You ask, presumably rhetorically, why you should get into university more easily just because your parents went there? It turns out that there is a simple reason: most private universities have traditionally raised the bulk of their finances, not from tuition, but from alumni donations. It is therefore very much in the university's interest to keep their alumni loyal. They do this in a number of ways, including regular mailing, sports success... and admitting the children of alumni.
It has been found, therefore, that alumni donations regularly increase during their children's high school years, in hopes of making it that much more likely for those children to be admitted, and it is largely assumed (although I've seen no data) that it is specifically the children of alumni who are large donors who have the highest chance of admission.
Like all systems based on fiddling and lies, so hard to unravel. The system in the UK when I was that age was a strong one. Pass the test. If you don't have the money, here is a grant. If you do, you pay. Such a system made the money issue go away and so opened it to being defended.
(Unfortunately behind paywall now). What the article says is 80% of recruits come from Veterans families and they’ve lost the Veterans. That is the nearly identical overlap with law enforcement (police) by the way.
We’re all the same people from the same families.
>Hilarity ensues; “We don’t do enough Veterans Outreach”.
TRUE; getting within arms reach of us would be unsafe, so they won’t be showing their faces around Veterans.
It’s over when Biden croaks.
It’s not a Revolution, it’s everyone moving away from them that wants to survive.
The closest recent historical case for what’s happening is 1911 China- the rulers fall without replacement.
As an American who studied at the Australian Graduate School of Management in Sydney, I applaud your perspective and quick analysis. I think you should explain the table to the mathematically challenged who will not quite get what the - very powerful - point the table makes.
Our country’s best resources are reserved for the least equipped to utilize them. They bring the dangerous entitled ideologies into the core institutions that have eaten them from the inside like a cancer.
This topic seems more impenetrable than ever for obvious reasons - nuance feels non-existant. My hope continues to be that by recapturing the aspirational word “diverse” for society at large (rather than code for a single interest group), we’ll be better able to think about and act upon policies to better address a range of adversities that contribute to greater disparity. Helen Dale is less nuanced.
You would think that something as morally uplifting and socially progressive as affirmative action would be more loudly celebrated by universities, in that they would publicly bestow formal AA fellowships and AA awards to the recipients, similar to other grants and scholarships.
That way us oppressors could thank those deserved awardees for the hard tasks they are undertaking and their sacrifice for making the world a better place.
It’s demise isn’t going to be widely mourned by most, but American history in the post-war era is the essential context, and if you want to start connecting dots the original Brown (in the mid-50s) decision is your most appropriate starting point. Chief Justice Earl Warren was the driving force behind that, and had, as governor of California during WWII, played a significant role in bringing about the internment of Japanese-Americans. It was always clear that that was a racist policy, since it was only applied on the west coast- not Hawaii, for example, where it would have led to the collapse of civilian society due to the exceptionally high percentage of citizens of Japanese ancestry, or the Midwest and east where their numbers were negligible. Anyway, Warren’s remorse over the mass injustice he had helped perpetrate was a silent factor in his efforts to win a unanimous decision in Brown, and therefore it is a seminal case in the heretofore unresolved struggle over racial status that plays on the mind of thoughtful American liberals.We Yanks have a mixed and muddled federal system, as you know, but be careful before weighing in - you might end up writing a book to try to make sense of it all. Good luck sista.
It is time we examined what is meant by the term "racist". It is currently used to define anybody who goes against the current orthodoxy and suggests that perhaps, certain races do not perform as well in certain arenas. For a long time the IQ test was a measure of of intelligence. True, it was flawed but it was a useful indicator. When it turned out that certain ethnicities did badly at IQ tests, what happened? "They" simply decided to move the goal posts and declare that after all, IQ tests were irrelevant and biased.
I think that any form of affirmative action is demeaning, not only to academia in general but to the very people it is designed to help.
It is a clear fact that given independence, international aid, and all the opportunities we can afford, certain ethnic groups simply cannot make the grade in certain sectors. A hard and inconvenient truth. Unfortunately it is not an acceptable position to take, and if I was an academic, my job would be on the line.
I have to disagree. It’s not cheating if you’re playing by the rules, when you don’t also control the rules. You’re a lawyer? Of course, you’d advise your clients to work the system.
what's bizarre is the distribution for all ethnicities, for such a supposedly competitive system that there is anyone getting in from the 5th decile just seems like a messed up system
I'm not a lawyer or an Aussie, just a Yank who enjoys Helen Dale, and in the name of fun and friendship I want to offer a nudge of dissent.
I think a great explanation for so much of American politics and history is revealed by this quote from our longshoreman philosopher, Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
My point being that back in the 1960s, it must have seemed like the right thing to do to put a gentle thumb on the scale for black Americans, just as a tiebreaker or helping hand in education and employment, as they had been on the shit-end of our society for centuries (I make no claims about the legality of this, I'm just taking the claim at face value); but fast-forward 50/60 years and now "Diversity" is a $10 billion-dollar industry and what was meant to be a small help to an oppressed segment of society has somehow metastisized into a bloated system of racial classification, where extra points are doled out for Hispanics, Arabs, women, gays, etc.
My real point is more or less: if AA had been maintained as only a slight boost and only strictly for ADOS (American descendants of slaves) instead of as this massive ubiquitous scheme for social engineering via race, it may have maintained some legitimacy.
I personally will never be opposed to any policy aimed at helping black Americans (and no, not Nigerian princes who pay their way into an Ivy, and same for West Indian aristocrats), but unfortunately their historical suffering has become a pretext for a massive bureaucratic putsch. And thus, pace Hoffer, this business became a racket, and like all rackets it eventually embodied the thing it was created to oppose.
You ask, presumably rhetorically, why you should get into university more easily just because your parents went there? It turns out that there is a simple reason: most private universities have traditionally raised the bulk of their finances, not from tuition, but from alumni donations. It is therefore very much in the university's interest to keep their alumni loyal. They do this in a number of ways, including regular mailing, sports success... and admitting the children of alumni.
It has been found, therefore, that alumni donations regularly increase during their children's high school years, in hopes of making it that much more likely for those children to be admitted, and it is largely assumed (although I've seen no data) that it is specifically the children of alumni who are large donors who have the highest chance of admission.
Like all systems based on fiddling and lies, so hard to unravel. The system in the UK when I was that age was a strong one. Pass the test. If you don't have the money, here is a grant. If you do, you pay. Such a system made the money issue go away and so opened it to being defended.
Good, feel the Contempt flow through you...
... anything that undermines these STOOPID psychopaths, AKA America’s Ruling class, is GOOD.
It’s ending for them and it’s just everyone walking away.
No need to bet long on these losers, either; they’re a force based Kleptocracy that has betrayed and lost their force:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25
(Unfortunately behind paywall now). What the article says is 80% of recruits come from Veterans families and they’ve lost the Veterans. That is the nearly identical overlap with law enforcement (police) by the way.
We’re all the same people from the same families.
>Hilarity ensues; “We don’t do enough Veterans Outreach”.
TRUE; getting within arms reach of us would be unsafe, so they won’t be showing their faces around Veterans.
It’s over when Biden croaks.
It’s not a Revolution, it’s everyone moving away from them that wants to survive.
The closest recent historical case for what’s happening is 1911 China- the rulers fall without replacement.
My mother taught me if you don't have something nice to say, fuck off!
As an American who studied at the Australian Graduate School of Management in Sydney, I applaud your perspective and quick analysis. I think you should explain the table to the mathematically challenged who will not quite get what the - very powerful - point the table makes.
Our country’s best resources are reserved for the least equipped to utilize them. They bring the dangerous entitled ideologies into the core institutions that have eaten them from the inside like a cancer.
This topic seems more impenetrable than ever for obvious reasons - nuance feels non-existant. My hope continues to be that by recapturing the aspirational word “diverse” for society at large (rather than code for a single interest group), we’ll be better able to think about and act upon policies to better address a range of adversities that contribute to greater disparity. Helen Dale is less nuanced.
You would think that something as morally uplifting and socially progressive as affirmative action would be more loudly celebrated by universities, in that they would publicly bestow formal AA fellowships and AA awards to the recipients, similar to other grants and scholarships.
That way us oppressors could thank those deserved awardees for the hard tasks they are undertaking and their sacrifice for making the world a better place.
For some reason I don't recall it ever occurring to me before that affirmative action is *cheating*. But that's it. It's the basics.
It’s demise isn’t going to be widely mourned by most, but American history in the post-war era is the essential context, and if you want to start connecting dots the original Brown (in the mid-50s) decision is your most appropriate starting point. Chief Justice Earl Warren was the driving force behind that, and had, as governor of California during WWII, played a significant role in bringing about the internment of Japanese-Americans. It was always clear that that was a racist policy, since it was only applied on the west coast- not Hawaii, for example, where it would have led to the collapse of civilian society due to the exceptionally high percentage of citizens of Japanese ancestry, or the Midwest and east where their numbers were negligible. Anyway, Warren’s remorse over the mass injustice he had helped perpetrate was a silent factor in his efforts to win a unanimous decision in Brown, and therefore it is a seminal case in the heretofore unresolved struggle over racial status that plays on the mind of thoughtful American liberals.We Yanks have a mixed and muddled federal system, as you know, but be careful before weighing in - you might end up writing a book to try to make sense of it all. Good luck sista.
It is time we examined what is meant by the term "racist". It is currently used to define anybody who goes against the current orthodoxy and suggests that perhaps, certain races do not perform as well in certain arenas. For a long time the IQ test was a measure of of intelligence. True, it was flawed but it was a useful indicator. When it turned out that certain ethnicities did badly at IQ tests, what happened? "They" simply decided to move the goal posts and declare that after all, IQ tests were irrelevant and biased.
I think that any form of affirmative action is demeaning, not only to academia in general but to the very people it is designed to help.
It is a clear fact that given independence, international aid, and all the opportunities we can afford, certain ethnic groups simply cannot make the grade in certain sectors. A hard and inconvenient truth. Unfortunately it is not an acceptable position to take, and if I was an academic, my job would be on the line.
Cognitive dissonance hardly covers it.
I have to disagree. It’s not cheating if you’re playing by the rules, when you don’t also control the rules. You’re a lawyer? Of course, you’d advise your clients to work the system.
what's bizarre is the distribution for all ethnicities, for such a supposedly competitive system that there is anyone getting in from the 5th decile just seems like a messed up system
I'm not a lawyer or an Aussie, just a Yank who enjoys Helen Dale, and in the name of fun and friendship I want to offer a nudge of dissent.
I think a great explanation for so much of American politics and history is revealed by this quote from our longshoreman philosopher, Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
My point being that back in the 1960s, it must have seemed like the right thing to do to put a gentle thumb on the scale for black Americans, just as a tiebreaker or helping hand in education and employment, as they had been on the shit-end of our society for centuries (I make no claims about the legality of this, I'm just taking the claim at face value); but fast-forward 50/60 years and now "Diversity" is a $10 billion-dollar industry and what was meant to be a small help to an oppressed segment of society has somehow metastisized into a bloated system of racial classification, where extra points are doled out for Hispanics, Arabs, women, gays, etc.
My real point is more or less: if AA had been maintained as only a slight boost and only strictly for ADOS (American descendants of slaves) instead of as this massive ubiquitous scheme for social engineering via race, it may have maintained some legitimacy.
I personally will never be opposed to any policy aimed at helping black Americans (and no, not Nigerian princes who pay their way into an Ivy, and same for West Indian aristocrats), but unfortunately their historical suffering has become a pretext for a massive bureaucratic putsch. And thus, pace Hoffer, this business became a racket, and like all rackets it eventually embodied the thing it was created to oppose.