NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of the ignorant elites here seem to think that providing a free college education is the easy answer to helping minorities out of poverty. The thought of work and earning something is abhorent to them, probably because they have never had to work for anything themselves. Those who have struggled and suceeded (like me) or who are currently srtuggleing understand the rewards. It is the quitters and weak who cry loudest.

Well, here is PROOF that a free education is not the solution. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000022.pdf I am sorry, but 1998 was the most recent I could find. I doubt much has changed since then. I also am sorry it is in PDF format - I hate PDFs as much as the next guy.

The point is that before we should expand free education, we should be spending our resources on seeing that the present FREE education is fully utilized by minorities! There is no sense in providing even more for free when so many walk away from what is presently offered. Offering even more years of free education only seperated the haves from the have-nots within the minority population and does nothing to remove the poorer ones from poverty.

gee, everyone must agree since there are no replies! :)

Well, you have a very convincing argument. It's hard to see how anyone could disagree.

Heehee. I certainly agree, especially since getting into a good college just became a hell of a lot harder. All the schools are so worried about hearing the outraged cry of, "PREJUDICED!" that they admit practically any minority student that comes to them, even if they have to sacrifce the higher qualified majority student in the process (believe me, I live not twenty minutes from a major campus; I've seen it). And then what happens? The test scores drop, funding is removed, services and staff are cut, and suddenly the institution sits much lower in the eyes of public.

What ticks me off the most is that so many "underprivledged" minority students get into college for a fraction of the cost, and yet there's virtually no funding for Anglo Saxons living in poverty. And no, I'm not racist; I just feel that sinking Caucasians down to the level of minorities, instead of bringing the latter up to the level of the former, is a really dumb way of promoting "equality". Now, we're all getting a raw deal.

Fantastic. Next time we see some rabid liberal trying to save the world by making us pay for other people's college based on skin color we can simply direct them to this thread.

Now that we've solved this problem got any suggestions on the next one to tackle?

/me saves that PDF files to his drive so he can use the evidence in his U.S. Politics A-Level.

That will come in very handy when talking about Affirmative Action on the Race and Ethnicity section of the paper.

It's an extremely good argument - nigh undisputable.

I found out that I have to join an actual Cheyenne tribe to get my free college. Now 1/3 of my ancestory is useless :rolleyes:

I don't agree with affirmative action but I do agree with free education for all who have the interest and aptitude for it.

If you want proof that it works, see my country. Ever since the "free fees" scheme was introduced, the economy has improved significantly. Over 50% of secondary school ("high school") leavers go on to third level education here.

What ticks me off the most is that so many "underprivledged" minority students get into college for a fraction of the cost, and yet there's virtually no funding for Anglo Saxons living in poverty. And no, I'm not racist; I just feel that sinking Caucasians down to the level of minorities, instead of bringing the latter up to the level of the former, is a really dumb way of promoting "equality". Now, we're all getting a raw deal.

I don't know what world Kislet is living in.

I went to a very prestigious university. I am white/anglo-saxon. I got nearly a free ride in financial aid because my family couldn't afford the tuition.

And the fact that they let me in and paid for my education did NOT lower the university's standing or prestige. In fact, it challenged me to a higher level of achievement. I wanted to prove that I belonged there, that I was worthy.

To say that minorities or poor people would drag down the rest of the students and the whole system is racist and ignorant.

Its the same good ol' boy argument that letting women into West Point would destroy the military.

And a question for Harmonia Mortus: How does one end up with ONE THIRD of an ancestry without inbreeding/incest? Unless you use the same donor with different partners in the same family tree, all values would be functions of TWO (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.) The logistics for creating 1/3 are a little disturbing.

I don't know what world Kislet is living in.

I went to a very prestigious university. I am white/anglo-saxon. I got nearly a free ride in financial aid because my family couldn't afford the tuition.

Key word: went. Things have changed. Here in Virgina, it's practically illegal for a white student to get financial aid, other than a talent scholarship. Why? Because everyone is afraid of being considered "Racist." Because this is a very nasty pocket in which to live, because our past has not been very pleasant at all. The times are changing.

And the fact that they let me in and paid for my education did NOT lower the university's standing or prestige. In fact, it challenged me to a higher level of achievement. I wanted to prove that I belonged there, that I was worthy.

As you were, and as you well should be.

To say that minorities or poor people would drag down the rest of the students and the whole system is racist and ignorant.

No, no, NO! You totally misread what I posted! What I meant was that lately we've been restricting certain liberties of whites, instead of giving more liberties to the minorities. Visit my highschool, you'll see what I mean. It's been going on for quite a while, actually. Few people seem to notice, but it's still wrong. I am not racist, nor do I condone such trivial and superficial viewpoints.

Its the same good ol' boy argument that letting women into West Point would destroy the military.


No it's not. See above reply.

My apologies if my post was worded ambiguously.

I don't agree with affirmative action but I do agree with free education for all who have the interest and aptitude for it.

If you want proof that it works, see my country. Ever since the "free fees" scheme was introduced, the economy has improved significantly. Over 50% of secondary school ("high school") leavers go on to third level education here.
There is currently 13 (and in some states 14) years of free education in the US. There is no need for more. Ther is need ofr improvement in the current education and in the participation rate - particularly among minorities - which is the point of this thread.

you can provide all the 'free' education you want (aka make other people pay for it) but if a worrysome number of people drop out, particulary the ones most in need, then it is not very parctical to expand it before fixing it.

Many of the ignorant elites here seem to think that providing a free college education is the easy answer to helping minorities out of poverty. The thought of work and earning something is abhorent to them, probably because they have never had to work for anything themselves. Those who have struggled and suceeded (like me) or who are currently srtuggleing understand the rewards. It is the quitters and weak who cry loudest.

Well, here is PROOF that a free education is not the solution. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000022.pdf I am sorry, but 1998 was the most recent I could find. I doubt much has changed since then. I also am sorry it is in PDF format - I hate PDFs as much as the next guy.

The point is that before we should expand free education, we should be spending our resources on seeing that the present FREE education is fully utilized by minorities! There is no sense in providing even more for free when so many walk away from what is presently offered. Offering even more years of free education only seperated the haves from the have-nots within the minority population and does nothing to remove the poorer ones from poverty.
Okay, first of all, that study is very long, and you haven't really summed it up much. However, there are at least two issues here under the term "affirmitave action". First is preferential treatment based on school grades for low income or ethnic minority people. This is where a slightly lower scoring black or hispanic student gets picked over a white one. The second is scholarships for low income students with exceptional school performance.

In the first instance, we look at black and hispanic students who score only very slightly lower than their white conterparts. However, when you consider that the majority of these people did not go to the best schools (inner city and rural schools having persistantly lower test scores due to lack of teachers willing to work there and higher levels of crime including school shootings, and which also have disproportionately large numbers of black and hispanic students), the fact that a student has overcome these difficulties and still come in with a score only slightly below a white person who has, on average, gone to a better funded and better maintained school, you can see that a higher level of commitment must have been required on the part of the black or hispanic student. Affirmitave action in this form gives the candidates who have appeared to be most committed the best opportunities.

AA in the second form is about making sure that those truly exceptional students get to go to college despite the hardships of their economic circumstances. The scholarships are awarded on a means-tested basis because there's not much point in paying the tuition of a person who could already afford it.


There is evidence to suggest that both forms of AA turn out graduates in the end who are far more likely to contribute to their communities, and go on to be far more sucessful to comparable students who did not get the advantage of these programs

There is currently 13 (and in some states 14) years of free education in the US. There is no need for more. Ther is need ofr improvement in the current education and in the participation rate - particularly among minorities - which is the point of this thread.

you can provide all the 'free' education you want (aka make other people pay for it) but if a worrysome number of people drop out, particulary the ones most in need, then it is not very parctical to expand it before fixing it.
Expanding unilaterally is probably not the answer, but what I think should happen is that it should be committment, intelligence and drive, rather than finances, which decide whether someone should continue onto higher education.

Certainly providing free education to minorities isn't the answer. But it's PART of the answer.

You are confusing so many things, lumping them all together and calling them all "affirmative action" ...if its those two words that you hate I'll gladly call them something else. How about a long and wordy one: "preferential treatment for the previously disenfranchised within the structure of a system that until recently worked for the exclusion of those very groups now being favored"? Does that work for you? I admit its not as catchy, but it sums of the affect of AA and points out what it came from.

Scholarships are not part of "affirmative action" unless they are granted by the US government for the purposes of promoting minority involvement in higher education. Many scholarships are in fact privately funded and managed for the good of certain "intrest groups" including, Native American tribes. Yes SOME OF THESE are US government backed or supported. Guess how many...and how they compare to those that aren't...Yeah.

Quota systems: Yes, quota systems were a part of many "preferential treatment for the previously disenfranchised within the structure of a system that until recently worked for the exclusion of those very groups now being favored" programs, including some college admissions systems. However these programs were in fact outnumbered by another, arguably more fair system that went by the title in my state as "the second look" whereby applications from minority groups were given another look to see if they WERE just as qualified and the process was then checked to see if they did indeed get rejected because of institutional bias. The application was not given points, nor was it shuffled into a quote for minorities that HAD to be filled.

In fact "Affirmative Action" took on a great many forms. Fairly few of which were, as you put it; "free education." Indeed, many were more focused on getting the people INTO the schools in the first place. But it is hard to generalize overly much; in some states AA is/was just as you said.

However the programs soon came under attack politically regardless of their intent/effect/wording/anything! Most often it was simply a political move to stir up base support by parties who knew their electorate was scared of minority advancement in their communities, regardless of the method. If the current form of AA is poor in a given area, why not REFORM it instead of destorying a program that has positive effects in so many other areas?

The biggest problem with afirmative action is the manner in which it is being executed. It's a wonderful idea, and should at all costs be upheld, but it went down the drain after the first year. What is happening is that colleges have more or less been warned, "you have to have so-and-so number of Hispanics, or else we think you are prejudiced against them, and we'll cut your funding." Therefore, the admissions officers feel obliged to fill the requirements, even if they have to admit students who do not meet their standards. They can only admit a limited number of applicants, which means that some people who DO meet the requirements are likely to get bumped from the list. In the meantime, those minority students who would normally not have made the cut discover that they can't keep up with the workload, and thus drop out. Waste of money, and waste of their time. It's not like this everywhere, as many colleges refuse to stoop so low, but it IS present.

The solution to this problem would be merely to eliminate the ethnicity question on college applications. We are all human beings, all equally endowed with intellect. After that, we go and fix up the school systems in inner cities and the like, so that the students in these areas get just as good an education as any other child. Oh, by the way, providing for and watching over the educational programs across the country IS a role of the government.