NationStates Jolt Archive

maybe it just meant they had a better chance. I wanna go to college and i worked really hard in school but there is someone who did better, let me get the crappy school they can do better

It may sound harsh, but if your own merits don't get you into college, you have no business being there. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with what person goes there, or elsewhere.

It may sound harsh, but if your own merits don't get you into college, you have no business being there. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with what person goes there, or elsewhere.

Life shouldn't give free rides. People who screw around in school and be "cool" get their just deserts in the real world.

hey btw wat does this have to do with feminism?

If knowing that they could get in because the school had some sort of quota was the only reason they applied, they don't deserve a degree.
Right so people who would not have applied knowing for a fact they cannot get in, but who are capable of achieving a degree, dont deserve one...aha people deserve to be shut out of education permently because when they were younger they had to leave school so their family could survive, how very just of you...

If they have the ability to earn a degree, no quota system is necessary.
Untrue, I could not have gotten into my degree courses without a quota system, and I had to earn my place, and consider myself no less deserving than some kid whose parents finance their education, just because at 15 I had to go earn my own way without having completed so much as 2 years secondary school.

Right so people who would not have applied knowing for a fact they cannot get in, but who are capable of achieving a degree, dont deserve one...aha people deserve to be shut out of education permently because when they were younger they had to leave school so their family could survive, how very just of you...

If they are capable of achieving a degree, they can get in. It really isn't that hard to understand.

If they are not capable of achieving a degree due to a lack of classes, there are many places in which classes can be obtained.

Untrue, I could not have gotten into my degree courses without a quota system, and I had to earn my place, and consider myself no less deserving than some kid whose parents finance their education, just because at 15 I had to go earn my own way without having completed so much as 2 years secondary school.

If there was a quota system involved, then you did not "earn your place."

Now, if what you mean by quota system is "my financial situation was considered," then we aren't talking about the same thing. If you mean "my school had a rule that X number of people of my financial situation had to be allowed in" (a true quota system), then it is uncalled for.

hey btw wat does this have to do with feminism?

Quotas could be used for gender as well as race.

Right so people who would not have applied knowing for a fact they cannot get in, but who are capable of achieving a degree, dont deserve one...aha people deserve to be shut out of education permently because when they were younger they had to leave school so their family could survive, how very just of you...

Untrue, I could not have gotten into my degree courses without a quota system, and I had to earn my place, and consider myself no less deserving than some kid whose parents finance their education, just because at 15 I had to go earn my own way without having completed so much as 2 years secondary school.

If they are smart enough then there are courses they can take which are open entry which will then give them proof they can show to universities. At least where I live.

If they are capable of achieving a degree, they can get in. It really isn't that hard to understand.
That is not true, many applicants who meet the minimum criteria are turned away from courses every single year because demand outstrips supply. The entry criteria is set at a level that those who meet it are presumed able to complete the degree, so clearly persons capable of completing the degree are turned away every year.

If they are not capable of achieving a degree due to a lack of classes, there are many places in which classes can be obtained.
And they may not wish to get the degrees attendence at such classes results in.


If there was a quota system involved, then you did not "earn your place."
I did indeed earn my place, and there was a quota system in place. Like other applicants I had to prove my ability to complete the degree, I didnt do so as they did, nor if I were judged on the same criteria as they would I have gotten a place, but they would not have gotten one considered under the criteria I recieved a placement under. Evidently the success of students admitted under the quota proves their ability and that they are deserving, many students who entered under general application for instance have not left with a conjoint degree with honours as has more than one graduate admitted under the same quota provision as myself.

[quota]Now, if what you mean by quota system is "my financial situation was considered," then we aren't talking about the same thing. If you mean "my school had a rule that X number of people of my financial situation had to be allowed in" (a true quota system), then it is uncalled for.[/QUOTE]
No we are talking about X group having placements put aside that are not available to other applicants unless group X does not yeild enough applicants who meet the criteria posed.

That is not true, many applicants who meet the minimum criteria are turned away from courses every single year because demand outstrips supply. The entry criteria is set at a level that those who meet it are presumed able to complete the degree, so clearly persons capable of completing the degree are turned away every year.

Yes people are turned away. Why should the people who fit these quotas not have an equal chance of being one of the people turned away? Why should they get a free pass?

If they are smart enough then there are courses they can take which are open entry which will then give them proof they can show to universities. At least where I live.
Putting aside the fact that your situation not having a problem doesnt make the solution being applied elsewhere wrong, how would a university know if I am smart enough? The university I am referring to decides based on highschool education results, which means I cant get a place regardless how 'smart' I am. Fortunately the university is not unaware that this would eliminate a large number of desirable and capable students so they have a number of placements set aside with different criteria, this consititutes a quota system because those placements are not available to general applicants unless they are surplus to the number of applicants who meet the entry requirements. Despite this it is more common than not for placements to be returned to the general pool, and the academic standard of those accepted under this particular quota are above the university average.

Putting aside the fact that your situation not having a problem doesnt make the solution being applied elsewhere wrong, how would a university know if I am smart enough? The university I am referring to decides based on highschool education results, which means I cant get a place regardless how 'smart' I am. Fortunately the university is not unaware that this would eliminate a large number of desirable and capable students so they have a number of placements set aside with different criteria, this consititutes a quota system because those placements are not available to general applicants unless they are surplus to the number of applicants who meet the entry requirements. Despite this it is more common than not for placements to be returned to the general pool, and the academic standard of those accepted under this particular quota are above the university average.

Describe some of the special criteria. We may be arguing different casses. The courses I was talking about are not uni courses but seperate and require very little previous qualification. These then give you something you can use to show universities that you have the skills required.

Let me start off by saying I'm a feminist.I'm not a lesbian(not that this should be a problem) I'm considered quite attractive. I don't hate men and I love sex. These are the usual things the Rushies comment on first."feminists hate men, hate sex, are lesbians, are bitter ugly women who can't get sex" For every white guy who gets cheated out of a job because he's a white guy, ten blacks or women get cheated because of their gender or race. I have no problems with equal rights=equal responsibilities. If guys get drafted so should women. When I turned 18 I registered for the draft. I think women can be every bit as bloodthirsty as a man. The world would not become a peaceful utopia if women ruled. Look at Boudicca or Jinga. But don't give me that crap about women having equality already. Most men are happier married while most women are happier single. Most women today work outside the home and still are expected to do most of the crap about keeping up the homefront. Why is it more important to insurance companies that men can get it up than their wives can keep from getting pregnant? I've had plenty of jobs where a less qualified guy got promoted to management because guys are soooo authoritive. Yes, I once had a boss (male) who told me not to hire guys because they wouldn't do filing or cleaning. But far more bosses went the other way.(same moron wanted me to fire the cleanfreak because he was gay) Obviously I tendered my resignation not long after. Yes, there are cases of 'reverse discrimination', but it's still harder on women in the general sense.

Yes people are turned away. Why should the people who fit these quotas not have an equal chance of being one of the people turned away? Why should they get a free pass?
What free pass, I had to demonstrate my worth and ability as a student, it was simply accepted that my means to do so was different to that of the general applicant and should be considered so. The fact that those who are admitted under the quota referred to not only achieve, but surpass the average of those admitted under general criteria disproves that students so admitted lack the ability or unwilling to put in the same effort, so in effect the quota seems self justifying - if they are such 'free riders' why in equal competition do they perform better than those admitted under general application, and if the quota isnt necessary why is that a group who is under represented but outperforms the general student body, would be utterly excluded without it? Doesnt the fact that a group that outperforms the general body is completely made up of people who wouldnt be there at all but for the quota, prove the worth of the quota?

Let me start off by saying I'm a feminist.I'm not a lesbian(not that this should be a problem) I'm considered quite attractive. I don't hate men and I love sex.

Good for you.

For every white guy who gets cheated out of a job because he's a white guy, ten blacks or women get cheated because of their gender or race.

Link to statistics please.

I have no problems with equal rights=equal responsibilities. If guys get drafted so should women. When I turned 18 I registered for the draft. I think women can be every bit as bloodthirsty as a man. The world would not become a peaceful utopia if women ruled. Look at Boudicca or Jinga.

Good you signed up and true.


But don't give me that crap about women having equality already. Most men are happier married while most women are happier single.

Then why is the wedding day considered the womans special day. And why do women apparently spend long times dreaming of the perfect wedding?


I've had plenty of jobs where a less qualified guy got promoted to management because guys are soooo authoritive. Yes, I once had a boss (male) who told me not to hire guys because they wouldn't do filing or cleaning. But far more bosses went the other way.(same moron wanted me to fire the cleanfreak because he was gay) Obviously I tendered my resignation not long after. Yes, there are cases of 'reverse discrimination', but it's still harder on women in the general sense.

Unfortuantly one persons experience doesn't mean a lot. I have had a much different veiw of the world.

What free pass, I had to demonstrate my worth and ability as a student, it was simply accepted that my means to do so was different to that of the general applicant and should be considered so. The fact that those who are admitted under the quota referred to not only achieve, but surpass the average of those admitted under general criteria disproves that students so admitted lack the ability or unwilling to put in the same effort, so in effect the quota seems self justifying - if they are such 'free riders' why in equal competition do they perform better than those admitted under general application, and if the quota isnt necessary why is that a group who is under represented but outperforms the general student body, would be utterly excluded without it? Doesnt the fact that a group that outperforms the general body is completely made up of people who wouldnt be there at all but for the quota, prove the worth of the quota?

Again please post some of these quota details. I am starting to think we are talking about very different types of quota.

Describe some of the special criteria. We may be arguing different casses. The courses I was talking about are not uni courses but seperate and require very little previous qualification. These then give you something you can use to show universities that you have the skills required.
You asked me to provide one example and I did. The argument that quotas are harmful and/or useless inherently fails if one non harmful non useless quota system exists. I have never stated (and absolutely do not believe) that quota systems are not something that can be misused, and in fact I dont even believe that they dont tend to be misapplied or poorly formulated. That is not a point I would try to make, but 'quota systems are bad' and 'quota systems serve no good purpose' is entirely different to 'quota systems are useless or inefficient, and/or counterproductive if formulated or applied inappropriately'. Anything inappropriately formulated or applied is likely to be inefficient, useless or counterproductive.

That is not true, many applicants who meet the minimum criteria are turned away from courses every single year because demand outstrips supply. The entry criteria is set at a level that those who meet it are presumed able to complete the degree, so clearly persons capable of completing the degree are turned away every year.

And every one of those applicants can either apply to a different school or apply again the next year.

And they may not wish to get the degrees attendence at such classes results in.

The classes to which I was referring are remedial classes designed to get a student on par with the others entering higher education. These are not classes which work towards any particular degree, but work towards preparing the student for higher education in general.

I did indeed earn my place, and there was a quota system in place. Like other applicants I had to prove my ability to complete the degree, I didnt do so as they did, nor if I were judged on the same criteria as they would I have gotten a place, but they would not have gotten one considered under the criteria I recieved a placement under. Evidently the success of students admitted under the quota proves their ability and that they are deserving, many students who entered under general application for instance have not left with a conjoint degree with honours as has more than one graduate admitted under the same quota provision as myself.

This says more about a problem with the entrance criterion than with anything else. Having a set aside number of positions for "X criteria" vs. "Y criteria" is pretty clear discrimination. However, if the school simply accepted people who met either X or Y on a qualification basis, there would be no problems.


No we are talking about X group having placements put aside that are not available to other applicants unless group X does not yeild enough applicants who meet the criteria posed.

This isn't a true quota, as a true quota would have to be met.

It certainly isn't the best way to do it, as thos under the alternate system are still being viewed as being entitled to special consideration, but it is better than a true quota.

What free pass, I had to demonstrate my worth and ability as a student, it was simply accepted that my means to do so was different to that of the general applicant and should be considered so. The fact that those who are admitted under the quota referred to not only achieve, but surpass the average of those admitted under general criteria disproves that students so admitted lack the ability or unwilling to put in the same effort, so in effect the quota seems self justifying - if they are such 'free riders' why in equal competition do they perform better than those admitted under general application, and if the quota isnt necessary why is that a group who is under represented but outperforms the general student body, would be utterly excluded without it? Doesnt the fact that a group that outperforms the general body is completely made up of people who wouldnt be there at all but for the quota, prove the worth of the quota?

Again, this is a much better argument against the established criteria than it is for a quota system.

And every one of those applicants can either apply to a different school or apply again the next year.
Many cannot apply to a different school due to financial/family committments. There is evidently no other equivilent course in the region, one would have to move house to attend an equivilent course, something many cannot do (for instance I know many people who have custody conditions that assert they cannot remove the child in their care to a distance that would inhibit the other parent's access, I know others who cannot leave their jobs, or expect their spouses to leave their jobs, I have friends who cant more their ill reletives away from specialist care and certainly dont intend to dump them, many people will place their child's schooling as I do before their own and wont move their school if they are settled and doing well, in fact there are numerous reasons why moving to attend a degree course is not possible).



The classes to which I was referring are remedial classes designed to get a student on par with the others entering higher education. These are not classes which work towards any particular degree, but work towards preparing the student for higher education in general.
This is not relevent to my argument which is 'quota systems can be productive if they are appropriately formulated and applied'.


This says more about a problem with the entrance criterion than with anything else. Having a set aside number of positions for "X criteria" vs. "Y criteria" is pretty clear discrimination. However, if the school simply accepted people who met either X or Y on a qualification basis, there would be no problems.
It really doesnt matter why the quota system is necessary, in fact it would be silly to suggest that if all things were ideal a quota system would even be appropriate.
The fact is the establishment concerned has decided that the quota system referred to as the most efficient way to address a balance of problems, and they appear to be correct. People who admitted they would have not had the confidence to apply without the system have been amongst the top achievers nationally in their degrees, so how is that not productive? Even if you think a lack of confidence based renders someone underserving of the very self improvement that might instill that confidence, many others think that the benefits outweigh any 'you dont deserve it because you are not personally evolved enough' arguments that to me appear churlish and require one to turn a blind eye to the tangable benefits to the individual and the community. And why does lack of confidence in a person able, hardworking and determined render them undeserving anyway? Why is confidence a pre-requisite for higher education?

This isn't a true quota, as a true quota would have to be met.
No a 'true quota' does not have to be met. If you put aside a quota of places that are not generally available unless they cannot be filled by the target group, then that is a quota. As is having a criteria that grants automatic acceptance to those of a target group who meet the criteria, whilst those of the target group that dont, and general applicants have to compete for a limited number (determined by how many positions, minus various quota system positions taken) of places.

As I have pointed out few if any quotas that are 'absolute' are appropriate. In the case of most of the quota systems I have any familiarity with no absolutes numbers are involved. In some of the systems limited numbers of places go to a target group and they are filled by anyone who meets entry requirements, and any remainder is placed back in the pool, or unlimited admission is granted to particular types of applicants who meet particular criteria, and these places are granted regardless of the number of applicants who fit the criteria, and only to so many as do.

It certainly isn't the best way to do it, as thos under the alternate system are still being viewed as being entitled to special consideration, but it is better than a true quota.
Why is it not ideal, it has been proven to facilitate the higher education of exceptional achievers who have asserted that without it they would not have applied? And as to special consideration, so what? I know that I had to earn my place. The university knows I had to earn my place. The people who are important to me know that I had to earn my place, who else's opinion matters? Someone who is unaware enough of the quota system to not know I earned my place, doesnt have a valid opinion...

Again, this is a much better argument against the established criteria than it is for a quota system.
Your solution would result in a substantial number of high achievers not even applying, of course you seem to think a lack of confidence renders them underserving, I disagree. If they are capable, hard working and motivated, confidence will be picked up along the way...it cannot be equally said that if one is confident capablitity, work ethics and motivation will consequentially follow.

(sorry I took days to reply, my internet became non-functional....)

Many cannot apply to a different school due to financial/family committments. There is evidently no other equivilent course in the region, one would have to move house to attend an equivilent course, something many cannot do (for instance I know many people who have custody conditions that assert they cannot remove the child in their care to a distance that would inhibit the other parent's access, I know others who cannot leave their jobs, or expect their spouses to leave their jobs, I have friends who cant more their ill reletives away from specialist care and certainly dont intend to dump them, many people will place their child's schooling as I do before their own and wont move their school if they are settled and doing well, in fact there are numerous reasons why moving to attend a degree course is not possible).

All of this assumes that there is an inherent right to higher education and that everyone should have it. As crass as it may sound, this is not true. Those who truly want it can make arrangements. I have known a woman who was married with 3 kids ranging from college age to infant. She worked a full-time job and still was completing an engineering degree at a top institution. If someone wants it enough, they will do it - and there are ways to do so that don't involve discrimination.

This is not relevent to my argument which is 'quota systems can be productive if they are appropriately formulated and applied'.

In my opinion, enforced discrimination is not "appropriately formulated and applied." It may work as a quick fix, but does nothing to fix the underlying problem, nor will any form of discrimination be appropriate in the long run.

And why does lack of confidence in a person able, hardworking and determined render them undeserving anyway? Why is confidence a pre-requisite for higher education?

What does lack of confidence have to do with the price of eggs in China?

No a 'true quota' does not have to be met. If you put aside a quota of places that are not generally available unless they cannot be filled by the target group, then that is a quota. As I have pointed out few if any quotas that are 'absolute' are appropriate.

And quotas that are not absolute are slightly better, but still not adequate.

Why is it not ideal, it has been proven to facilitate the higher education of exceptional achievers who have asserted that without it they would not have applied?

It is not ideal because it is nothing more than enforced discrimination. You seem to think that any means to get to the ends are appropriate.

And as to special consideration, so what? I know that I had to earn my place.

You had to earn your grades, not your place. This logic is like saying, "They gave me the medal, but it's ok, since I actually ran fast enough to get it later on."

Your solution would result in a substantial number of high achievers not even applying, of course you seem to think a lack of confidence renders them underserving, I disagree.

So if both the criteria which you met and the criteria generally in place were considered equally, that would discourage people from applying? You wouldn't have applied to school if you weren't absolutely guarranteed a place, but you knew you met the general qualifications? That's exactly the same as asking for a hand-out.

If they are capable, hard working and motivated, confidence will be picked up along the way...it cannot be equally said that if one is confident capablitity, work ethics and motivation will consequentially follow.

I don't know where you got the idea that confidence is even an issue here.

Peopleandstuff could you please get a few examples of these quotas. If you mean things like this http://enrol.massey.ac.nz/eligible/eligiblenz.htm then they are just different criteria that can get you admited and not really a quota system.

the eastern bloc put them to work in the gulags and mining refineries of siberia, they will learn that simply b/c they are not male, they have certain rights, this is not so here..
everyone works, or you donot eat.. this is life..

I'm convinced that peopleandstuff faced some heavy sexism when she was younger.

I'm convinced that peopleandstuff faced some heavy sexism when she was younger.
that's no excuse for promoting injustice.

All of this assumes that there is an inherent right to higher education and that everyone should have it. As crass as it may sound, this is not true. Those who truly want it can make arrangements. I have known a woman who was married with 3 kids ranging from college age to infant. She worked a full-time job and still was completing an engineering degree at a top institution. If someone wants it enough, they will do it - and there are ways to do so that don't involve discrimination.


And as crass as it may seem I agree … is that not part of the higher education experience that makes graduates so desired? Yes some have it harder then others but a lot of us work the two three jobs … pull the massive amounts of hours and are put through the sleepless helpless nights working on projects. Not only that but we pay massive amounts of money to do it and go through more hoops then I would care to count just to get into a single course


All of this has TAUGHT me so much (as horrible as it sounds) it has taught me to deal with people and go after goals (before this I was so shy)

All and all the TOUGHNESS of getting through collage has taught me self confidence and people skills as well as dealing with the general bs that comes with real life.

Personally I would not want it any other way … if collage was guaranteed it would just be another high school with harder classes (yes I learned a lot there but I did not appreciate nor try nearly as hard as I should have in retrospect)

No collage should not be for all … it should be for those that rise above what they have or are just to get the “privilege” of being there … because that in and of it self was a massive learning experience

All of this assumes that there is an inherent right to higher education and that everyone should have it. As crass as it may sound, this is not true. Those who truly want it can make arrangements. I have known a woman who was married with 3 kids ranging from college age to infant. She worked a full-time job and still was completing an engineering degree at a top institution. If someone wants it enough, they will do it - and there are ways to do so that don't involve discrimination.
No it doesnt assume higher education is a right, the assumptions that are involved are based on community well-being, although clearly the individual stands to benefit as well.

In my opinion, enforced discrimination is not "appropriately formulated and applied." It may work as a quick fix, but does nothing to fix the underlying problem, nor will any form of discrimination be appropriate in the long run.
I'm not aware of any enforced absolute quota that is appropriate, nor can I imagine one, however knowing the limits of my imagination, I hesitate to state outright that it isnt possible for such to exist.

Evidently I cant imagine how many quota systems constructed or intended to be permenent could possibly be appropriate; in most cases permency implies projected failure before the system is even in place.
For instance if low participation rates, social acceptance and similar issues are the rationale for employing a quota system that rewards employers in the field subsidised wages if a percentage of employees are females, naturally one assumes that since the 'cure' is premised on the problem being perpetuated by the lack of females working in the area, that the cure will eventually be as self perpetuating as the problem, and thus will not be needed.
However if the quota system is to offer educational preference to citizen immigrants with few or no recognised education/qualifications in their new land, but with proven above average apptitude, the permency will depend on the immigration policy.

What does lack of confidence have to do with the price of eggs in China?
I'm not sure really (how did eggs and China arise), but lack of confidence is the cause behind many capable people not applying to attend university courses that they would enjoy, benefit from, succeed at, and make contributions to the community as a result of participating in. You stated that if such people wouldnt apply without quota systems to encourage them, they dont deserve to be in education, and so in real world application the material implication of your comments are that people lacking confidence dont deserve higher education.



And quotas that are not absolute are slightly better, but still not adequate.
Aha, but so far I can see no substantiated valid argument against appropriately formulated and applied quotas. Such an argument would need to prove that in no case would a quota system be anything but either counter-productive, or neutral. Proving 'quota systems can be bad', or 'lots of quota systems are bad', is entirely different from proving 'no quota system can be productive'.

It is not ideal because it is nothing more than enforced discrimination. You seem to think that any means to get to the ends are appropriate.
Why do you keep refer to enforced discrimination? If property rights are sufficient, a government cannot tell people who to employ without sufficiently strong justification, such as public health and safety (hospitals cant employ people who arent doctors and just say they are), minimum societal standards of fairness (which appears in most societies to sit around being 'forced' to not discriminate against individuals/groups on the basis of certain traits.
I certainly dont think that any means to get the ends are appropriate, however I do believe that the worth or non-worth can be measured only by the results. I know of at least one quota system whose results are so far as I can ascertain productive, ergo it is false that a quota system cannot be productive.

You had to earn your grades, not your place. This logic is like saying, "They gave me the medal, but it's ok, since I actually ran fast enough to get it later on."
No, I had to earn my place, by demonstrating my ability prior to admittence, as do all those permitted entry under every single quota system existing at the institution I am referring to.

So if both the criteria which you met and the criteria generally in place were considered equally, that would discourage people from applying? You wouldn't have applied to school if you weren't absolutely guarranteed a place, but you knew you met the general qualifications? That's exactly the same as asking for a hand-out.
The point isnt to be encouragement neutral, since part of the problem identified (and on which the system is premised) was a lack of confidence. The system not only makes it possible for entry to be considered, it actually encourages application, by making it much more achievable. It isnt another 'entry criteria', they are not considered equally. Applicants in the general pool compete against the other applicants, there is no general automatic entry to restricted courses for general applicants.
I certainly would not have met the general qualifications for degree I have chosen, and so no, I wouldnt have applied.
And how can it be asking for a handout? I didnt ask for them to have the system in place, I had to take risks in order to qualify for it, I had to demonstrate my ability in order to meet the criteria of the quota system. I did what anyone trying to better themselves does, I assessed the opportunities and my own resources, evaluated what I needed to do to achieve the first step in my goal (admittence) and set out to achieve it. How exactly is that a handout?

I don't know where you got the idea that confidence is even an issue here.
Because for many people who apply with the quota system, who would not have otherwise, the reason was lack of confidence; you claim that if they wouldnt apply without the quota system, they didnt deserve to be there. In practise the material implication of your comments is that those who are not confident enough to apply, but for the quota system, do not deserve higher education.

It's too far away, it's a quota system because there is not automatic entry to restricted courses outside the quota systems that allow for this.

Zentia, I'm convinced that your frustration to offer any pertinent valid point, or counterpoint to this discussion has led you to attempt (despite your criticism of the 'pro-feminists' for alledgedly doing the same) to play the person instead of the point...unfortunately I'm not tuned for that waiata, perhaps you could try something more melodic... :D

Bottle, if you can substantiate where I have 'promoted injustice' I invite you to do so...

Bottle, if you can substantiate where I have 'promoted injustice' I invite you to do so...
if you believe that anything other than merit should be used to determine a person's success or status in life, then you support discrimination and inequality. i consider those things to be antithetical to justice. you support allowing a person's gender to give them extra "points," even when their gender has no bearing on their ability to perform required tasks or function in a given capacity; that is not only cowardly and pitiful, but also an example of favoring an unjust system.

http://img136.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img136&image=scissorsofdoom7pk.jpg
Scissors!

It's too far away, it's a quota system because there is not automatic entry to restricted courses outside the quota systems that allow for this.

Ok I shall say it again, could you please post an example of one of these quotas you are talking about, please.

Yes, I am a sexist! I treat males diffrently than females, so go light your torches. I do horrid things, like open doors, stand up on public transport and a great deal else that I wouldn't do to/for men. I will treat wemon equally when they open doors for me, or stand up to give me a seat on the bus then I will laugh at them when they fart just like I do with the boys.

if you believe that anything other than merit should be used to determine a person's success or status in life, then you support discrimination and inequality. i consider those things to be antithetical to justice. you support allowing a person's gender to give them extra "points," even when their gender has no bearing on their ability to perform required tasks or function in a given capacity; that is not only cowardly and pitiful, but also an example of favoring an unjust system.
Bottle, what exactly consitutes merit? What makes you think gender has no bearing on a person's ability to perform a role?
I think it's more cowardly to hide behind PC notions of 'clonism' than it is to accept that people are not identical in opportunity and that lack of opportunity is something that should be addressed as effeciently as possible.

Ok I shall say it again, could you please post an example of one of these quotas you are talking about, please.
I thought I had already. I'll try another example (you'll have to be specific about what I'm not including if it's not what you are after)
Group X is under-represented despite the fact that performance of those represented is equivilent to those not in group X, and reasons for non participation cannot be explained by any desirable or nuetral fact (such as a cultural aversion to participation). To encourage applications from group X, a limited number of positions are placed (the positions = less than a number that would be representive of the group populationwise) aside. Applicants from group X who meet the application criteria generally take as many places as there are qualified applicants, and the remainder are placed back in the general pool. When applicants equal the placements offered, the quota system isnt necessary anymore (since clearly applicant numbers have substatially risen and in theory should be self sustaining).

Yes, I am a sexist! I treat males diffrently than females, so go light your torches. I do horrid things, like open doors, stand up on public transport and a great deal else that I wouldn't do to/for men. I will treat wemon equally when they open doors for me, or stand up to give me a seat on the bus then I will laugh at them when they fart just like I do with the boys.
Hang on, you I do open doors for men, and I dont catch buses. Do you expect all women to open doors for you before you will treat any of us equally, and evidently why should your decision to open doors and give up seats render more than half the population undeserving of equality

Bottle, what exactly consitutes merit? What makes you think gender has no bearing on a person's ability to perform a role?
I think it's more cowardly to hide behind PC notions of 'clonism' than it is to accept that people are not identical in opportunity and that lack of opportunity is something that should be addressed as effeciently as possible.


I thought I had already. I'll try another example (you'll have to be specific about what I'm not including if it's not what you are after)
Group X is under-represented despite the fact that performance of those represented is equivilent to those not in group X, and reasons for non participation cannot be explained by any desirable or nuetral fact (such as a cultural aversion to participation). To encourage applications from group X, a limited number of positions are placed (the positions = less than a number that would be representive of the group populationwise) aside. Applicants from group X who meet the application criteria generally take as many places as there are qualified applicants, and the remainder are placed back in the general pool. When applicants equal the placements offered, the quota system isnt necessary anymore (since clearly applicant numbers have substatially risen and in theory should be self sustaining).


Hang on, you I do open doors for men, and I dont catch buses. Do you expect all women to open doors for you before you will treat any of us equally, and evidently why should your decision to open doors and give up seats render more than half the population undeserving of equality
I will never treat everyone the same. I will conitnue to be open minded and judge each person by thier mental and physical abilities and thier personallity. I will treat those of either sex who are smaller than me with repsect and try to protect them where needed or aid them if required, I will hope that others treat me in the same way.
I will never agree to quotas as this does not address the cause of numeric discrepancies it only partially aleviates the symptoms (sos about spelling). You then have to see if you employ enough left handers, enough left handed homo sexuals, right handed white men etc etc. What you do is try to put a system in place than judges on ability to perform the tasks in hand and that is all. Crack that and in time it will work out, try to rush things and the change will be resisted and may never take place.

I'm not sure really (how did eggs and China arise), but lack of confidence is the cause behind many capable people not applying to attend university courses that they would enjoy, benefit from, succeed at, and make contributions to the community as a result of participating in. You stated that if such people wouldnt apply without quota systems to encourage them, they dont deserve to be in education, and so in real world application the material implication of your comments are that people lacking confidence dont deserve higher education.

No, I stated that if the only reason someone will apply is because they know they can get in, they shouldn't get anything. When I applied to college, I was not guarranteed admission. However, I wanted to go, therefore I applied. Screw lack of confidence, I am speaking of lack of motivation here.

Why do you keep refer to enforced discrimination?

"These slots are set aside for these people over here. Everyone else gets judged by a different criterion" is, by definition, enforced discrimination. A better system would be to say "Here are two sets of criteria known to produce viable students. We should grant admission to those who meet either criteria."

I certainly dont think that any means to get the ends are appropriate, however I do believe that the worth or non-worth can be measured only by the results. I know of at least one quota system whose results are so far as I can ascertain productive, ergo it is false that a quota system cannot be productive.

If the worth can only be measured based on results, then you do believe that any means to a good end is appropriate. However, I would say that while you view this quota system as productive, it is not appropriate, as there are better ways to do the same thing.

The point isnt to be encouragement neutral, since part of the problem identified (and on which the system is premised) was a lack of confidence. The system not only makes it possible for entry to be considered, it actually encourages application, by making it much more achievable.

Entrance to higher education should not be "more acheivable." Too many unqualified people get in already.

It isnt another 'entry criteria', they are not considered equally. Applicants in the general pool compete against the other applicants, there is no general automatic entry to restricted courses for general applicants.

I never said that it was another entry criteria. What I said was that, if you are correct that students admitted under the criteria do as well/better than the general admission, then it *should* be another entry criteria.

I certainly would not have met the general qualifications for degree I have chosen, and so no, I wouldnt have applied.

Which is, again, a better argument against the general qualifications than it is for the quota system.

And how can it be asking for a handout?

You have implied that if someone didn't make a system specifically for your situation, you wouldn't even have tried. Meanwhile, there are many who work their asses off to get through remedial classes to meet said requirements. In other words, you have stated quite clearly that you only want to go to school if there is special treatment given to you.

This is essentially like someone else saying, "Why should I work? I can just get government aid!"

I didnt ask for them to have the system in place, I had to take risks in order to qualify for it, I had to demonstrate my ability in order to meet the criteria of the quota system. I did what anyone trying to better themselves does, I assessed the opportunities and my own resources, evaluated what I needed to do to achieve the first step in my goal (admittence) and set out to achieve it. How exactly is that a handout?

It is a handout because you have stated point-blank that, had the special system not been in place, you would not even have attempted to meet the requirements to be admitted - which could have been met.

Because for many people who apply with the quota system, who would not have otherwise, the reason was lack of confidence; you claim that if they wouldnt apply without the quota system, they didnt deserve to be there. In practise the material implication of your comments is that those who are not confident enough to apply, but for the quota system, do not deserve higher education.

Again, it has nothing to do with a lack of confidence. If you didn't think you could acheive the work, I doubt you would've applied. It has to do with a lack of motivation. You basically stated, "I will only do this if special concessions are made for me."

I will never treat everyone the same. I will conitnue to be open minded and judge each person by thier mental and physical abilities and thier personallity.
And what about the part of their personality that is interdependent with physical facts about their identity. There may be women out there who dont find being interviewed by a male detective an added trauma to the rape they are reporting, but I believe such women are in the minority.


I will treat those of either sex who are smaller than me with repsect and try to protect them where needed or aid them if required, I will hope that others treat me in the same way.
Which is nice and well, I hope to win the lottery (fat chance since I dont buy a ticket)....
In reality people unconciously make judgements based on expectations, based on past experiance. Studies have proven again and again the speed with which people sum up others, and the way in which societal norms can influence this without people being aware of it. Studies have proven that applicants that 'look' like a 'X' are more likely to be employed as 'X's' than more qualified applicants that dont 'look' like 'X's'. This has been shown 'unscientifically' (by tv documentaries etc) many times, not just in relation to gender and employment, but in relation to a variety of asthetic aspects and contexts, and is consistent with more comprehensive scientific research and studies. If no X's are females, then being female will automatically disqualify someone from looking like 'X', and our current knowledge indicates that this has a greater effect on their chance of employment, than does their qualifications.

I will never agree to quotas as this does not address the cause of numeric discrepancies
I am aware of many good reasons to believe that quotas can address the cause of numeric discrepancies, and am not aware of any reason to believe that no quota can productively contribute to resolving the issue of under-representation.

it only partially aleviates the symptoms (sos about spelling).
I'll forgive your's if you forgive mine (and even if you dont) ;) ....

You then have to see if you employ enough left handers, enough left handed homo sexuals, right handed white men etc etc.
Unless you can substantiate why this would be so, it is slippery slope fallacy.

What you do is try to put a system in place than judges on ability to perform the tasks in hand and that is all. Crack that and in time it will work out, try to rush things and the change will be resisted and may never take place.
Aha, and quotas can be a useful step in achieving such a system.



No, I stated that if the only reason someone will apply is because they know they can get in, they shouldn't get anything. When I applied to college, I was not guarranteed admission. However, I wanted to go, therefore I applied. Screw lack of confidence, I am speaking of lack of motivation here.
Your argument isnt valid. The facts (not my idea or what I feel, but the facts as indicated by research) is that many people who have achieved exceptionally would not have participated at all without the quota system.
Many positive effects result due to participation for which the quota system was a necessary condition. Regardless of your position on the deservingness of the individual, (and their unmentioned dependents) why should society not act in the interests of it's own well-being?
Where I live we pay to educate people through their primary and secondary school years, and provide numerous services to ensure the well being of children. This is a substantial investment and not every return will be equal, may I ask why I would want to have a lesser return on any one of those investments?

"These slots are set aside for these people over here. Everyone else gets judged by a different criterion" is, by definition, enforced discrimination.
By definition of what? Not by the normative meaning of enforced.

A better system would be to say "Here are two sets of criteria known to produce viable students. We should grant admission to those who meet either criteria."
I dont understand how that is supposed to be better, when it specifically fails to address the main rational behind the decision to have the quota system. By definition a solution that doesnt address the problem, isnt (a solution).

If the worth can only be measured based on results, then you do believe that any means to a good end is appropriate.
This is just being silly. The effects of the means is what we are talking about when we say 'end'. What exactly defines good and bad means, if not the effect of the means? If means have good effects, then what exactly qualifies them as bad, if they have bad effects, then how can the effects be good?


However, I would say that while you view this quota system as productive, it is not appropriate, as there are better ways to do the same thing.
I would say that while you view every and any quota system as counterproductive in any and every possible instance, based on strictly followed ideological assumptions, the facts wont much get in the way of your opinion.

I note that you have yet to produce an even equally efficient way of doing the same thing, much less a better one.

Entrance to higher education should not be "more acheivable." Too many unqualified people get in already.
Perhaps many of the posters on this board might actually make such a reply in earnest, but it must really have been a late one if you actually believed 'exceptional achievers shouldnt have education made more accessable to them because the general body of studends perform poorly'.

I never said that it was another entry criteria. What I said was that, if you are correct that students admitted under the criteria do as well/better than the general admission, then it *should* be another entry criteria.
The quota exists for reasons, it solves problems and facilitates a state of affairs that the organisation employing it has identified as desirable. You have failed to counter the good reasons for believing that the end sought is desirable, and have failed to raise valid objections to either the end sought or the methodology employed, and the only alternatives you have posited are invalid because they do not achieve the goal that quota systems exist to address. You most certainly have not establised any reason why the quota should be substituted for another entry critieria, and have failed to counter those reasons why this should not be so.

Which is, again, a better argument against the general qualifications than it is for the quota system.
No it isnt.

You have implied that if someone didn't make a system specifically for your situation, you wouldn't even have tried.
No, I didnt, any such inference is all your own work. No one made a system specifically for my situation, so I certainly wouldnt make any implication premised on their having done so.

Meanwhile, there are many who work their asses off to get through remedial classes to meet said requirements.
Meanwhile, I worked my ass off to meet the requirements of the quota.

In other words, you have stated quite clearly that you only want to go to school if there is special treatment given to you.
No, I did not state that, clearly, obscurely or implicidly or in any other sense. I have stated quite clearly that I never would have considered it possible to attend the courses that I would wish to attend if it were not for the quota system.
I also dont attempt to turn into a purple dragon each and every night, and that isnt because I want 'special treatment' either...

This is essentially like someone else saying, "Why should I work? I can just get government aid!"
No it isnt essentially like that, it isnt even remotely like that.

It is a handout because you have stated point-blank that, had the special system not been in place, you would not even have attempted to meet the requirements to be admitted - which could have been met.
No, I have not stated that at all. In fact I have stated several times that I did not meet the requirements and have based several of my arguments on this fact.

Again, it has nothing to do with a lack of confidence.
Say it as many times as you like, you have provided no proof of your assertion, and certainly nothing capable of countering the body of information I have asserting the contrary.

If you didn't think you could acheive the work, I doubt you would've applied.
You are now contradicting yourself...people who lack confidence to believe they can achieve wont apply, and this proves that confidence has nothing to do with it? :rolleyes:

It has to do with a lack of motivation.
Right, that explains why the people you are referring to achieve more than the general student body, people who lack motivation normally outperform their more motivated peers....

You basically stated, "I will only do this if special concessions are made for me."

Actually I didnt state it at all, basically or otherwise...

Would you consider that you normally fail to comprehend basic facts presented to you, whilst inferring things not even implied, and whilst failing to appropriately cognate and respond to comments as per the context, all the while relying on unsubstantiated 'it is 'cause I said it enough times' tactics to get your point across? I wouldnt, so what exactly do you think it says to me when your post is all of a sudden riddled in such fallacies?