541–550 of 888 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kids which most need free lunch often come from families so dysfunctional that any money received would not be spent on feeding the kids.
In the 50 states where poor kids get free lunches, the poor kids never handle the money. The school gives the kid free food and get reimbursed by the federal government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
case in point: Harvard has existed for nearly 400 years before having to deal with a couple decades of the general population thinking genpop needs Ivy League. Harvard will exist for another 400 years after genpop re-invents trade schools or the private sector finds another way to sort for employees. It's just literally not the school's problem. We've wasted many cycles and divided society by pretending like it is.
This is also way overstating it. Harvard's freshman class is around 1700. If you're a top 1700 high school student you have a great shot at getting into Harvard. Only 300 people per year get a perfect 1600 on SAT's. If your scores are top 1700 that alone will be enough to get you noticed. It's not like there are 1700+ people in the 99th percentile.
Indian-American father here, living in the Bay Area. My wife and I came to this country with a few hundred dollars between us and have worked hard to reach where we’re at. We're far from privileged. I am 100% against affirmative action on the basis of race. I think there should be some measure of AA on the basis of economic status. It's quite personal for me this year. My 17-year old is applying to universities to st…
What makes you think he’s only going to get a great CS education at the Ivies, Cal, Caltech, Stanford, etc.? Very few of the best graduates I’ve worked with in my ~30 year career studied at those schools - it was places like UW, UBC and Waterloo that stood out to me as producing a high number of high quality, socially adapted graduates. [edit] and before anyone asks, no I’m not Canadian
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Historically minorities were prevented from being capital owners [...] That overlooks the elephant in the room: land ownership.
Land meets the definition of capital
Of course, you can make any system work with any definitions. It's just more cumbersome to eg state your theorems in cryptography, if your definition of prime numbers includes 1.
When talking about factors of production, it is useful to differentiate between labour, capital and land.
The main distinguishing factor between capital and land is that land is in fixed supply, but you can produce more capital.
Indian-American father here, living in the Bay Area. My wife and I came to this country with a few hundred dollars between us and have worked hard to reach where we’re at. We're far from privileged. I am 100% against affirmative action on the basis of race. I think there should be some measure of AA on the basis of economic status. It's quite personal for me this year. My 17-year old is applying to universities to st…
What makes you think he’s only going to get a great CS education at the Ivies, Cal, Caltech, Stanford, etc.? Very few of the best graduates I’ve worked with in my ~30 year career studied at those schools - it was places like UW, UBC and Waterloo that stood out to me as producing a high number of high quality, socially adapted graduates. [edit] and before anyone asks, no I’m not Canadian
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing my point entirely. In many of the oral arguments for this case the Harvard lawyers insisted that race based affirmative action is ok because race is a factor among many . Implying that if it was the only factor then it would not be ok. So theirs is not a principled defense of affirmative action but rather based entirely on plausible deniability
You keep throwing "plausible deniability" around, thinking that is what is happening here. You're assuming that the decision is someone selecting a candidate solely based on their race, when it is far far more nuanced than that. For Ivy's, the pool of candidates is so unbelievably large to available spots, that they look at hundreds of different data points when evaluating candidates, and they weight certain ones hig…
So, instead of saying that women automatically get rejected, they say that there are many factors that they consider and that sex is only one of them. However, of course when you look at the statistics the admission rate for women is very very low compared to men. But the university insists "one of many factors!"
Now what exactly is the difference between what Harvard is doing and Misogyny University? Clearly, "one of many factors" can't absolve them of sexism. But presumably they think they can get away with it so long as the decision is opaque enough.
I think you are giving Harvard the benefit of the doubt. But I don't think they deserve it. If you look at their history, they have used the exact same tactics. In fact they invented holistic admission for the sole reason of discriminating against Jews.
Race, class, gender, age, intelligence, wealth... there are infinite partitions on humankind, used to divide us. But the future is not split between the "have" and the "have nots." It will be between the "will" and the "will nots". Those who submit to domination and those who choose to remain human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think he’s only going to get a great CS education at the Ivies, Cal, Caltech, Stanford, etc.? Very few of the best graduates I’ve worked with in my ~30 year career studied at those schools - it was places like UW, UBC and Waterloo that stood out to me as producing a high number of high quality, socially adapted graduates. [edit] and before anyone asks, no I’m not Canadian
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I know he will get a fantastic education at most schools. But he truly is a special kid who gets inspired by super smart people and thrives on challenges, and will do better at Cal, Caltech, Harvey Mudd etc. We're not looking at non-STEM schools and Ivies -- I guess they don't want us and we don't want them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, it'll be awesome. In the short term, the few black kids and women who end up in engineering will get respect for making it into the program. And, hopefully a few years later, they'll no longer be looked at as diversity hires.
Oh, certainly. A few years is all black kids and women need to overcome racial and gender prejudices in this country. Or how about we don’t assume all black kids and women are diversity hires now , and maybe, I don’t know, treat each one as an individual and judge them based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin or the number of their X chromosomes?
The titular point of the article was that class is really where the discrimination happens nowadays. Race and gender prejudices still exist but have taken a back seat to class inequality. The article also suggests the primary driver for this--deterioration of public primary schooling. It's very easy to see how wealth can allow some families to leap over this problem.
edit: sorry it sounded like you were being sarcastic? Now I can't tell after your other comment