|
0 members (),
115
guests, and
23
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
The schools manage their own brands, and admissions criteria are one way to do so. A company owning apartment buildings could decide that excluding non-whites helps to "manage its brand", but civil rights laws prevent this. If private businesses are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, so should universities. Agreed. (FWIW.)
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
A comparison of Caltech to Harvard fails on soooo many levels:
- Harvard is a liberal arts school, which generally appeals to Jews.
- Caltech is a technical school, which generally appeals to Asians. LOL...right. I think you are making caricatures rather than citing facts like the author does. He is quite careful to use local populations for his stats. If I'm making caricatures, your author did it first, because you apparently failed to notice that he raised these same points (and then failed to adequately explain them away). Let's address the comment on Jews outside of the author's comments.
I applied to and was accepted to both Caltech and Princeton.
My maternal grandfather pushed me to apply to both - and he was an Ashkenazi Jew who owned a large business in the South - as was his wife, albeit having changed their names to fit in. I applied to Caltech and the Ivies because I was the grandchild of a Jewish couple and wanted to do pure research.
Caltech is famous for being full of Jews and has been headed by a Jew for most of its existence - and it is considered to be THE prestigious school for pure science. Which it still is. The important question here is, what was his standing in the Bilderberg Group? Let's address Caltech vs Harvard.
Science is a component of Liberal Arts.
All the Ivies have very strong and prestigious sciences schools with many students going into Finance or Medicine or into grad studies. EO Wilson, Watson and Crick of Harvard. Einstein at Princeton. I grew up knowing these names before I was a teenager. I knew the Ivies for Science - Harvard for Biology and Princeton for Physics - not for anything else.
In fact, Harvard has as many admissions into the Sciences schools as Caltech does for the whole school. Ditto for Princeton. In fact, those two Ivies, if they took away all the other schools, would dominate Caltech in numbers alone - both in terms of students admitted, grad programs, funded studies, and cited professors. I see. It seems the problem is with the meaning of "liberal arts." Here's the definition I'm using: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal%20artsCollege or university curriculum aimed at imparting general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum. Again, the use of the term "Technology" in the full names of Caltech and MIT may have provided a useful clue.
Last edited by Dude; 11/29/12 02:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298 Likes: 1 |
Supply and demand, just like capitalism. Naturally... these are all private institutions we've been talking about, are they not? As such, are they not allowed to make whatever business decisions they choose? An important point in the article was that these colleges are producing future American leaders. As such, they presumably have a duty to pick based on merit, not on fuzzy factors. Not to mention that these universities aren't "private" in the real sense of the term. Each one takes in hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds every year. An enormous percentage of this income is indirect costs on grants (as high as 60 or 70% of the total grant at some places and more than 50 at all or most of them). Indirects can be used almost as the university sees fit. This gives them a duty to the public, and admitting dimwitted little Junior because Mummy and Daddy ponied up a donation does NOT fit the public interest. But gotta say that enough money to build a new library or a new science facility that thousands of students will benefit from over the years is worth something to the school AND the student body. But the damage Junior and his frat buddies did to the world economy a few years back is, IMO, not worth that library.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The schools manage their own brands, and admissions criteria are one way to do so. A company owning apartment buildings could decide that excluding non-whites helps to "manage its brand", but civil rights laws prevent this. If private businesses are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, so should universities. So the question is, which laws are the Ivies violating?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
Supply and demand, just like capitalism. Naturally... these are all private institutions we've been talking about, are they not? As such, are they not allowed to make whatever business decisions they choose? And if so, why is The American Conservative decrying the lack of meritocracy in these choices? Do they suddenly have a problem with capitalism? You are not even taking this seriously. Are you suggesting that the admissions people are taking bribes? The point you are missing is that the Ivies hold themselves up as the elite, yet their admissions decisions discriminate against the academic elite on a large and systematic scale. This is undeniable. This is also very dishonest. While they may be private schools, they do take in a lot of public money - both in terms of student grants and research funding. As such they are subject to Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Education Act of 1972 provisions. My gut feeling on the numbers is that they are probably open to A Title IX suit for the female academic elite part. The skew is just so large. Or they went the other way and now face a Race-based suit. Keep in mind that I am left of center on most things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
An important point in the article was that these colleges are producing future American leaders. As such, they presumably have a duty to pick based on merit, not on fuzzy factors. That's not how self-selecting aristocracies are supposed to work, though. Not to mention that these universities aren't "private" in the real sense of the term. Each one takes in hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds every year. An enormous percentage of this income is indirect costs on grants (as high as 60 or 70% of the total grant at some places and more than 50 at all or most of them). Indirects can be used almost as the university sees fit. This gives them a duty to the public, and admitting dimwitted little Junior because Mummy and Daddy ponied up a donation does NOT fit the public interest. True, they do take in huge amounts of public money. Whether that requires them to adopt a certain public duty is a matter for interpretation... either by the leadership of the school, or through public policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
You are not even taking this seriously. Are you suggesting that the admissions people are taking bribes? If students are regularly admitted based primarily on the fact that the parent has written a very large check to the institution, how is this even a question? OF COURSE they're taking bribes... just not in the personal way you seem to be suggesting. The point you are missing is that the Ivies hold themselves up as the elite, yet their admissions decisions discriminate against the academic elite on a large and systematic scale. This is undeniable. This is also very dishonest. What makes you think their definition of "elite" is the same as yours? You tied your definition directly to academics, but the Ivies court the children of those close to the center of power and/or are very wealthy. They also court students who exhibit certain traits that they find desirable in a student body, which includes academics, and a lot of other traits besides. Academics is a part of their definition, but only a part. The Ivies can claim elite status based entirely on their over-representation in board rooms and Capitol Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
The important question here is, what was his standing in the Bilderberg Group? I find this insulting. I ask you to stop using racist and offensive terms like this.
|
|
|
|
|
