Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (254)	1/11/2001 9:10:43 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

>>It could be argued that evaluating candidates purely upon GPA, SAT scores, and the like is akin to claiming that a high jumper who clears a 6 foot bar while jumping from ground level has jumped higher than one who clears 5 1/2 feet while jumping from the bottom of a 3-foot trench. Is government required to be neutral? If it becomes clear that neutrality is perpetrating a situation that creates vast wastage of human resources and a significant drain on public resources, is it not reasonable for government to at least consider adjusting the neutrality scale?<< Okay, so you and I have been admitted to a top grade university graduate school because we're both over achievers and did really well on our entrance exams... in the first class on the first day, the professor hands each of us the required reading list for the semester, the list contains 18 books and 14 references and also includes a wide number of articles that can be found in the journals in the university library..... this is only one of four courses that you and I are taking this semester..... As time passes and we're both doing very well in our studies and in our reading, a few of the students are having problems with the material... they read more slowly and have some difficulty with the material... these students may fail the course and be required to withdraw from the university if they don't improve their study habits... One day, the Dean of the university taps the professor on the shoulder and explains that the university needs to have all the students in that class do well... the professor explains that several students are not doing well... the Dean tells the professor to reduce the required reading material and to spend more time in class with the students who are falling behind..... You and I notice that the professor has slowed down considerably and is no longer discussing the more complicated points of the class material and we both begin to feel as if the professor is giving us a less challenging education..... this is not high school and we're paying top dollar for the best education we could find... neither you nor I are getting the fine education we paid for when we applied to that institution... this has actually happened, and more than once..... I would not like to think that my physician or attorney who graduated from their fine schools received a lesser education because someone lowered the bar..... Here's another example, which may seem silly but it dramatizes the point here: I would like to drive my new car at the next 500 race event... so, I go to the race committee and enter my name and my car... they tell me that I don't know how to drive at very high speeds, so I tell them that they can simply lower the speed on the speedway for me... affirmative action would require that the speeds in the coming event be reduced to accommodate my inadequate driving skills... I should be entitled to compete along with those who are more capable than I..... Neither one of us went to Harvard, but why shouldn't Harvard University be required to lower their entrance requirements to accommodate you and me, aren't we entitled if we want to... why should we be restricted from receiving a Harvard education if we want one? Shouldn't they be required to lower the bar for us? I wouldn't think so..... And if not, then where would you draw the line? In simple terms, I think some kind of elevating mechanism can be found, but to lower the bar and diminish the quality of the product as a result does not seem reasonable..... GZ

To: Dayuhan who wrote (254)	1/11/2001 10:28:31 AM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Respond to of 82486

Good Morning Steven, If AA is wrong, and I'm not sure it is, and I'm not saying you say it is either, we at least have to see that by raising others up we raise our selves up, and find a way to grant access to all the good things we take for granted. I was raised with the assumption that I would go to college, and anticipated the comraderie of dorm life as a life experience I would enjoy. It would be so demoralizing knowing that even if I qualify I can't afford college, while my junkie or gang banger neighbor would have $20000 a year invested in him if convicted and incarcerated. I doubt I would try very hard in school. Where would I find role models? Where would I get the vision? I don't see how we can justify spending more $$ to incarcerate high risk youth, than we are willing to lay out for financial aid. From strictly an economic basis, it seems logical to grant very generous packages. Enable rather than rehabilitate. Dorm housing might be a refuge and socialize these kids with peers who have a more hopeful constructive background and attitude, and keep them away from the pressures of the street, the ridicule of those who would bring them down until those values change. I am amazed at some of the entrepreneurial skills of those dealers, and organizational skills of the gangs. <G> I think it is a sour grapes thing. "You study & you read, therefore you're 'white', You are just like the (perceived) oppressor. " In the same way that through mandating employment of blacks, they eventually became commonplace in the workplace, and racism becomes declasse', when those who win through education outnumber those who "win" through drugs/crime, a shift will take place in the mindset of the ghetto.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (254)	1/11/2001 12:24:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It could be argued that evaluating candidates purely upon GPA, SAT scores, and the like is akin to claiming that a high jumper who clears a 6 foot bar while jumping from ground level has jumped higher than one who clears 5 1/2 feet while jumping from the bottom of a 3-foot trench. May I claim that you are using the wrong measure here? Suppose a person with an IQ of 80 gets 90% of the score of someone with an IQ of 150. Shouldn't they get that coveted slot an Stanford or Harvard Business School? Why not not base this on intelligence rather than economics? But let me raise another point: While you are giving equal opportunity to your second-best, what are your competitors in the world going to do? Are the Japanese (or Taiwanese or Malayasians or ...) going to agree to raise their prices and underproduce so that you can compete? Is government required to be neutral? No. Milosevic's government was not. You'd better be Serb. China's government under Mao was not. You'd best be a peasant. The UK's government used to blatantly discriminate in favor of the wealthy- -the opposite of what you advocate. Is this what the civil rights movement has come? Now discrimination on other than merit is fully legal and approved- -and enforced? You can define fairness many ways. Basically life is not fair. Since you must pick a measure that produces unfairness in some dimension or other, I'd say we had best pick one that produces good overall results. And that, I believe, means we provide incentives and rewards for each person to perform to the best of their abilities. I would prefer to use economic advantage as the "handicapping" factor, rather than race, because the assumption that all racial minorities are poor and all Caucasians are rich is not valid. And there are many handicaps other than economic too. Cold, driven rich parents who inflict emotional damage on their children are legend. Should we not take that into account? This search for fairness clearly can rapidly turn into a quagmire. The advantage of GPA, SAT scores, and the like is that they avoid this endless hall of mirrors. Since our current nuclear capability is sufficient to ensure that anyone attempting a nuclear attack would face certain and total destruction What has been achieved is a balance of terror where no one but a madman would consider the nuclear option. The side effect of that is that confrontations are now conventional. And that is what we must be prepared to handle. I will have to look the numbers up, but as I remember defense is now 10%-20% of the budget. It is no longer 30%-50% as it used to be. How much more can you achieve for social programs if you take it to 0%? And at what cost? Somewhere down there you stand a serious risk of losing everything.