Should colleges give preferential treatment to athletes?
- Thread starter Morrischiano2
- Start date
- Status
Could be sex is a protected class, if a male athlete is allowed inane a female with the same credentials is denied. I guarantee you there will be a case about this with 24 months. Litigation will be the name of the game.
Or socio economics which usually but not always aligns with zip code
80% of the average Harvard class in the last ten years has been wealthy - top quintile.
I’m 100% in to the US Government putting policies in place that no school is eligible for their students to get federally insured student loans or Pell grants (or other federal grants) unless a set number (maybe 1/3rd) of their students come from the bottom quintile (poverty).
That would sure change things fast.
Maybe. There’s a lot of work in the form of data mining and completing a compelling analysis that goes into that and proves it. Like the Asians did - 10 years of compelling data and a smoking gun where Harvard stereotypes Asians as boring and not adding to the college community diversity sought.
And so far the college stats nationally don’t really bear it out.
I'd say people need to stop obsessing about the Ivy League. There are so many great universities in America besides them, including many public schools where the education is probably every bit as good and which might offer even better opportunities given their connections to state governments.
I know it is a quota. But it is a purposeful quota to narrow the wealth gap the right way through education.
I could live with a colorblind poverty quota as a requirement to enter the federal money game.
Last edited:
Elite athletes and coaching staffs are essential to winning P5 Conference and NCAA championships. Winning championships feed the egos of dedicated alumni and boosters. Winning championships bring mega $ to the schools, the athletes and coaching staffs, to sponsors great and small. Admission standards and academic achievement and getting an education/degree? C'mon man. That ship has sailed, if it were ever real at schools perennially in the mix for championships. In the past, championship programs and the schools that enabled them always did whatever had to be done to win, with a degree of public cover. Now it's all pretty much in the open. Hypocrisy removed. You want to win conference and national championships? You have to have the will and support to do what it takes. Whatever it takes. Highly unlikely this will ever happen in New Brunswick, as it does routinely in Columbus, Ann Arbor, State College or Clemson, Tuscaloosa, etc.
Understand. If the family income is less than 75k Harvard is currently free. Under 125k it's tuition free. You're solving a problem that is not a problem in the Ivy League.
What I'd like to see is the schools having some skin in the game with respect to loans. They can jack up tuition with no risk of loss on defaults.
Have things really flipped against a growing population base in the past decade or two? I'd be surprised it's now enough to say that they're actually underrepresented.
The historical line has been that Asian Americans have been overrepresented in higher education relative to their population. It's why on the whole they were not usually beneficiaries of affirmative action policies like underrepresented minority groups. Asian Americans have typically earned their way into 4yr college admissions primarily on merit and without the benefit of being considered socioeconomically disadvantaged (notwithstanding the children of certain Southeast Asian refugee/immigrant groups or low income families among Hmong / Laotians, Cambodians, Burmese, etc).
You misunderstand. I said they are currently underrepresented as legacy candiidates compared to African-Americans. This will either reverse in the next few years or has already started.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I concur with your observation of legacy opportunities of former Asian American alumni.
I'm not looking for support and my point of view isn't going to change how the process is done. It was just my viewpoint.
Asian Americans have been complaining for 10+ years now about acceptance rates to the top schools. Kids with great scores getting rejected from Ivy’s and the top privates. This should only help them more.
But lots of people with great scores get turned away. Admissions isn't just about scores
Your framing using underrepresented or overrepresented is really out of step with our society…and the constitution.
Last edited:
I am aware of that. But they already make allowances for obstacles overcome because of their aid policies. There is no need for a quota
Yes, because of course the Constitution is the only arbiter of morality in the country.
If it's not in a document that says some is 3/5 of a person because of their skin color, well then let's treat people unfairly over it, right?
This, and ask for parents' education and income and have personal statements on adversity.
It's going to be dependant on each state. I'm not sure a 10% program works in NJ. It probably works in the bigger states with lots of sought after state schools like TX. I could see it in CA or VA. Outside of RU in NJ there's not many sought after state schools. And a lot of NJ HS kids outside of the 10% are still well qualified.
Zip codes in NJ would take poverty into account and we have poverty of every shade here.
How about putting free in state college tuition and legacy admissions bans on the ballot in referenda?
Everyone knows both would pass in 40+ states if not 50. But the people in power benefit from the current structure, so it doesn't happen.
Best analysis I've seen if from lawyer Robert Barnes
He went to Yale and left because he couldn't stand pompous attitude and prejudice towards the unwealthy.
Referring to SCOTUS writings, part of the decision was based on legacy admittance.
He said the "check box" diversity quotas originated as a way for the entitled blue-bloods to have a fig leaf for their own self-preservation schemes. Barnes said when he was at Yale the dumbest people were the legacy and quota kids..I recall ruhudsonfan saying that after getting admitted the hardest part of Harvard was failing out.
I can see why that could be needed to protect the legacy/quota crowds. Barnes said the decision was about college but that its going to do-away with "check-boxes" and affect many spheres (DEI etc)
1:12:30 in
It's not intended to be a moral arbiter. It's just a set of legal guidelines, as it should be.
Good discussion on this at the 23:15 mark….
The "3/5 of a person" thing is misunderstood. It was an electoral framework for Congress.
The slave states wanted to count all black slaves in full as persons - a criteria that would have given slave states more power in Congress. Holding that slaves should only be counted "politically" as 3/5 of a person cost the slave states power.
The slave states wanted to count all black slaves in full as persons - a criteria that would have given slave states more power in Congress. Holding that slaves should only be counted "politically" as 3/5 of a person cost the slave states power.
But it was better than them being counted as 0/5 since not one of them could vote and it gave them power they didn't deserve. They often claimed black slaves weren't human yet wanted representation for them in Congress anyway. We call that self-serving hypocrisy.
I would say the bigger issue here is how one day the Supreme Court rules that everyone must be treated equally and no discrimination is allowed by a private business, and then the next day finds a way to let another private business discriminate and not treat everyone equally. Neat trick. Also, though discrimination is not allowed for universities it IS allowed by the Pentagon in the name of national-defense even though the Constitution does not say basic rights can be suspended by the army. Another neat trick. "Strict construction" with arbitrary carve outs. The Supreme Court is handing out legislation by judicial fiat and allowing unequal treatment by some (ie people and Institutions they have sympathy for) but not others.
Women couldn't vote at the time either, is it your argument they shouldn't have counted as well but for the grace of the free states? The point the poster was making was that the 3/5 rule was a compromise with the good people living in the free states who didn't want the slaves counted at all so that the federal funding would flow at a higher proportional rate to the free states. It is all about economics, the people in the free states were hardly angels.
It was about political power and representation. You don't get representation for people who don't get votes and can't be citizens.
The argument is neither. It's just explaining that the 3/5ths compromise had to do with a battle over political power between states. The morality of it simply wasn't a motivating factor in thus instance.
Sure, and where in the Constitution does it say legacy admissions are a birthright?
Absolutely nothing in there stops a state or federal law on it.
Of course, this is what happens when a majority of the Supreme Court are political hacks, with two having received bribes.
In the website case there wasn't even a live controversy and the gay couple was made up. But the Federalist Society just buys the rulings it wants.
- Status