posted
Actually Obama proved a minority could become president despite oppression. NOT that they are not oppressed. Big, big difference.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm racist for pointing out the facts?
Well, you're probably racist, but I don't even care about that as much as I care about the fact that you are convinced you are possessed of a superior understanding of racial and social issues in this country, while your posts demonstrate that you are in fact profoundly ignorant.
You rarely ever have any idea what you're talking about, but hell if you can figure out that everyone short of maybe Clive Candy is pretty repulsed by your rambling aggregations of hazy mistruths.
Keep playing at social commentary, though. You're at least entertaining.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I have little interest in Rasmussen until they start including the actual questions asked in their robocalls along with their interpretations of the results. The wording of poll questions can make a big difference in the responses.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a nation that is 50/50 political split, 11% of the population is the deciding factor. Obama didn't get any higher vote from liberal whites but he did motivate the 11% of the US population to get out and vote. The 11% of black Americans came out to vote in unprecedented numbers. In a system where 1% is the deciding factor, this is significant. The same voters aren't going to show up in the fall of 2010 to support Chris Dodd or Harry Reid.
Ridicule me for siting my black friends if you like,....they've experienced the ridicule from their own for acting white. The black lawyer who sings at my right wing extremist church is a "sell out".....used to the defying your stereotype. If you call me a racist, he must hate his own since our opinions are congruent. He's shared with me many stories of ridicule for his intelligence,...who's the racist?
I do have friends of every race and my father is a card carrying Ojibwe. I don't hold these things out to prove I'm not a racist, rather to illustrate that minorities can have a different opinion. You can be black and be conservative. You would probably call them "House Niggers" though.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not being ridiculed for being conservative, malanthrop, There are several respected conservatives here. You're being ridiculed for being a righwing nutjob. I grant you there's been some overlap in the news lately, but there is a difference.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Minority appointees to the Supreme court are wonderful unless appointed by a Republican. Unless you represent the success of affirmative action, you're a sell out.
As a grad student, I tutored many athletes who were ashamed of the Math Lab. They were too cool to study, despite the fact that what they were studying was a prerequisite to college acceptance. Tell me, who takes their freshman year a subject that is a prerequisite for acceptance into the university? As a math major I can tell you....the basketball team were exempted from this minimal requirement.
I heard they are considering cutting federal funding from colleges that have a high percentage of student loan defaults. Anyone want to guess what schools that might impact? Of course this progressive proposition will not impact minority universities disproportionately.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've lost me. Why do you think what you're saying is remotely relevant to this conversation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I heard they are considering cutting federal funding from colleges that have a high percentage of student loan defaults.
This has been the law for years. What changed recently is the economy (which slightly worsened the default rate, but not as much as had been feared) and the way the default rate is calculated (looking at 3 years post-grad instead of 2).
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone want to guess what schools that might impact?
Primarily proprietary schools. I'd love to see your reasoning for that being racist . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will probably impact schools that give grades for effort. The student's effort means nothing in the real world. It will likely impact universities who's admission policy is based upon something other than intelligence and grades. Disproportionately, funding will be cut from universities that have entrance qualifications based upon factors other than test scores and high school grades. Federal dollars will be taken from colleges that produce graduates who find the real world doesn't pay for effort or give extra credit for your disadvantaged status.
This policy is about repayment of loans. If the students don't leave college and make money, the college loses money. This policy is about success post college......real world success.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
quote: If the students don't leave college and make money, the college loses money.
Also wrong. The loans in question are Stafford loans, which means the money comes from either the federal government directly (Direct Loans) or from one of about 100 lenders (FFELP Loans).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You clearly have a very poor understanding of what "default" means, and what graduates with low income can do to avoid it.
Leaving aside entirely your laughable grasp of college admissions practices.
All I know is my own experience. In WA you need two years of Algebra to be accepted to a state university. I was paid to teach Algebra 1 to plenty of jocks.
Maybe they did take 2 years of Algebra in high school but passed due to effort. Obviously, their knowledge didn't reflect their academic history. Eventually, the real world catches up. When the real world catches up with the idiot with a BA, their loans default.
Again....
Which Universities will be impacted most by a Progressive policy to cut funding based upon student loan repayment percentages? Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates? Is the average graduate of a minority university as successful as standard university? Not sure myself...I tend to believe affirmative action and effort grades will eventually meet up with needed competency.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition, and offer more in terms of grants and scholarships. That means their graduates finish with lower loan balances than say the average Stanford or USC graduate does.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope there is no disparity. I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans. Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned. In one way, I agree with them on this....don't spend tax payer dollars on universities that fail to produce results. I still believe the cutting of federal funds based upon student loan repayment will disproportionately impact minority universities.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I find it strange that the same party that opposes salaries based upon teacher success is proposing cutting funds from colleges with a high percentage of defaulted student loans.
Is that supposed to refer to me? Because if so, you are wrong on both counts.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Afterall, grades are given while pay checks are earned.
Yeah, students' work has NOTHING to do with their grades! And everyone's paycheck reflects exactly how much work they have done.
Tell me, is the sky blue in your world?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone could be a college graduate
Patently false.
How could you not? Anyone can get a student loan. Is your objection due to intelligence or finance? Financially, anyone can....as I did. Student loads are not based on credit and the poorer you are the more grants you get. I was extremely poor, I had grants, yet had to repay 30k in loans AFTER graduation. There is no financial obstacle to college for anyone. Loans are deferred until you graduate.
Even intelligence is relative...you could major in an Ethnic Studies field or Underwater Basket Weaving. True, a guy with a degree in African American Culture might have a problem repaying his student loan. Unless he's fortunate enough to become a leading community organizer working for ACORN or SEIU. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Do traditionally minority universities produce economically equal graduates?
The studies I've seen indicate yes, but it's not really that relevant. Traditionally minority institutions have (in general) lower tuition ...
Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Loans are deferred until you graduate.
For 6-9 months after, actually. And sometimes longer. (If you haven't figured out yet what I do for a living, you're paying even less attention than I thought.)
I know many, many people who have been unable to cope with finishing college. Sometimes the reasons are financial. Sometimes they are emotional. Sometimes they are academic. Sometimes they have more to do with the student's family or other commitments. Most often, it is a combination of more than one of the above.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just for the rest of us following this (however ill-advisedly). Does this mean that there really are things called minority universities? Would something like UC count due to high numbers of Asians or is this some actual classification?
What are you TALKING about? They're in the middle of the process every school has to go through every 3-5 years to keep their accreditation. There's every indication they will do fine.
Their medical program has faced some criticism, but that's entirely separate from the school's Middle States accreditation, which affects ALL programs. Not just one or two.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But there have always been people who vote not on policy, but on race, gender, religion, or party. Who can honestly say they don't know someone who votes for a party because that is what they have done for generations?
I don't find the existence of some small amount of corroboration enough to justify the broad stereotyping that is being engaged in here. I think even if what mal was saying was closer to the reality, his totally shallow interpretations of other people's motivations in general blinds him to any other possibility but the one that is most "obvious," and subsequently very convenient for him. He's just lazy, really.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, mal, I'm still curious what this whole wildly inaccurate and uninformed sideline has to do with the actual topic of discussion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal, you talking about Jocks getting out of hard academic work does not make you a racists.
The fact that you automatically assume that those Jocks are all poor black men looking to find an easy way out does push you in that direction.
I went to a predominately white school. The Jocks there were mostly good old white boys playing football and basketball. Yes, they practiced this sport for hours every day and got out of academic programs that they would need later in life.
Its a shame.
Its not based on race or economics. Its just people dreaming the athletic dream making poor choices, and a community that pays for the school preferring to have a winning sports season to brag about to having a class of truly educated students to support the community later.
You brought up that "anyone can graduate college" then proved this point by mentioning the ease of getting college loans. Being able to afford college, and getting a degree from that college are not equal. Colleges will happily take money from people going there, but then not pass or graduate them unless they turn in the work.
You also have argued earlier that you spent many many hours working your way through college, at a variety of retail and food service jobs. (I think that was you.) Now you mention loans. Either way, what is the difference in academic effort between Joe who spends four hours of effort perfecting his hook shot, and Jane who spends four hours a night serving hamburgers?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Interesting. I didn't know that kind of thing persisted.
To the best of your knowledge is there some reason Mal is using the term "minority universities" (as in is it some kind of code word with some connotations) rather than historically black?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The student's effort means nothing in the real world.
When Edison said success is 99% perspirtation what do you think he was talking about?
Keep trying to turn lead into gold. Spend five hours a day practicing your raps or shooting hoops. The same effort might serve you better with an algebra book. If the 99% effort is wasted, you'll never achieve what you want. Anyone could be a college graduate, very few enter the NBA.
Actually, studies of highly successful people bear out the opposite conclusion. While natural talent plays a significantly role in success in any given field, actual time spent engaging in any activity in which a person is talented is a major determiner of success.
One of the main racial problems in the US is the attitude you have just displayed- that black people have certain racially specific areas of talent. No, in fact the reason many influential black people are athletes or performers is because mainstream society accepts black success in those fields, after a very long and established history of black performers and athletes. There are as many (and logically, even more, given their greater numbers) of talented white athletes and performers, but our society implicitly allows whites to engage in a broader range of activities professionally. These are not evil or intentional or specifically racist trends, although intention and racism do play into the equation to a degree- they are mostly the conclusion of a well established pattern of social attitudes and behaviors. However, the idea that problems of racial economic disparity would be wholly solved by an adjustment in ambition on the part of blacks is naive. The entire society's expectations and understanding of black people needs to shift. This requires a conscious effort.
Although you don't demonstrate a real understanding of what affirmative action is, it is and was nevertheless used as tool for obviating the social biases of white dominated academia in order to promote candidates to positions which, for social and cultural reasons, rather than for reasons of actual ability or hard work, are less accessible to them. The "level playing field" does not demand a *lower level* playing field, but rather a playing field upon which the rules of the game apply to all people equally, rather than favoring the home team. You don't seem to get this. At least, you have yet to ever demonstrate an inkling of appreciation for the existence of this rationale, whether you could ever bring yourself to credit it with the slightest value. Affirmative action, applied correctly, can and does increase the pool of qualified candidates for any position, and encourages a higher level of performance. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is largely in disagreement with the actual data- and is frankly motivated by knee-jerk reactionary racism and scapegoating.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle. Giving a D student enough extra credit to get a passing grade does not make the student any better despite the piece of paper they get for graduating. Employers expect results despite the color of the employee. I'm a government contractor and am fully aware of preference points. Usually it's a sham...most government contracting companies are female/minority owned - on paper.
Apply for a government job. A female minority has preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran is equal to a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you're guaranteed a job despite your ability. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points. The qualifications do not matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon factors that have nothing to do with job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
quote:Their talent isn't shooting hoops or slinging drugs on the street corner. Unfortunately, growing up in the hood the drug dealer is your example of success. Unfortunately, rappers are the example of wealthy blacks. Without a hard working father, you follow the success you see where you live....the drug dealer. This isn't my argument. This is the argument of the African American community.
Literally every single time you try to talk about how things are or what the reality for african americans is, you come off as breathtakingly wrong, insensitive, and crass.
Why is it that if you find yourself in a hole, it just encourages you to dig faster?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the best and most useful thread ever.
quote: I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified.
Perhaps you're simply not the most qualified. Just because you're a veteran doesn't make you qualified for any governmental job. It means you're a veteran, which might put your further up in the pile, depending on the job.
In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
When an agency advertises job vacancies through the Office of Personnel Management or locally through direct hire authority the agency must select from the top rated eligible applicants. The official may not pass over a Veterans Preference eligible, however, and appoint a nonpreference eligible lower on the list unless the reasons for passing over the veteran are sufficient.
Veterans preference gives special consideration to eligible veterans looking for federal employment. Veterans who are disabled or who served on active duty in the United States Armed Forces during certain specified time periods or in military campaigns are entitled to preference over nonveterans both in hiring into the federal civil service and in retention during reductions in force. There are two classes of preference for honorably discharged veterans:
Five Point Preference
Five-point preference is given to those honorable separated veterans (this means an honorable or general discharge) who served on active duty (not active duty for training) in the Armed Forces:
During any war (this means a war declared by Congress, the last of which was World War II); or
For more than 180 consecutive days, other than for training, any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955 and before October 15, 1976; or
During the period April 28, 1952, through July 1, 1955; or
During the Gulf War from August 2, 1990, through January 2, 1992; or
For more than 180 consecutive days, any part of which occurred during the period beginning September 11, 2001, and ending on the date prescribed by presidential proclamation or by law as the last day of Operation Iraqi Freedom; or
In a campaign or expedition for which a campaign medal has been authorized, such as El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, South-west Asia, Somalia, and Haiti. Campaign medal holders and Gulf War veterans who originally enlisted after September 7, 1980, or entered on active duty on or after October 14, 1982, without having previously completed 24 months of continuous active duty, must have served continuously for 24 months or the full period called or ordered to active duty.
Effective on October 1, 1980, military retirees at or above the rank of major or equivalent, are not entitled to preference unless they qualify as disabled veterans.
Ten Point Preference
Ten-point preference is given to:
those honorably separated veterans who 1) qualify as disabled veterans because they have served on active duty in the Armed Forces at any time and have a present service-connected disability or are receiving compensation, disability retirement benefits, or pension from the military or the Department of Veterans Affairs; or 2) are Purple Heart recipients; the spouse of a veteran unable to work because of a service- connected disability; the unmarried widow of certain deceased veterans; and the mother of a veteran who died in service or who is permanently and totally disabled. When applying for Federal jobs, eligible veterans should claim preference on their application or resume. Applicants claiming 10-point preference must complete form SF-15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference. This form is included in the Quick & Easy Federal Jobs Kit Software program. Veterans who are still in the service may be granted 5 points tentative preference on the basis of information contained in their applications, but they must produce a DD Form 214 prior to appointment to document entitlement to preference.
Note: Reservists who are retired from the Reserves but are not receiving retired pay are not considered "retired military" for purposes of veterans' preference.
The Office of Personnel Management provides abundant information on these programs. To find out whether you qualify for veterans' preference, visit OPM's Veterans Preference Information page. (State employment service offices have veteran representatives available to assist veterans in gaining access to this information.)
What Does This Mean?
If you apply for a federal job, your knowledge, skills and abilities will be rated on a point system. You will receive points for related education, experience, special skills, awards, and written tests if required. The maximum points anyone can accumulate is 100. If an eligible five-point preference candidate accumulates 90 points, five additional points are awarded on preference for a total score of 95. Therefore, the preference veteran, in most cases, must be hired before an agency can hire anyone with less than 95 points in this example. A 10-point preference vet would have a total score of 100.
Hiring preference in civil service examinations is awarded regardless of scores. Qualified veterans with a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more are placed at the top of most civil service examination registers, except for scientific and professional jobs at GS-9 or higher.
A federal agency hiring candidates from an examination list must consider the top three available candidates for each vacancy. An agency may not pass over a candidate with preference and select an individual without preference who has the same or lower score, unless OPM approves the agency's reasons.
I don't see any mention of ethnic minority status and the only gender preference is for a mother.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here Malanthrop, I rewrote your paragraph for you:
Apply for a government job. A female minority has no preference over a white male disabled veteran. A white male disabled veteran has 10 preference points over a minority female. If you're a female, minority disabled veteran you receive 10 preference points just like a white male disabled veteran. I've applied for several government jobs....I get an email response "Due to the abundance of preference candidates, your resume was not reviewed". I'm just a white (nondisabled) vet who is equal to a white woman in terms of preference points because neither of us receive any additional points to our total score. The qualifications matter...the initial filter of potential candidates is based upon job experience and qualifications. I'm going out on a limb here....they should hire the most qualified without preference points given to people who have served during active war, disabled veterans, or dependents of totally disabled or deceased veterans.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Affirmative action gives them increased opportunity over their competitors and can elevate their lifestyle.
You can stop right there, because you have no idea what you're talking about, at all. Affirmative action seeks to provide the same level of opportunity to those who don't have it. The idea that it can or does pluck people up from the depths of nowhere and elevate them above others who worked harder than they did is pure and utter crap. It is designed to give the same amount of opportunity to a qualified minority candidate as to a majority candidate. Ironically because of people like you, we need such programs.
Actually, as I understand it, Malanthrop is closer to the truth on the purpose of affirmative action than you are in this case. I could be wrong, but it seems like what you're describing (Orincoro) is the non-discrimination act which says that a person can't be denied an opportunity based on being a minority.
The point of affirmative action is to close gaps. (Income, education, etc.) If we didn't have affirmative action which occasionally pulls folks who are less qualified than non-minority applicants through, there wouldn't be a chance of closing these gaps. You're not allowed to discriminate based on minority status, but a lack of a decent education or job experience are easy things to pull the trigger on for an application and non-discrimination doesn't cover those. Without affirmative action society would be entrenched in the status quo.
So yes, affirmative action's purpose is to equalize the playing field, but we need to take extra (affirmative) steps (action) in order to achieve the equality.
ETA: I just read the post you quoted from, Orincoro. Yeah, you're much closer to how it's supposed to work. I know you're not a fan of folks rescinding their posts, so I'll leave the previous content stay.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. The knee-jerk reaction to "affirmative action" makes people forget even the meaning of the phrase. The idea is that, yes, we should require our institutions to make a special effort to seek out qualified minority candidates is just too much for some people. Even worse, they forget the part where there *is* extra effort involved in finding well qualified minority candidates, and that they are not just taking whomever comes by who happens to be black, regardless of qualification. No part of affirmative action lowers the bar of qualification, and since it increases the pool of candidates by mandating wider searches, it can *raise* the standards beyond the status quo.
I have been affected myself by affirmative action. In this country, foreigners are not allowed to be hired until affirmative action has been taken to seek a native European to do the same job. Since my work generally requires the unique qualification of being an American (such as teaching American history, culture, and English), this is rarely a problem. However if I ever wanted to work as a tram driver or a street sweeper, those positions would be effectively closed to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell veterans are the only ones who get preference in hiring for federal civil service jobs. However, that does not mean that there are no state, county, or city governments that give preferences based on gender or ethnic background.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: In Canada, at least, applications for cushy government jobs is highly competative. Chances are, there were a preponderance of preferred candidates, perhaps recruited internally, which meant that you actually weren't the most qualified candidate.
The same is actually true for certain agencies in the US -- but for many people, the concepts of "highly selective government job" and "lazy government worker" cannot exist simultaneously.
posted
But now we've tied economic justice with environmental justice. If you're a rural white guy, don't put too much hope in the future green jobs: (EPA Administrator speech for grants thanks to stimulus dollars)
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
You sited the Veteran's preference section from USA Jobs. When you actually apply, the preference questions are not only veteran question related. You can "claim" multiple preference categories. Perhaps the other categories of the questionnaire when applying are for statistical purposes only? No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: Do you have a comment about preference points now, malanthrop?
No one should get preference, even veterans. They should review the most qualified, not the most preferred.
Doesn't that kind of invalidate the draft? Not that we'd have one again, but there were plenty of people who got drafted and had to fight whose lives are measurably worse as a result, from injuries, PTSD, etc.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
