|
|
| Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court (911568) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (911702) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 21 15:40:49 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:28:53 2012. Yes that's exactly right. But if they admit based ion each schools top 10% that helps keep the good students enrolled. Like mine. They'd have a better chance at college at LAUSD than in orange county. |
|
|
| (911703) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:41:42 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 21 15:37:25 2012. Couldn't she go back to her home country and then get a student visa? |
|
|
| (911705) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:43:37 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 21 15:40:49 2012. This would be true even without an automatic "top ten" program since a student at a mediocre school would have a higher GPA and higher class rank. Having higher such scores is more important than being in a good school IMO. The only reason to go to a better school is to avoid violence. |
|
|
| (911706) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:44:16 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:43:37 2012. Also to have a better choice of extracurriculars and AP courses. |
|
|
| (911707) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:45:09 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 21 15:40:49 2012. The top 10% is relative.In NYC, the top 10% at Grover Cleveland may not be in the top 10% at another high school like Bayside. That's why SAT and Regents exams should play a bigger role in college acceptance. Another problem with 10% is it discriminates against kids who go to school like Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. |
|
|
| (911708) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:46:26 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:43:37 2012. Yup. "Top ten" would be unfair to kids at schools like Tech and Stuyvesant. |
|
|
| (911710) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:52:16 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:45:09 2012. Another problem with 10% is it discriminates against kids who go to school like Stuyvesant or Bronx Science.Not really since it's not the exclusive means of admission. |
|
|
| (911711) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:53:16 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:45:09 2012. In any event, no college would take most of the kids from one HS, even Stuyvesant or Science. They want diversity among high schools and cities. |
|
|
| (911713) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:56:38 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:53:16 2012. my point is, a kid in the top 30% at Tech or Stuyvesant would easily be in the top 10% at their local zone NYC high school. |
|
|
| (911714) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:58:32 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 15:56:38 2012. Sure. But no college would admit all the students in the top 30% at Stuyvesant. |
|
|
| (911717) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:05:23 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:58:32 2012. Should we do something about the bar exam? Should the exam be given twice a year, and if the percentage of blacks and latinos who pass is disproportionately low vs. their percentage of population, just throw out the bar exam results(like fire departments do) until blacks and latinos perform at a level acceptable to the courts? |
|
|
| (911719) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Feb 21 16:09:01 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:58:32 2012. All the top 30% of students in Stuyvesant wouldn't want to go to the same college! |
|
|
| (911721) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 16:12:25 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:05:23 2012. Logically the applicants to the bar exam would consist mostly of recent law school graduates. Further most law school graduates take the bar. It would make more sense (if you wanted to focus on this) to focus on law school admission. Fire department exams generally have much looser prerequisites. |
|
|
| (911723) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:14:11 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Tue Feb 21 16:09:01 2012. That's true. But if someone is in the top 10% at Grover Cleveland, they could beat out someone from Stuyvesant who is only in the top 15%, even thought the top 15% at Stuyvesant is somewhat elite while top 10% at a local zone HS isn't. |
|
|
| (911724) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 16:20:18 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:27:51 2012. a top 10% student, even from a profoundly mediocre school will not be a poor student. |
|
|
| (911725) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:22:10 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 16:12:25 2012. Stallion should be just as appalled if the percentage of minorities passing the bar isn't proportionate to their % population and should agree that the test results be thrown out unless racial parity is achieved. It's the fair thing to do. And that's what affirmative action is about. |
|
|
| (911727) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 16:38:25 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 16:20:18 2012. I disagree. |
|
|
| (911732) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 16:43:48 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:22:10 2012. No. Most law schools have good diversity. This is reflected in bar exam pass rates. |
|
|
| (911733) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:45:56 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 16:43:48 2012. I'd like to know how many blacks and latinos pass the bar exam. If it's below their percentage of total population, something must be done about it. |
|
|
| (911736) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 16:52:09 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:45:56 2012. No. The better comparison is minority bar passers vs. minority law school population. |
|
|
| (911737) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 16:52:29 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 16:52:09 2012. Like I said. |
|
|
| (911739) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:58:38 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 16:52:09 2012. If if those within the minority law school population go on to fail the bar, we should throw out the results until they perform equal to whites. |
|
|
| (911742) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Tue Feb 21 17:03:04 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 15:32:10 2012. "He is probably correct. Not because of the color of their skin but due to the content of their character."There is no reason to go there with that label. In his case we all know he GOES THERE for racial reasons...which he denies emphatically. |
|
|
| (911743) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Tue Feb 21 17:06:53 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:58:38 2012. "If if those within the minority law school population go on to fail the bar, we should throw out the results until they perform equal to whites."If that were the CASE...Luchie....then WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT ALL MINORITY HAVE AN EQUAL EDUCATION TO WHITES FOR GRAMMAR AND HIGH SCHOOL. Unfortunately, that is not the case since there is UNEQUAL education in America! |
|
|
| (911748) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 17:10:27 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by streetcarman1 on Tue Feb 21 17:03:04 2012. No, we don't all "know that" because it's not true. |
|
|
| (911752) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Tue Feb 21 17:16:03 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Feb 21 17:10:27 2012. "No, we don't all "know that" because it's not true."I beg to differ SIR!.....we all know what a racist person Luchie is. There is no denying that fact about him. He declares he's not because he lives in a so-called "diverse area" in Florida...big deal. That does not excuse him of what he is. |
|
|
| (911772) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Feb 21 17:34:28 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 14:15:31 2012. When they find a place where they can build cars cheaper,they will. It's costing a lot for them to put their employees through school....again. |
|
|
| (911794) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Tue Feb 21 18:13:58 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 21 13:21:24 2012. Take your free market tomfoolery and shove it up your ass. you Nazi assholes made COMMUNIST CHINA a SUPERPOWER to break our UNION BACKBONE.GOP NAZIS HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMMENT ON: MILITARY ISSUES, INCLUDING FUNDING LEVELS. DOMESTIC ENTITLEMENTS, INCLUDING FUNDING LEVELS TAX ISSUES. OR ANYTHING ELSE. AS for race, YOU GUYS FUCKED UP Reconstruction by making it two centuries too short. There should be a carpet bag office in every cracker town. That's why racism persists. |
|
|
| (911807) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 18:43:03 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:58:38 2012. Now you are just being a provocateur. |
|
|
| (911810) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 18:49:31 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 18:43:03 2012. Nope. If every aspect of life should be diverse, even if that means forced diversity through the courts, why shouldn't the results of the bar exam?If I was one of those people saying, "If two men can marry why can't a man marry his dog"? That is being a provocateur. |
|
|
| (911813) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 19:26:27 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 18:43:03 2012. Why can't the "disparate impact" argument be used when the bar exam is given, if minorities don't perform as well as whites? Affirmative action should be as committed to forcing diversity in the field of law, as it is in fire departments and every other area they want to achieve diversity. Law may be getting off easy. |
|
|
| (911819) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 19:41:24 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 19:26:27 2012. You just don't get it.People taking the bar exam are already LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES. |
|
|
| (911823) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 19:47:38 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 19:41:24 2012. You just don't get it.I do get it. Are you going to see Act of Valor this weekend? People taking the bar exam are already LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES. But they aren't lawyers. I'm arguing that affirmative action should use the disparate impact argument if minorities underperform on the bar exam. We should live in a society that seeks equality in all aspect of life, including law practice |
|
|
| (911830) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Tue Feb 21 19:52:43 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 19:47:38 2012. "Are you going to see Act of Valor this weekend?"I am. It looks like an interesting overview of modern SOCOM tactics. |
|
|
| (911846) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 21:05:29 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by streetcarman1 on Tue Feb 21 15:05:24 2012. Iris gutmaker is a douche bag who never had any live children. She did produce a huge piece of shit, though. |
|
|
| (911847) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 21:06:21 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 14:31:46 2012. Son of gutmaker I presume. |
|
|
| (911848) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 21:10:41 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 16:05:23 2012. He doesn't care. He's retired. He already got "HIS". The hell with the rest of the country. |
|
|
| (911850) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 21:13:15 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by bingbong on Tue Feb 21 17:34:28 2012. That's not what you said. YOU said that they had made the decision to move their plant to Detroit> No such decision was ever made. Detroit was never considered. YOU LIED ............. Nothing new for you though. |
|
|
| (911857) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 22:04:20 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by RockParkMan on Tue Feb 21 19:52:43 2012. +1 |
|
|
| (911859) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 21 22:09:26 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 21 13:21:14 2012. pwnt. |
|
|
| (911863) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 22:53:22 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 21:10:41 2012. So are you retired, nipster. |
|
|
| (911865) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 23:15:43 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 22:53:22 2012. Nip, nip, nip! |
|
|
| (911868) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 21 23:21:24 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by RockParkMan on Tue Feb 21 18:13:58 2012. -1 for content+75 for form |
|
|
| (911882) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 21 23:46:17 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by italianstallion on Tue Feb 21 15:58:32 2012. Binghamton would and does, year after year. I wasn't close to the top of my class (somewhere around 50th percentile), and I got in nearly everywhere I applied. (Damn Yale.) |
|
|
| (911914) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Feb 22 02:29:27 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 19:47:38 2012. Are you going to see Act of Valor this weekend?No. I'm not interested in those kinds of movies. I like movies like "The Hurt Locker" and "Jarhead" which are realistic. "Act of Valor" has got "Hollywood Formula" written all over it. I may eventually watch it on video. |
|
|
| (911955) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Feb 22 08:30:07 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by AlM on Tue Feb 21 14:04:22 2012. SAT tests are excellent predictors of one's ability to do well on standardized tests.Which in turn is an excellent predictor of a host of other things. Don't gloss over this point. They reward hard work and kids whose parents have the time and energy to introduce their kids to intellectual concepts. Let me rephrase that: they reflect the abilities of studies whose parents have passed on the genes for intelligence and conscientiousness. They penalize laziness* Which makes them predictive since success requires not only intelligence but the willingness to work hard. However, those things are correlated. lack of interest in intellectual pursuits* In other words, lack of intelligence. and kids whose parents are working two jobs and have no spare time. Which typically indicates that the parents aren't bright enough to land a job where they can get by on its income alone. Traits which many kids grow out of as they get older. Even if so, again, think in a relative sense: if child A is showing a high capacity for hard work and interest in intellectual matters at age 17-18 (when most students take the SAT) and child B does not, who is more likely to be successful at age 30? Most corporate and political leaders (if we can use those as measures of "success") did not do really well on their SAT tests. Even considering one ex-President Numbnutz, whose score translated to an IQ of about 124—well above average, that is utter bull. |
|
|
| (911957) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Feb 22 08:33:06 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 21 14:26:00 2012. The SAT (of old, not the current watered-down SAT which has been stripped of much of its g-loading) gives you a picture of ones intelligence. Grades give you a picture of a candidate's diligence. Both are necessary to determine a quality student since either alone is less informative (a good GPA sans SAT score could mean the student had easy classes, and a high SAT score may mean the student is smart but not hard-working). |
|
|
| (911960) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Feb 22 08:41:47 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 21 14:43:47 2012. Hispanics have a plurality in California; i.e., non-Hispanic Whites are no longer the majority.Of course, since the category "Hispanic" as used by the Census is rather meaningless, that doesn't mean as much as is it sounds. |
|
|
| (911961) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Feb 22 08:43:58 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 14:59:44 2012. As long as people are unequal in ability, equality of opportunity will not translate into equality of outcome... |
|
|
| (911964) | |
Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Feb 22 08:47:22 2012, in response to Re: Affirmative Action Case Back To Supreme Court, posted by SMAZ on Tue Feb 21 16:20:18 2012. Wrong.On what logic is that based? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||