[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quite wrong. YOu're talking quotas. Quotas are abolished. Taking into account the racial diversity is, IMO, as appropriate as taking into account how pretty someone is (for a hostess position) or how well they get along with other (for an HR position). I've been in a hiring position before, and at one point snapped up a black applicant. He was suited for the job. Moreover, we were quite embarrassed at the fact we had no minority employees - company image is a fair concern.

Ah, but this is because the college system in the USA does seem to have a problem - the extreme tuition fees. Whereas as i understand it, State Colleges are perfectly acceptable bastions of education, the elitish colleges are financially out of reach for many. It's a two-tier system, and the amoount of money generated comes into it. From an education of the nation standpoint, I'll never agree witn this sort of thing. If you treat colleges as companies, then this is a natural step, but then - I don't think colleges should act like companies. They should act like educational establishments dedicated to educating the populace, not making money or accruing status.

White socks aren't really relevant to what you add to the learning experience. But, diversity is. This point system had several factors aimed at getting a diverse student body, such as the 5 points for varsity sports. The sports player has always been preferred - yet unless he's NCAA material, how much more competent a student is he? None. But, colleges seek to bring in and produce well-rounded individuals. Getting people from different walks of life helps that goal. Otherwise, we'd just compile an SAT/GPA matrix and do the math. That would hurth what education is though. And, let's not forget that the LEGACY applicants also got 20 points. Think those people were mostly white? I do.

And Legacy applicants are another disgrace. I'm getting the picture here that most of the problems come from differing roles of colleges/universities in our countries. You state that USA colleges seek to produce well-rounded individuals, taking into account sports and so on. Over here, the focus is on academia.

Also, American colleges have the college sport system, and this has an effect. While it is true that a good football player will not necessarily be a better student, in the USA he is going to a place where he can further himself along the path his talent is suited for. What is wrong with this? I still would have a beef with it *if* the college team system wasn't an aspect, but far less than arbitrary racial determinations. After all, sporting talent is a talent, a skill that you can develop. Skin colour is an unchangeable state (unless you have a chimp called bubbles). Again, this is alien to us - universities have sports teams, but the college sporting system as you have it simply does not exist.

See above comments. The fact daddy went to the school doesn't affect an applicant's ability, but it is most certainly the single biggest trump card when applying to a school - trust me, my kids will be using it.

As I have said, the legacy system is an equally disgusting thing in my opinion. It reminds me of the privilige afforded the royals in this country. One day, people should learn that it's what *you* do that counts, not what your daddy did.

And problems can't be fixed overnight. You are lying to yourself if you think having black skin is a 0% affect on your life in America. It is a hurdle, and the playing field is still not even. Maybe one day it will be. We are simply not there yet.

Ah, but here is the rub - many, many things are going to have an effect on your life, no matter where you live. Your social background, your skin colour, your financial state, whether your parents beat you up, whether your parents moved around alot. Why is it only the skin colour that gets singled out for treatment? Why is it that a student from a stable home, whose parents were rich, loving, educated and generally great gets a 20-mark bonus because he is black or hispanic or whatever?

In life, there are many hurdles, and you just have to deal with them. I can see your problem with the fact that there are still people prejudiced against minorities who make America an unlevel playing field. However, the solution is not to give preferential treatment to a minority over a white person who slogged their guts out for their college place, but to tackle the people who *are* racist. All tilting the field against the flow will do is create tubulence and ill-feeling, and ultimately worsen the very problem you are trying to solve.

I used to feel like you do on this issue. But, my mind changed as I came to understand the state of the law: while race can sometimes be taken into account, it is very VERY limited and can only account for a very minute difference. In effect, it's what you theoretically apply to "split hairs" when you have 2 or more applicants who are relatively equal in their qualifications. I see nothing wrong with it being one small factor out of many.

Hmm ... I would not qualify a test score that was artificially inflated by 13% as being a "small factor". The whole problem as I see it is that whereas nobody would contest that being black can have a negative influence on your life, it is blatantly unfair to say 'because there is a tendency for many minority groups to be unfairly treated by [whomever], we shall therefore grant an unfair advantage to all minority groups.

Clarence Uncle-Thomas says the same thing. But, he got C's all through his affirmative action ride through college and would not have made it to law school, much less the Supreme Court, without affirmative action.

And if he's worthy of being a Supreme Court judge, I'm glad to see him there. however, I would still ask 'was someone who was a potentially *better* Supreme Court Judge denied his place to make room'?

I'll quote a lecturer I heard once: "When the gates are Harvard's, I'm willing to sit at the back of the bus, just so long as I get through them." Ultimately, this logic would be fair. Again, we're not there yet. Again, these "adjustments" serve to level an otherwise unfair white-preference playing field. They don't make it unfair for minorities, they limit the unfairness already there for whites, many would say. It's a tough issue, I know, and I myself waffle on it.

Hmm ... but as I've said, the unfortunate result is that it makes no distinctions between those who genuinely have struggled through racially-imposed difficulties, and those who have led a rather plush lifestyle, but who are still a minority. Yes, the playing field may well be slanted towards whites, but just I just can't make the generalisation that because there is a tendency for a proportion of the minority culture to be disadvantaged, the solution is to artificially boost the scores of every minority student, therefore denying places to otherwise worthy white students who have been denied places purely because of their skin colour.

A) This ignores reality. (B) The diversity can only be artificially created. Since diversity is not really quantifiable or qualifiable, it necessarily is determined on an artificial basis. Besides, 100 white candidates would not educate each other very well at all on world views, you must admit.

True, but if they were going to make the best 100 doctorsn / linguists / mathemeticians, I wouldn't care that they were all white. I would want the best students to get the places.

Again, I see here the large difference between US colleges and Uk Universities. At UK universities, you study *one* subject for 3 years. Unis aren't inteerested in turning out people who are well-rounded as a priority. We're interested in taking poeple with a talent for their subject abd educating them in that subject. I understand that in the USA, a person who was brilliant at maths and ohysics would fail college if he couldn't spell, was rubbish at history and geography, and was a total loss at foreign languages. At UK universities, the prime test for entrance is your results at tests.

Another one of those cultural difference things, I see.

Good thoughts all around. I hope I've contributed in a positive way. I'm not trying to deride your point of view on this. Just show you one that is.... diverse.

I never have a problem with people disagreeing with me (unless their position is totally indefensible and disgusting), and I always view discussions as constructive. Anyway, I know that I am always right, so my ego is unaffected by disagreements