Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[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] Your bigotry is clouding your logic. That is one class with extra help so students who did not go to an elite high school can catch up. I went to Princeton in 1976 and there was one freshman Physics course for those who had already learned Calculus in high school and another Physics course for those who hadn't and were taking Calculus concurrently. The students in the second course were not too stupid to be at Princeton and should not have been admitted, it just means they didn't go to top math and science prep schools. [/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