BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I don't think colleges should go out of their way to present a balanced student body in terms of race or gender unless they're marketing something. Just take the most competent students and let people be happy with that.

Coz that's what a college campus really is like!

I think american uni's play on that whole "diversity" thing over the top.

spot the D I V E R S I T Y

what's really funny is i know the guy personally. he tried to hit on my ex.

Those people look like they are waiting on the train to Hogwarts.

by Edward Snowden
Age 7

Jay wrote:

It's standard practice in the US. Race quotas on asians, minimums for blacks etc.

Quotas were ruled unconstitutional in college applications. They can still take race as a factor contrary to what Cyborg thinks.

The latest case regarding AA ruled that colleges can take race into account only if they can prove that there was no other way to promote diversity. The ruling made no one happy.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-07-16 12:52:48)

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's standard practice in the US. Race quotas on asians, minimums for blacks etc.

Quotas were ruled unconstitutional in college applications. They can still take race as a factor contrary to what Cyborg thinks.

The latest case regarding AA ruled that colleges can take race into account only if they can prove that there was no other way to promote diversity. The ruling made no one happy.

The SC punted it back to the appeals court.

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's standard practice in the US. Race quotas on asians, minimums for blacks etc.

Quotas were ruled unconstitutional in college applications. They can still take race as a factor contrary to what Cyborg thinks.

The latest case regarding AA ruled that colleges can take race into account only if they can prove that there was no other way to promote diversity. The ruling made no one happy.

The SC punted it back to the appeals court.

And the lower courts must debate the case using the new guidelines.

Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the majority, said lower courts may defer to a university's judgment that student diversity provides educational benefits, but should strictly scrutinize any race-conscious methods they implement to attain it. Because racial classifications inherently are "odious to a free people," universities "must prove that the means" they use "to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal," he wrote, adding that UT must demonstrate "that available, workable, race-neutral alternatives do not suffice."

When granted in February 2012, the case was seen as an opportunity for the court's conservative majority to curtail affirmative action in admissions sharply or eliminate it. Arguments in October suggested the justices might be ready to do so. But Justice Kennedy apparently was unwilling to join four other conservatives in such a dramatic move. Rather than splinter the court over such a socially fraught issue, the justices decided to back a narrow decision that leaves the fate of affirmative action to a future case.

The ruling returned the case to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which earlier ruled in favor of UT but now must reconsider the case with the stricter level of scrutiny set by the Supreme Court ruling.

race/income dont even get sent to universities in Ontario. you apply to a central system who sends out the university your name and marks as well as any other information you choose to send (i suppose they could guess based on your name?)

its not a huge deal anyway, white people are certainly not a majority here.

I've never heard of anyone being turned away by a school because of their income or parents income. If anything, the snootier schools want poor kids to attend to both 'add to the diversity' and because they tend to work harder than those who are there for connections and a Gentleman's C.

Jay wrote:

I've never heard of anyone being turned away by a school because of their income or parents income. If anything, the snootier schools want poor kids to attend to both 'add to the diversity' and because they tend to work harder than those who are there for connections and a Gentleman's C.

you always come up with this, and it never gets any less ridiculous. "poor kids work harder". is this a residue of some rand, or something? it's complete fantasy, jay. the rich kids normally always do better at school and settling into university, because they already have some of the prerequisite 'cultural capital' to excel: they are already accustomed to formal speech and writing, personal presentation and confident pubic speaking, the subtle rules and protocols for, yes, networking and socializing (which isn't a dirty word or skill, let's be real). rich children from well-to-do backgrounds also have the weight of their already-accomplished parents' high-expectations. poor children's parents are often glad they don't end up in a life of crime or violence, or in jail; or doing manual-labour for their whole lives; or in the best case they're just glad they make it to college - some college, any college, just college. poor children are also often intimidated and alienated in a posh-school environment (my whole life i've been to 'snooty' schools that accept some needy children on a scholarship basis; private schools in the uk are registered charities).

now i know it makes a nice narrative arc to say the poor child is the vigourous, strong, quietly heroic one that works much harder than his corrupted, decadent peers... but i'm sorry, this is the plot of a disney movie; the neat demarcation and caricaturing is precisely too cartoonish to be real. reality is far more complex and nuanced. look at the proportion of privately educated who dominate academia (the normal designed-path for university success), or else the high-professions: law, journalism/publishing, the arts, thinktanks and politics, etc. now i know the 'closed-club' and nepotism certainly play a part, but the well-educated aren't all inbred. their background genuinely gives them more comfort and, yes, personal confidence, which goes a long way. stop making out the poor kids are these romantic heroes that kill off all the weak effete poshos at school. it doesn't happen. if anything, in my experience, despite differences in personal disposition/manner/class, the final results of a 'traditional' university degree are almost background-irrelevant. two people from my graduating year have 'gone up' to oxford or cambridge, now, in the following years: me, and a state-school educated kid. 1 and 1. it seems fairly balanced at university level. though, of course, pre-university, results and performance are always heavily tipped on the side of the privates (sad but true).

also re: having to prove your family income, this applies to master's degrees in the UK, especially at oxbridge. if you are accepted you have to attach some sort of bank statement or financial guarantee that proves you have the necessary moolah for the year. that figure also includes a pretty ridiculously-high estimation of your annual living costs (i remember laughing at how plush a lifestyle they think the average student needs; no week-long ramen diets at oxford...). i would honestly say, with the current state of postgraduate funding (especially 1/2 year master's), that the hardest part for 95% isn't being accepted onto a course (oxbridge requires your undergraduate first and excellence, yada yada, but many have it after 3 years of serious undergrad), but it's producing the money (nominally nearly £17k). there are no student loans or official funding routes for postgraduate education here, and oxbridge literally require you show the cash up front. the most a young person can borrow at once is about £10k for a 'career development loan'. there's definitely a point where money starts to matter. another reason why i am strongly in favour of abolishing tuition fees.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-17 04:33:28)

at all top universities £9k a year. up from £3.5k a year standard-rate when omg economic crisis made the government decide that students should pay 3x as much to 'do their part' in the mess, you know.

and of course it would be worth it to pay £17k a year if you come to a top UK university. they have far more international appeal than top aussie universities. a lot of americans come to UoL/oxbridge/st.andrews/warwick/manchester and institutions like that. but yes, it is quite a lot. funding is the worst thing - high tuition fees aren't made up by generous grants and bursaries like american education is. i was literally the only person in my year across an entire humanities faculty (2,500+ students) to get a master's scholarship to waiver my tuition fees. and that was just tuition - i had no cover for living costs. postgrad funding in the UK since the 'financial crisis' has been an absolute joke. i'm having to kill 6 months to wait for the next oxford ahrc funding cycle, as well, because there is literally no other way to do it other than to wait for that sweet central-body funding (a PhD is more like £70k). great education, terrible political structure.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-17 05:15:26)

Macbeth wrote:

A Norwegian woman has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year and four months in Dubai after she reported a rape.
- The woman reported a rape to the police in Dubai, but was not thought of this. We have been told that she herself was instead sentenced to one year and four months. The judicial system here has obviously taken the information she has given them and meant that she is guilty of anything, says Gisle Meling, a priest in the Seamen's Church in Dubai.

He stressed that he did not read the judgment and therefore do not know the details of what the woman has been convicted.

- This is a terrible situation for her. We are very surprised and had hopes that it would go the other way. But we live in a country with a legal system that has come to the conclusion through their Sharia law, says Meling.

She got what she deserved. Not for getting raped but because she was dumb enough to go anywhere near that country when she didn't have to. Why westerners, or anyone else outside the Arab-Muslim world would visit the Arabian Peninsula if they didn't have to is beyond me. The whole region should have a giant disclaimer that says not to go east of Cairo or Istanbul.

Same thing happened to an Aussie woman who was raped while working at a hotel in dubai.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 … -marriage/

Macbeth wrote:

A Norwegian woman has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year and four months in Dubai after she reported a rape.
- The woman reported a rape to the police in Dubai, but was not thought of this. We have been told that she herself was instead sentenced to one year and four months. The judicial system here has obviously taken the information she has given them and meant that she is guilty of anything, says Gisle Meling, a priest in the Seamen's Church in Dubai.

He stressed that he did not read the judgment and therefore do not know the details of what the woman has been convicted.

- This is a terrible situation for her. We are very surprised and had hopes that it would go the other way. But we live in a country with a legal system that has come to the conclusion through their Sharia law, says Meling.

She got what she deserved. Not for getting raped but because she was dumb enough to go anywhere near that country when she didn't have to. Why westerners, or anyone else outside the Arab-Muslim world would visit the Arabian Peninsula if they didn't have to is beyond me. The whole region should have a giant disclaimer that says not to go east of Cairo or Istanbul.

one of the hottest girls i hooked with in university is a white-westerner (french background, originally) who lives and works in dubai. there are a white elite there. she's working for united arab emirates as a flight hostess now. she is stunning, and always shows up wearing revealing outfits and in various states of coked-out partiness in dubai. i think it's just who you know. they pass a blind eye to the whities there that have a lot of money and contribute to the running of the show. i'm pretty sure there's an elaborate system of bribes.