Reply to Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]All you posters who are insisting that minorities admitted to competitive schools with lower grades and scores than white and Asian students do just as well, be realistic. In what universe would you put a crop of B- stidents in with straight A students, and not expect the former group to struggle to keep up with the latter group?

I've worked in the industry. I can tell you that that a high percentage of the minorities admitted under the lesser AA standards require a lot of tutoring to stay in the program. (Competitive universities invest a lot in keeping the AA students in their programs since they want to keep the drop-out rate low.) By comparison, the minorities who would have gained admission under the standard guidelines, which constitute about a third of minorities. do not need extra tutoring to keep from failing. As one would expect. After all, they were "equal" in terms of grades and test scores as the non-minority students.

[/quote]

Stanford had to create  a couple of “physics for dummies” type courses to boost retention of URM students.  Is that really the way AA is supposed to work?  Pretty pathetic.[/quote]

Or was the class created for the athletes? 
[/quote]

DP but I posted in another thread about the lower level physics classes at Stanford.  The classes are for the underrepresented who could not do the rigorous work of Stanford classes.  It is part of a push by Stanford to be more inclusive. [/quote]

Citation? 
[/quote]

I cannot get it to link but the source material is the August 14, 2019 Stanford Newsletter.  Please Google it or I will yet to download later. Thank you. [/quote]

Here's the link:

https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/14/making-physics-inclusive/

And a key quote:
[i]"Physics 41E: The same as Physics 41: Mechanics, which is a [b]required course for physics majors[/b], but with added support. Students from underrepresented groups often [b]don’t have the same level of preparation from high school[/b] as their majority peers. The difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in."[/i]

Why were these students admitted in the first place if they don't have the same level of preparation to the point that they cannot succeed at the standard level of curriculum rigor. [/quote]

Maybe there wasn’t easy access to calculus or AP physics in HS for them. 
[/quote]

Nope, here's the course info page:

https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&q=PHYSICS41

Prerequisite: High school physics and MATH 20 or MATH 51 or CME 100 or equivalent. Minimum co-requisite: MATH 21 or equivalent.

Just high school physics. From the description for 41E: "Physics 41E ( Physics 41 Extended) is an 5-unit version of Physics 41 (4 units) for students with little or no high school physics or calculus."  Why would a demanding school like Stanford accept into the physics major a student who has had little or no high school physics or calculus?[/quote]

Because it is possible to become a significant contributor in physics or math without having the “right” high school experience. If Stanford believes these kids are in that cohort, they should whatever they could to encourage them. I remind you of that swiss patent clerk who never went to a “rigorous college prep school”. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics