Oh, not by race. But based on socioeconomic status.
The person that leads the place I work is an African-American man, our attorney is an ethnic woman. The partners in the dentist, ophthalmologist, and doctor practices I use are diverse.
I’m just not seeing the need for preferential admission to colleges and universities based on race being a factor for them.
On the other hand ALL prospective students from the lower socioeconomic strata needs that help to get a leg up.
The problem isn’t, IMHO, increasing admissions for minorities. The real problem is making post secondary education more affordable for all so that post high school students of all persuasions can acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities to improve their own status.
If minorities compose a higher percentage of those in the lower economic strata, then by they results in the long term will still improve the positions of minorities.
Still wrong metric. Cognitive ability, then SES.
I support merit based admissions.
Libs believe in slanting the system to soothe their own petty desire to feel virtuous at someone else’s expense?
There are a wide range of opportunities based on cognitive ability available in post high school education organizations.
That and test scores are not always a good indicator or cognitive ability.
In my younger days I applied for the Navy’s BOOST (Broadened Opportunity for Officer Selection Training) program. It attempted to take those that didn’t have the scores to apply directly for an officer commission based on college. Candidates that were selected attended an intense 12 week summer program to improve written and verbal communications skills, math, and science. Upon successful completion graduates could be eligible for an ROTC scholarship or win a direct appointment to the Naval Academy.
(DISCLAIMER: I didn’t get selected, but by the time I retired I’d completed my BS and MS through tuition assistance.)
Too much talk about “top schools” like Harvard. Sure their graduates, like Kennedys and Bushes, do great. They do great because they are born elite, not because they went to Harvard or Yale.
There are plenty of top notch regional schools that are not nearly as expensive that a person can attain an education in engineering or science or business. Entrance requirements aren’t so terribly high either…possibly a C average. Unfortunately, you have to produce once you get there in order for it to,do any good.
Missouri S&T has a better value for their education than the likes of most elite schools. Graduates here also start off making more than most of their peers around the country.
Otherwise, you can drop out and be a filthy little crackhead making millions of dollars off yo’ (D)addy’s name.
The cost of living is proportionally less therefore making the higher salaries of bay much higher. Which is great
First time I agree with dumbass AOC.
If merit based admissions are the goal, do away with legacy admissions, in which a family tie to an alumnus is given points that increase admission probability.
And socioeconomic status should be irrelevant to college admission. I respect the extra effort that members of a lower socioeconomic status may have to put forth. But if that person didn’t put forth that effort in high school to achieve a rank superior to others, then I see no reason to believe they will do it in college. And if they don’t, then they will be lowering the academic standards of the institution and every class in it.
Myself… the son of working class parents and not much of a studier in high school, I had to wait till I grew up in the Air Force and THEN earn my A’s in night school to be granted a full time scholarship paid by the AF at the University of Illinois College of Engineering. There are consequences for being born without a silver spoon or role model for academic excellence. Is that fair? It’s reality. And the toughest among us can succeed in spite of the unfairness of reality. Maybe that’s Darwin with his thumb on the scale.
Socio-economic factors come in to play (or SHOULD come into play) when it comes to granting financial assistance. And it seems to me that it still does. (I have grandkids going to college now. And financial need impacts financial aid.) FAFSA drives a lot of that. And kids from low-income households with noteworthy grades and SATs, etc., garner fatter financial aid packages.
I don’t see the point of shoving kids with inadequate qualifications into college. If they couldn’t keep up in high school, then college will be even worse.
And if we want to argue that some school districts are at fault for those inadequate qualifications, the fix should be in the school district, not tossing students who can’t swim into the deep end of the pool.
Good post. The only thing I would add is the inclusion of vocational training: welders, plumbers, nail technicians, etc all need training too. They should be included in your program as well.
People should not go to college just because they are poor. People should go to college, and get help to do so, because they are smart.
Nobody said anything about shoving unqualified kids into college.
Just as AA wasn’t intendant to “ shove minorities” into college. But too give qualified minorities better access.
Do they still have co-op, where you go to school half a day and work half a day?
Yes it was, that’s exactly what it was intended to do, and did.
Didn’t say go to college because you are poor.
It’s not a deflection. That is exactly what using SES as the first metric does.
Were in my OP does it say “first metric”?
Please don’t try to put words in my post.
I’m not. SES is a back door to the black race. You know it. I know it. The black nation knows it.