Quote:
Originally Posted by looneycat
hmmm, let's see, my father couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic (Jewish), he changed his name and had a job within a week, because jewish isn't a color. I went to college on both my and my father's hard work. There were black people in my classes then.
I held a bunch of miserable jobs until I re-educated myself in the 'new' (well at that time) world of computers and never looked back from there. If affirmative action was to succeed then by now those people helped would have instilled a respect for education and job skills in their children and the problem would have solved itself, but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself.
|
My college education was a freebie in that admission was based
solely on academics, that is, one’s high school grade point average. Absolutely nothing else was considered—not race, not religion, not gender, not legal status, not the connotation of one’s surname, not community involvement—strictly by the numbers. The cutoff for admission versus non-admission was also determined strictly by the numbers; that is, one year the cutoff might have been a GPA of 91, while the following year 87, depending on the number of students applying and what their GPAs were.
First, I disagree with the premise above [bold emphasis mine] that “freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.” I cannot even speculate on the source of such an attitude (though several thoughts come to mind…). This college consistently produced a disproportionate number of award-winning, extraordinarily successful achievers, some with accomplishments that resulted in worldwide benefits to others. These awards and achievements would not have happened otherwise, which would have been a great loss from local community to universal.
Second, there are drawbacks—some not terribly important, some quite potentially serious—to the manner of selection based solely on academics, which is what some posters are suggesting. Using myself as an example, I went through high school without giving an iota of time to citizenship, community service, extracurricular activities, school service, and so forth. To be honest, there were legitimate reasons for my poor performance (or “non performance” is more accurate) in these ways: There were serious family health and economic issues that necessitated my working as soon as I was legally old enough to do so while arranging a school schedule that got me out as early as possible during the school day. However, I had classmates who were totally lacking in any sense of community, voluntarism, service, yet they had access to a free college education based on academics! One alleged psychopath (later diagnosed by a professional) was arrested and subsequently convicted for rape and violent assault—but his grades were great!
What potentially viable students missed out on a college education because their GPAs were a hundredth of a point less, who were beaten out (no pun intended) by, among others, a psychopath? So, IMHO, many factors need to be considered, and determining which should be taken into account is no easy feat. But to glibly insist that we go solely by numbers rather than by the human individuals in the select pool, ostensibly in the interest of fairness (or possibly some other agenda) might benefit some but could end up detrimental overall, notwithstanding the successes of the college I attended in the manner that they employed back then. I might add that the college no longer follows the strictly rigid, “GPA-elitist” path but now looks at each potential student individually. At least the powers-that-be are able to recognize a wrong and make it as right as it possibly can be. This is not a simple issue….