pattern of exclusion from higher education among some ethnic groups.</p>
<p>"mini, that would call double taxation, in my view. They tax you to pay for the public institution and then decide not to accept you if you can afford it."</p>
<p>I pay for roads that I don't use, but are used by truckers, which helps advance my local economy, which means folks in my community become wealthier, which means they buy more stuff from me, or give back to the community in other ways. There are hundreds and hundreds of government services like this. Food stamps are means-tested. I can't get them. It would be great to provide more education to other folks so that they wouldn't need to use 'em as much.</p>
That you don't want to use or by the time you want to use they mean test you.
[quote]
Food stamps are means-tested
[/quote]
This is a whole different game, it's wellfare, it should be mean tested, I thought that's the purpose of welfare.</p>
<p>However, it's very noble of you to say you don't need free public education even if you pay for it, so it's maybe ok for you if you want to give up your right when it comes to higher education, but it's not ok for me nor for a lot of other people, that is why prop 13 was passed in California. Older homeowners don't want to pay sky high price for the property tax but they don't get to use the school, ie their children are no longer in school, etc..</p>
<p>"This is a whole different game, it's wellfare, it should be mean tested."</p>
<p>But that's the whole point. Public higher education was started for the explicit purpose of allowing people the opportunities to pull themselves up by the bootstraps - through education. It has always been a "welfare" program - but welfare for the entire society that benefits when poor people, who couldn't manage it any other way, are provided with opportunities so that they are able to give something back.</p>
<p>(Otherwise it's just another welfare program for people who don't really need it....)</p>
<p>Sorry, I don't see your point. Public education is to educate the masses, however education is one way for people to boostraps themselves up, but does education equates with highly selective college? It's no, IMO.
Hate to use myself as an example, but yes I did use education to bootstrap myself out of situation I was under, but it did not have to be highly selective colleges. Cal Poly Pomona where I graduated has something to 50% admittance/acceptance, anyway any idiot can get in, sorry Cal Poly Alumni.</p>
<p>No - I was only addressing public institutions. Both my parents attended City College of New York (it was free at the time), and it was their way out. I don't see much need for using public funds to support the education of folks who don't need the subsidy - and if that means taking money from Berkeley and putting it into Cal Poly, with the necessary supports and tutoring so that people can succeed there, so be it. The public benefit to me would be very great indeed. (By the way, a 50% acceptance rate would likely put it in the top 200 or so most selective colleges and universities in America.)</p>
<p>Mini, the problem with your suggestion is that it would create de facto segregation and lead to even lower priority of funding for public intitutions, similar to what happened with inner city schools when "white flight" to the burbs left the schools serving only poor families and minorities. Calif. already underfunds it colleges; you suggestion would essentially stigmatize the university system. I mean -- from the standpoint of the people who vote the funds - if the university is only there to serve the poorest and least powerful of the population, then what does it matter if there are large classes or underequipped labs, or faculty with mediocre qualifications -- the best & the brightest students will be going elsewhere in any case.</p>
<p>I'm not sure, but it sounds to me that Susie is advocating that public colleges should be both open-access (anyone can get in regardless of qualifications or competition) and free (no tuition charged), because tax dollars support it.</p>
<p>Is this right? I think that's a different sort of discussion.</p>
<p>"Mini, the problem with your suggestion is that it would create de facto segregation and lead to even lower priority of funding for public intitutions, similar to what happened with inner city schools when "white flight" to the burbs left the schools serving only poor families and minorities. Calif. already underfunds it colleges; you suggestion would essentially stigmatize the university system. I mean -- from the standpoint of the people who vote the funds - if the university is only there to serve the poorest and least powerful of the population, then what does it matter if there are large classes or underequipped labs, or faculty with mediocre qualifications -- the best & the brightest students will be going elsewhere in any case."</p>
<p>As I wrote earlier, I agree, which is why it will never happen. And also why even more expansive approaches to affirmative action, incorporating economic status, and providing the financial and educational supports to make it work, is needed even more now than ever.</p>
<p>I am enough of an historian to remember what happened in the shipyards of Long Beach and Oakland during and after World War II. Tens of thousands of African-Americans, the majority of them women, came from the south during the War, and provided the labor backbone of the workforce that built the ships that won the war. And it also was a second Renaissance for Black culture, rivaling that of the Harlem Renaissance. Following the war, tens of thousands were thrown out of work, either with the jobs gone permanently, or to be replaced by white men with much less in the way of training or skill. And when it came time for educational benefits, the GI bill covered mostly white men (Black veterans in the south weren't allowed to attend universities, GI bill or no GI bill.) No benefits for Black women. The new tract housing in the suburbs were built, with federal money, and restrictive covenants preventing Black families from moving there, even if they had the money to do so. Funds were poured into road transportation for white folks in the burbs, while the trolley tracks in the center cities in California were ripped out. As the tax base disappeared to the suburbs, the tax base of the cities of Oakland and Long Beach and L.A. began their declines and with them the schools, and Black female-headed households (headed by females because it was they, and not men, who came to work in the shipyards) had no place to move.</p>
<p>It has taken a long, long time to get things to the condition they are in today, and that is something worth remembering.</p>
<p>I don't have an agenda per say when it comes to AA policy or what not,
my comments are in response to the following quotes from you in your earlier discussion </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe in the state of California, higher public education, ie higher than high school, is open access to anyone, ie California resident, from 2-year CC through CSU, mid level UC, to top UCs depends on one's academic level and ambition, but higher education is not necessarily equate to top UCs, therefore a top UC, is a public institution has to be somewhat fair, the argument that it denies a certain race to higher education base on blah blah blah, does not hold well because if you want to go to college you get to go college and eventhough it's not quite free, it's still a lot better than other state, at least you don't have to sell one of your kidneys(LOL) to support higher education.
My 2 cents</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe in the state of California, higher public education, ie higher than high school, is open access to anyone, ie California resident, from 2-year CC through CSU, mid level UC, to top UCs depends on one's academic level and ambition
[/quote]
</p>
<p>California's system is more unified than that of other states, but the essential system is the same in many places. Open-access community colleges, state colleges that are pretty open as long as students have met minimal requirements in high school, and other state colleges and unviersities that are more selective (and in some states, this includes one or more flagship universities that are highly selective).</p>
<p>Yes, one can argue that we could do away with AA because under such a system, a college-seeking student can go somewhere no matter what his or her test scores, disadvantages, etc. But under that system, there has been a marked underrepresentation of some ethnicities at the top tier of education. Some doubt whether this is good for the state.</p>
<p>That was a nice Marxist fairytale mini. It is interesting how those young lasies who came to Okland in 1941 were still having babies 30 years later - I guess by immaculate conception? Certainly it wasn't that huge socialist inspired disaster call the War on Poverty that destroyed the Black family.</p>