Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Less Academics, More Narcissism (at U. Cal)

After you accept my apology will you let me know if I understood the original post correctly or not according to my answer. I did put a few minutes of thought into it.

Passthepotatoes said it, as I noted in the quote box (you might want to read more carefully ).

FWIW, this board has a moderator, and I don't think we need anyone but him deciding what's appropriate and what's not here. Some topics are contentious and appropriate, and I think it's best to be objective when discussing them instead of rushing to take offense. If I don't like a topic, I just don't read it. If I disagree, I say so, and I try to use data to support my claims rather than getting emotional.


I agree. I did some extra reading and googled " 'vice chancellor' diversity." All of the top hits were at UC schools. I also found an Office for Diversity at Harvard's School of Public Health (I noted before that I figured that the private universities have these positions too).

The original post concerns over-emphasizing diversity-related positions while abandoning courses in other areas. One can argue that it makes sense to jettison courses that don't have lots of students taking them, but the same logic can be applied to gifted (and especially highly gifted) kids: there aren't many of them,making demand low. So we shouldn't devote precious resources to them.

It's a good thing to end practices that deliberately exclude people because of their religion (e.g. Jews and Asians faced quotas at US universities in the past) or gender (e.g. no women allowed at Dartmouth or Yale!) or whatever. But that doesn't mean we need to go over the top and spend millions of dollars on various offices and vice presidents of diversity and so on at the expense of real courses while also making UC unaffordable.

There's a point at which ideology takes over from a good idea; I believe that the OP (plus Austin's addition plus the search results I found) highlight a practice that appears to have reached that point at UC. If I'm wrong, that's fine. Just show me evidence.

UC San Diego used to be a major engineering school - at least in the 70s and 80s.

I can see why they dropped the Foreign Language professors - no one graduates in it - and I can see why they dropped a lot of hard science majors - no one graduates in them any more. So, UCSD deserves some credit here. I would have done the same thing.

I still do not understand the justification of diversity stuff from a curriculum perspective. I can see the business angle, but when I was getting my MBA, it was covered in the Organizational Behavior class as part of the curriculum. And in any case, you cannot get a job without having to work side by side with people from all walks of life nor can your kids go a school without the same occurring.

The "race, gender, class" stuff is increasingly irrelevant in a mobile society where people move up the income and wealth ladder, intermarry or already come from multi-racial backgrounds, whose family history is more than likely mixed, and where life choices are as much about personal fulfillment as they are about making money or anything else. For this reason, "diversity" is as irrelevant as the Foreign Languages UCSD dropped.

True diversity occurs where people with diametrically opposed viewpoints can work together to get something done. For starters, I do not see a lot of tolerance in the corporate or academic world for those without degrees. I do not see a lot of tolerance in schools for boys with a high degree of physical energy. I do not see tolerance for kids who learn visually or who ask a lot of questions. I am sure we can all add to this list.

And, you might want to quote more carefully I said diverstiy bashing - not keeping minorities out of college. The article you posted was most clearly bashing diversity education.

You asked for hard data. I posted it. You ignored it.

Don't be mad Bostonian, if I say that's how I see your role it doesn't mean I don't value your contributions because I do.


Check out this video on YouTube:



Is this real!?
If this is real then no wonder the schools don't know what to teach. �If technology has really advanced this far then we really don't need that many workers per capita. �And yet we have people killing people to steal their watch or tennis shoe. �But society would collapse if it wasn't based on sales, trade, barter, and people making themselves useful. �So the schools have to teach co-operation, teamwork, following directions, and creative original thinking. �Those are the skills that have value now. �But don't they come naturally? �(google secular humanity). �Then why do we use schools? �Networking? �Get us out of the house for something to do? �I guess if GMO food is close to wiping out world hunger and vaccines can eradicate diseases then the last thing to look at is each other. �Maybe some people think we'd still fight wars even if we had nothing left to fight over.

Not just in the "past" -- many of the selective private universities effectively have quotas today. If they think a "diverse" institution must have at least x% blacks and y% Hispanics, that places a ceiling on how many whites and Asians can be admitted. An NYT reporter on the college beat, Jacques Steinberg, discussed how this worked in his 2002 book "The Gatekeepers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gatekeepers .

Although I don't think state universities should be single-sex, there is a case for allowing men's and women's colleges (Wellesley, Mt. Holyoke, etc.) to exist.

Respectfully, not all of us come here for debate. Some of us come to have discussions in which we can exchange experiences, opinions, thoughts. I understand that you consider some of that input to be groundless, but I would ask that you respect the different needs and intentions of those of us who post. If you dislike the opinions that are unsupported by posted evidence (which I think is different from being unsupportable, period), then perhaps you could focus your responses on the places where evidence is provided? At times it seems that you have expended a lot of energy chastising one of us for what we've said, instead of responding directly to specific comments or questions raised about the evidence that has been posted. I would add that when you include a link or an article in a post, unless you state up front that there are aspects of it that you question, disagree with, etc., it is reasonable for readers to assume that the linked resource is illustrative of your points or opinions. Thus, even if you have not directly made a statement yourself, the evidence you have included does communicate to others certain perspectives or beliefs.

I agree with the above as a general principle, but you addressed it to Val, who did not start this thread or post the original link -- I did.

Oh yes, I know. I guess I wasn't clear enough my communication. I was speaking more generally, as the comment I was responding to did not appear to be limited to this particular thread.

This as a tough question.

Persoanlly, I'd prefer to see all college/uni admissions based solely on merit. To truly institute a system like this, we'd have to base admissions solely on the results of a national exam that would be akin to A levels or the Irish Leaving Cert. Students pick their subjects, spend 3 or more years studying them, and take the test. They get points for their scores, and the universities set minimum points for admission into a subject area. Essays, letters of recommendation, extracurriculars, and grades aren't a part of the process. It must sound weird to someone from the US, but it's a system that measures the sum of your learning, rather than all of your incremental progress. So, doing poorly during part of 10th grade won't affect your admissions chances if you study hard later on and learn the material. It's also a fair system: even Prince William had to get the requisite points to get into the course he did at St. Andrews.

Actually, I'd like to see a system like this in addition to a system that doesn't treat college as the only route to success. Skilled trades, for example, are very important too, and I think our society could do a better job of encouraging people to go into them.

This would leave a challenge for addressing other problems in the K-12 system, as it would mean abandoning admissions preferences based on gender or ethnicity or whatever. One approach that might help would be to let the money follow the child and to especially end inequalities in school funding. Ability grouping would probably help; kids presumably learn more when they go at a pace most appropriate for them. Career aptitude testing for 8th graders and 10th graders would also help (and is a lot of fun for the kids).