Any equealist in house?

Post Reply New Topic

Equal under the law maybe. Some people are born with advantages. Wealth, talent, luck, etc.

So if you give a poor black person a scholarship, is it because they're poor or because they're black?

I realise that in some countries a higher percentage of black are poor. But even if you have a town in which 60% of black people are poor and only 5% of white people are poor, why exclude the impoverished 5%?

Instead of making a science scholarship for black people, specifically for those who are from a poor background, why not make a science scholarship for poor people?

In a system where you have to pay for lawyers, people are not really equal under the law.

It is both, the aim of such things is to equalize out amongst the groups (races), not by ignoring other poor people, but trying to focus on those that may need it.

I think that we are both Australian, we should be aware of many programs that ask if one is Aboriginal or Torres straight Islander.

One of the reasons I'm in favor of free college education for all is because it will eliminate the racist policy of Affirmative Action in college admissions -- instead of race-based grants and scholarships, everyone will be able to afford college tuition, regardless of the color of their skin, who their ancestors were, and where they or their ancestors came from.

Same for free medical care for all -- everyone will be able to afford prescriptions and medical treatments, regardless of the color of their skin, who their ancestors were, and where they or their ancestors came from.

It will also benefit women and the poor, so "Win-Win"!

A straw man is when one constructs a false version of what somebody else thinks and then proceed to argue against that, rather than arguing against what they actually think. For example, nobody has argued that girls should be given extra points in mathematics just for being a girl - you presented a ridiculous version of the argument because you found it easier to argue against a ridiculous point of view than a real one.

You've done it again here. My argument is not that we shouldn't try to hire people who are good at the job or select students who will do well on the course. My argument is that there is more than one definition of "good coding", more than one definition of "good translation", and more than one way to measure if somebody is good at mathematics. Measurement is very rarely objective outside of the very narrow thing you are measuring. For example, if I say the word "absolution" and ask you to write it down, I am not testing if you are good at spelling, I am testing if you can spell the word "absolution" in English, in Latin script, after hearing it aloud, and then writing it down. If you have never encountered the word before, only speak Breton, only write in Braille, are deaf, and have no hands, then you might know how to spell the word but fail my test.

In simple terms - the American system seems to be fair. The British system effectively systematically gives boys and men extra marks just for being boys.

I also didn't call you narrow minded - I called the point of view sahred by you and Fnord narrow minded, because it is. You are sticking to a very narrow definition of "equality" which doesn't recognise that, for example, tests are not guaranteed to be fair, that people's pasts and presents do not necessarily reflect their futures, and that any attempt to recognise and correct that is an affront to justice.

I presented something I witnessed happening, more than once. Maybe no one here proposed it but some people actually do it.

If you call my point of view narrow minded, can I call your point of view hypocritical?

I do get why affirmative action exists, but I have always felt its kind of a band-aid solution that probably doesn't actually address the underlying issues. It would certainly make the most sense to give everyone the same opportunity to go which free tuition would do.

Also I don't know the specifics of how all the student debt in this country effects the economy. But I suspect it might be less of a wasted investment with free college for all, since if someone does go and it doesn't work out for them...then they won't owe thousands of dollars(they might never end up paying back) and the government wouldn't have wasted money giving them a loan.

If you make it free they won't value it. If you make it free some people will start treating it as a pastime.

If public universities are made free, there will be considerable competition for places in these universities---if the private institution are not made free.

If you don't, I will. Passive aggressive BS! And then he has the balls to condemn members of this forum for personal attacks.

It's too bad the owner of this website doesn't take an active role in policing its mod staff.

Unless they'd kick out the ones who don't advance well and fast enough in their studies. Everyone would get a chance to try, but only those who are actually cut out for it would get to continue... of course, it'd be no good if there was someone who just kept studying a degree after another without really having any intention of finding a job with them.

That might not help poor people. People from the lower class often get lower grades due to having to work their way through college, live on ramen, live in more crowded conditions or study with untreated illness.

College fees are one cause of generational poverty but they're far from the only cause.

Yep, it happens here, with both state-funded public and fully paid private institutions present.
Thought, it depends on the faculty. The best state funded IT studies can cherry pick their students and then make them the best engineers on the market but, say, art history is rather a hobbyist study (a professor from there admitted it himself).
My faculty (physics) is not popular enough to cherry pick students so it admits almost everyone and then runs them through killer first year, leaving quarter of initial number afterwards (most resign themselves).

I was surprized learning that before getting married, I spent most of my life below the official poverty threshold. I completely didn't feel it that way, of course we had to save but poverty? No way. I was in the same social class I am today, Eastern European social classes are not really correlated with income.

How I studied: I lived with my parents and commuted daily to the uni. If they lived further away, I would be able to apply for subsided dorm. Dorm students often survive on "jars" - food prepared by their parents they take from every visit. It's a norm here.
We have free healthcare but I was living with unrecognized and untreated conditions. That made me study for MS for 8 years instead of 5. I wasn't kicked out but that's about my faculty politics, they don't need to kick people out, people give up themselves.

True. Living costs are the reason I can't afford college. The lack of college fees would help people somewhat and would be a step in the right direction, though.