JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Statistically, anyone attending an Ivy for a humanities or liberal arts undergrad degree is likely going to end up with a pile of debt that they will come to regret.

Not quite true. I went to an Ivy, got a liberal arts degree and was able to pay off my very modest student loan in about five years. Granted, I lived a very spartan life those first five years out of school and didn't eat out or take any trips, not even for friends' weddings. The Ivies are so well endowed that no one pays full freight unless you're from a super wealthy family. They were able to cobble a very good aid package for me through a combination of scholarships, grants and work-study jobs. Most importantly, they didn't count my parents' home as an asset in determining my aid package. Most schools back then did, which almost always disqualified me from any meaningful financial aid. Nowadays, the state schools have seen so much of their funding cut that tuition, especially if you're going out of state, can run as much as a private university - and most of them can't offer the same level of grants and scholarships.

It's also correct that an Ivy League degree will help open some doors for job interviews you might not otherwise get. If you ever get laid off, the alumni network also comes in handy, but that's about it. How you perform and thrive on the job often depends on the stuff they don't teach you in school. A lot of it is the ability to survive and navigate office politics through people skills and diplomacy. I don't know what the job landscape is like today for people just graduating from schools, but a liberal arts degree wasn't necessarily a dead end. A hiring manager once told me that most liberal arts majors end up in jobs/careers that have nothing to do with their field of study, but he found them to be quick learners on the job and they were far more adaptable and flexible

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Mao wrote:
Yea, it's a different issue. I should concede, however, that it is true, nonetheless, that the connections and prestige of these places seems to open more doors than ever. The "meritocracy" appears to be more of a closed system than at the height of the old days of the Wasp ascendancy. Think of the Clintons and the Obamas. Interestingly, in the GOP field, I think Cruz is the only one who is a product of the elite system! Even Jeb bush went to UTex!

On this, I think Brewster said it best. Regardless of your undergrad or grad program, ultimately you will succeed or fail based on skills, smarts and drive. The school connections may get you access, interviews and maybe even in through the door, but mediocrity will not get you far, even when connected. I have seen lots of people from Ivy backgrounds do well for short periods of time, only to end up doing poorly overall. In some corporate environments, the ability to survive cutthroat competition is the one skill that sets otherwise similarly skilled people aside. That is true of Big Law and Wall Street firms. I have seen more broken people in those environments than I care to remember.

I don't disagree if your goal is to move up at large law firms or ibanks/PE/VC/HF/etc. But consider that it is significantly better to median from a top school which can get you a job at a large law firm or financial group, at which point you only have to be good enough to survive a few years before reaching for an exit opportunity. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm in one of those nice exit opportunities myself and I don't miss the all nighters or general hours, while the pay is still quite good. Meanwhile, those from less prestigious institutions (even those with above average grades) are doing things I've fortunately never had to consider doing.

Quote:

Statistically, anyone attending an Ivy for a humanities or liberal arts undergrad degree is likely going to end up with a pile of debt that they will come to regret. Prospects for high income are slim, and that debt load will limit your possibilities in life. Even some STEM careers can be fraught with relatively low pay given the amount of money and time one must invest to reach employability. Still, the smart money and career move is to go into STEM and/or business school. Even freshly minted lawyers are now facing a dearth of jobs and huge debt loads.

Agreed, except that I would remove the "even." The oversupply of lawyers is astounding. If they closed all of the law schools except for the Tier 1 in USNEWS + ensuring that every state keeps at least 1 school (assuming they have one) and you still won't have a shortage. Right now those at the bottom of the tier 1 are already looking at unemployment unless they are the top of their class. And remember, only 10% can be in the top 10%.

Anyway, this is what you get with easy government money backing student loans, greedy admins, a bar association that won't do their job, and a culture that tells everyone that they can be anyone they want to when they grow up.

I particularly agree with your last paragraph in terms of the often parroted "go to college and you will succeed" mantra. For the past several decades, going to college was considered to be a "safe" investment that will ensure you obtained a well paying job, a good lifestyle, and family bliss. Because of that, the market reacted and adjusted to the barrage of students pursuing a degree. You have a TON of colleges and universities now, many of questionable caliber/quality. It is somewhat of a fraud perpetuated by the government and society. Some people should NOT go to college. Not because they are not deserving, but rather because they are not apt for it, and could instead benefit more from a vocational school. Trades and skills are not as well regarded by society, so people eschew those options, and so we now have an overeducated portion of society without true smarts or skills, resulting in many degree holding people that are "under employed" or doing something entirely different from what they studied. I would feel betrayed and short changed if I had studied (and paid top dollar) for a worthless piece of paper that gets me no further than if I had done nothing, or something else, entirely.

It may sound tremendously harsh, but the truth is that we are NOT all equal. Some people are smarter or more skilled than others, and you can't just tell every student that they can grow up to be anything they want. It is not true, and it is a disservice to some.

Mao wrote:
Yea, it's a different issue. I should concede, however, that it is true, nonetheless, that the connections and prestige of these places seems to open more doors than ever. The "meritocracy" appears to be more of a closed system than at the height of the old days of the Wasp ascendancy. Think of the Clintons and the Obamas. Interestingly, in the GOP field, I think Cruz is the only one who is a product of the elite system! Even Jeb bush went to UTex!

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Mao wrote:
Yea, it's a different issue. I should concede, however, that it is true, nonetheless, that the connections and prestige of these places seems to open more doors than ever. The "meritocracy" appears to be more of a closed system than at the height of the old days of the Wasp ascendancy. Think of the Clintons and the Obamas. Interestingly, in the GOP field, I think Cruz is the only one who is a product of the elite system! Even Jeb bush went to UTex!

On this, I think Brewster said it best. Regardless of your undergrad or grad program, ultimately you will succeed or fail based on skills, smarts and drive. The school connections may get you access, interviews and maybe even in through the door, but mediocrity will not get you far, even when connected. I have seen lots of people from Ivy backgrounds do well for short periods of time, only to end up doing poorly overall. In some corporate environments, the ability to survive cutthroat competition is the one skill that sets otherwise similarly skilled people aside. That is true of Big Law and Wall Street firms. I have seen more broken people in those environments than I care to remember.

Statistically, anyone attending an Ivy for a humanities or liberal arts undergrad degree is likely going to end up with a pile of debt that they will come to regret. Prospects for high income are slim, and that debt load will limit your possibilities in life. Even some STEM careers can be fraught with relatively low pay given the amount of money and time one must invest to reach employability. Still, the smart money and career move is to go into STEM and/or business school. Even freshly minted lawyers are now facing a dearth of jobs and huge debt loads.

Mao wrote:
Anyway, the elite colleges are a terrible threat to being educated and literate in our culture. The sciences are still excellent- but forget about any social science or humanity. I barely survived my experience at these places in the 1980s. Allen Bloom's Closing of the American Mind is really the definitive description of the collapse of American education and was written in 1987. There were some signs that things were correcting themselves- and then it got so much worse. The original campus revolts in the 1960s by Mark Rudd and SDS and their professorial coconspirators was tragedy, if one gives it the benefit of the doubt. Today, the SJW (Social Justice Warriors, etc) and their professorial and administration conspirators are farce (to paraphrase Marx) Still, I thought, all things being equal, they do provide kids with options so I encouraged my oldest son to go. The admissions process was even more of a smoke and mirrors game than I remembered. He got in and then proceeded to drink the campus cool aid and has not had an independent thought since. Maybe I should encourage my youngest son to just go to Rutgers- or better yet to get a job on the JCFD.

VanVorster wrote:
For what it's worth I attended notable undergraduate and graduate schools and in my undergrad, I met a group of white people who actually came from underprivileged backgrounds (not Appalachia but single working class moms in Ohio, Washington and Alaska). What's interesting is that they didn't have or exhibit the stewing resentment that is apparent here. Also I never met so many black kids in one setting who came from money (both parents doctors or dad a notable executive mentioned in magazines...think Olivia Pope's upbringing if it were real life) and I would hasten to add that their credentials were impeccable and not " crappy" as contended here. There were a smattering of students who I felt shouldn't have gotten in (white and black alike) and I attributed that to the ability to pay full freight. The difference is that the mediocre white student is given the benefit of the doubt in belonging or being competent and worthy and sort of flies under the radar and no palpable resentment detected

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:


I don't mind athletes (who, I note are mostly black) getting preference. They get preference because they have a unique talent that has value to the school. Alumni (Legacy)/Donors are a touchy subject but really have little to do with public high school admission. All of that is significantly more justifiable than "we give preference just because someone is X race."

Only if you think that sports teams and fundraising from wealthy alumni is more important than a diverse student body. Even if they are, such preferences are antithetical to worshiping on the altar of "meritocracy" that affirmative action opponents often proclaim to do.

I admittedly place absolutely zero value on diversity for diversity's sake. So yes, I would say athletics and wealthy alumni is far more valuable.

The meritocracy argument is fair, but I note athletic achievement is inherently merit-based and the legacy preference absolutely needs to be kept in check (you can't be admitting unqualified people simply due to legacy status). What is truly irredeemable, however, is simply admitting crappier people based on their race.

As with the legacies, we do not have to admit "crappier" people. We can admit people who are qualified and will contribute to the goals of the university even if they filled out a few bubbles incorrectly.

My first day of law school, we had a welcome speech by the dean. He said that our class was the strongest, most accomplished class ever admitted.

He then said that he could have turned each one of us down, admitted the next group of applicants just behind us, and told them the exact same thing.

JPhurst wrote:
There is a focus on race and police brutality because race plays a role in police brutality. Yes, there are whites that have been victims. One can acknowledge that and also acknowledge that there is a specific racial component that must be addressed.

There is a "fixation" on race in this country because of the role race has played in this country. Much of the country operated on the backs of slaves. We fought a war over the issue. Among other things, we have had segregation in schools, discrimination in employment, redlining in housing, and people who still can't accept that the President is an American citizen.

I think this country has admirably addressed these problems at times. At other times not so much. The great promise of America is that we can acknowledge such matters and do the right thing. But race is still an issue in this country. Yes, so is class. Those issues are not mutually exclusive.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:


I don't mind athletes (who, I note are mostly black) getting preference. They get preference because they have a unique talent that has value to the school. Alumni (Legacy)/Donors are a touchy subject but really have little to do with public high school admission. All of that is significantly more justifiable than "we give preference just because someone is X race."

Only if you think that sports teams and fundraising from wealthy alumni is more important than a diverse student body. Even if they are, such preferences are antithetical to worshiping on the altar of "meritocracy" that affirmative action opponents often proclaim to do.

mfadam wrote:
I'm taking the under on Acme.

Totally annoying that there is no self checkout. The fluorescent lights they put in make it feel like a third tier Wal Mart.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
A group of Asians sued Harvard for their affirmative action policy, claiming it was race based discrimination against Asians in favor of inferior groups.

I think they are right.

We will see what happens in court.

Racists say the darndest things!

You know what is racist? Telling well qualified Asians that if they were black (or even white at some schools) that they would accepted but because they're Asian they need to go to a crappier school.

i have no problem using racial quotas to achieve a diverse student body which is reflective of the wider community. people complain about racial preferences, but no complaints about preferences for children of wealthy donors or alumni or athletes. however, i think that admitted students need to be held to same rigorous standards. i remember that i was shocked when i went to college and found it out that some athletes from pretty well to do families were not only not that bright, but they were also getting generous financial support from the college.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:


As for GPAs, I'm sure that Stuy like McNair actually has a multiplier on the transcript GPA to reflect the difficulty of the curriculum, something like 1.2 if I recall. So a 3.0 is transmitted as a 3.6.

When I went to HS in NYC we did not have multipliers for Honors or AP classes. It was reflected on the transcript that it was an Honors or AP class but there was no change in the overall GPA. But I did know students in suburban districts who did have a multiplier. Maybe it has since changed.

AlexC wrote:
According to the numbers I found above and if they are close to accurate it looks like Asians are over-represented and Hispanics and Blacks under-represented.

To me this means they are actually accepting based on merit, no? I look at my daughter's sophomore class and it really looks like 50% are Asians.

Quote:

Adonis wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I'm sorry that you don't want to see the top 25% of black students go to the best school we have.

I'm sorry you don't want the top 25% of white students go to the best school we have. I'm sorry you don't want the top 25% of all the students go to the best school we have period.

That's the problem with these liberals. They're all against racism unless it's detrimental to their favored race. Equality indeed.

dtjcview wrote:
The comparison with sports team or corporation for that matter is wrong - teams and corporations set a minimum standard then pick the best fit for the team/company. They don't pick based purely on stats.

I don't see McNair being any different. The school itself has values and objectives for itself and for the kids of Jersey City. They value diversity over simple elitism. That education in diversity isn't found in textbooks nor exams - but is immensely valuable in our global multi-cultural society.

As others have pointed out - there are good alternatives to McNair in JC, and a high-achiever doesn't suddenly become a failure because they don't get accepted at a single school.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
They are MUCH better than A&P was - in terms of both selection and prices. I used to avoid A&P like the plague.

i agree, seafood is considerably better. I lost track of the overpriced seafood i had to throw out immediately getting home, that are bought from a&p.

Og_jerseycity wrote:
As an alumni again I must ask those who are claiming racism what is your point?
Second, since you are claiming racism can we take some children from other areas of Jersey City and bring them into the Bergen Lafayette grammar schools. There are some schools in Jersey City that are primarily one color, not to mention there are whole areas in Jersey City that are divided by the race or color of the majority living there. I really believe that a mixed population is healthy. I am not too sure but the original creators of Academic, the parents and others who sat on that board in the late 70's or early 80's (I believe) wanted to create some kind of diversity because historically Jersey City has been a version of a tale of two cities. As we are seeing between Downtown jc and the rest of the city. The original creators of the school wanted a healthy educational environment where children wouldn't be exposed to others. Instead of sitting at your computer criticizing the school, why don't you lobby for more academically challenging schools for our students since what is being insinuated is that the overwhelming population of 8th graders in Jersey City are A+ students. If you are talking about being inclusive then look at all the issues in Jersey City and what is happening. You want to call this racism, I can come up with a list of things that have happened in JC that exclude groups of people in favor of others. I would like to know if these same people claiming this would fight for a chance for their kids to attend it when it was a rented small space on Bentley and Bergen ( a block from where a baby was grazed by a bullet this week) Is it because it is on Coles St DTJC that everyone here is clamoring for a spot for their child?'I hope other Alumni chime in with their opinions.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
So merit and grades are out the window then.

Not at all.

yes it is, and it is sad.

Instead of fostering competition and the spirit of best man wins for the top schools, now it's about the color of your skin.

Why should individuals from one race who are better qualified in term of academics / test scores be disqualified in favor of individuals from a different race who scored less and have lower academic records, simply because their skin color is different.

How is this not racism, where are the outrage?

There is no outrage because nobody going to the school hasn't earned it by being the best.

There is not one example of a student missing out because someone that isn't qualified is there. Your outrage is over nothing more than your own perception based on zero facts.

Pebble wrote:

Having a quota doesn?t mean racism is occurring. Having a quota set the way that it is simply means that the make-up of the school will match the make-up of the city.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
What you're missing is the very basic notion that choosing students based on race is inherently racist. Telling students they have to do better or try a little less hard because they are marking whatever race checkbox is the height of racism. The fact that it goes "in all direction" is meaningless. What makes this the most offensive is that it is taxpayer funded. When some random person says something racist I really don't care. When racist views become law and public policy alarm bells should be going off.

Anyway, my hope is that soon enough, the public sector will no longer be able to use AA. AA has steadily been eroded elsewhere. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will soon deal it another blow.

I'm not missing your argument. The problem is that your argument isn't grounded in examples of factual racism.

Can you provide an example of a student that was left out of the school while someone else with lower grades, lower test scores and lower community service was let in?

Unless you can provide an example of that occurring, all the school is doing is saying, "Well, we have a lot of qualified people so we'll accept a percentage from here and a percentage from there."

You have not demonstrated racism by the school because the school is not allowing qualified black kids in due to filling Asian quotas. The school is not allowing qualified Asian students in due to filling Hispanic quotas. The school is not allowing qualified Hispanic kids in due to white quotas. The school is not allowing qualified white kids in due to black quotas. It is one big circle. The school is dividing it up based on the racial makeup of the town. That seems equitable given the facts.

I understand your desire to whittle away at Affirmative Action, but there is a very real reason it exists and did come into existence. Things have gotten better, but given the outright fact that racists (as witnessed in this thread and many others) exist is a reason to continue certain policies.

VanVorster wrote:
If anyone has taken the time to have a cursory review of JCMan8's posts as well as a few others, it's obvious that racism and invective on here is clickbait to feed the trolls and keep the conversation going. It's another reason to avoid engaging them as they love conflict and using inflammatory provocative language (e.g. "inferior groups . . . I mean on paper") He and others are probably proponents of eugenics.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/20 ... ink-about-asian-americans

http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-03-02.htm

JPhurst wrote:
I can understand the sensitivity of using race as a factor, and one can argue that, regardless of its effects under the circumstances, it cannot be done. But I cannot understand fetishizing test scores to the point where such scores transform the test taker into a "worthy" or an "inferior" applicant.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I'll agree that it is racist, but I'll argue that describing a group in a racist manner is significantly better than actually discriminating against a group because of their race (which is what is happening), particularly when the discriminating organization is the government that we're all forced to fund. Also, I'll note that stating that their test scores/grades/academic performance, when viewed as a group, is significantly worse than Asians isn't really racist - it is just a fact. I strongly suspect that the quote was trying to say this.

At this moment, there is no discrimination noted. There is a quota stating that the racial makeup of our top school matches the racial makeup of our population. That seems like a fairly equitable system.

Additionally, the school does not admit ?groups?. The school admits students based on their grades and test scores. You have no example of anyone being left out of the school while someone with a lower score is let in.

If there are students being sent away while someone that is barely passing is let in, I?ll join your outrage. It seems quite a bit forced to be outraged over the possibility that there could be some student somewhere getting left out.

On the flipside, I?ll note that it is entirely plausible that there are black students and/or white students and/or Hispanic students which meet the requirements left out while the Asian quota is met.

Lastly, the quote was of an individual that is a straight up racist making a consistently racist statement in line with his other racist statements. You can choose to ignore his history of bigotry, but I won?t.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
A strict racial quota will result in different groups having better or worse scores because you're not having people compete directly, but rather people competing for a pre-selected number of slots assigned for their group. There WILL necessarily be racism in some direction, unless you end up with a completely bizarre statistical fluke that is less likely than a guy winning the powerball lottery twice.

Again, the racial quota works in all directions and seems to be creating a very equitable balance representing the racial makeup of this city.
From the first post:

With the primary goal of diversity through affirmative action, the school enrollment is based on a quota of 25% White, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, and 25% Other (mostly Asian).

From the 2010 Census:
Quote:

The racial makeup of the city was 32.67% (80,885) White, 25.85% (64,002) Black or African American, 0.51% (1,272) Native American, 23.67% (58,595) Asian, 0.07% (161) Pacific Islander, 12.81% (31,726) from other races, and 4.42% (10,956) from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 27.57% (68,256) of the population.

I?m unsure of how you don?t see this as anything but the fairest way to enable the schools top students from each representative race in this city to achieve success.

I will, however, agree with you in that the city should be looking to build on McNair and create a second great school as karindiann is pointing out.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
A group of Asians sued Harvard for their affirmative action policy, claiming it was race based discrimination against Asians in favor of inferior groups.

I think they are right.

We will see what happens in court.

Racists say the darndest things!

You know what is racist? Telling well qualified Asians that if they were black (or even white at some schools) that they would accepted but because they're Asian they need to go to a crappier school.

It could be. But qualifying a group of people as "an inferior group" to Asians is the very definition of racist.

At this moment, we don't have a list of those that were kept out, who made it in and why. There is simply an assumption.

It sounds a lot like Fisher v. U. of Texas. A girl that does not meet the requirements decides to select out 15 black students that had lower scores than her which were accepted and then ignores the 100 white students that had lower scores than her which were accepted.

Do you know for a fact that there are students who are held out because another student with lower scores is getting in? Are you making an assumption that lower score students are getting in because there is a quota number there based on nationality?

corybraiterman wrote:
Meh, i have no problem with it. I didn't get in way back in the day (waitlisted) and it certainly wasn't the worst thing that happened to me. I've got no problems in a city as diverse as this one in using affirmative action to ensure a big salad bowl of students.

That said, I think the numbers need some tweaking to reflect the current demographics, but i have no problem with the principle

equn wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

my2cents wrote:
If true, must suck if you are in the other category....wait for another discrimination lawsuit.

If you fall into the Asian or White category, you may need to have really high academic / test scores relative to the student body as a whole to get in. Even then, that might not be enough.

Thank you MDM that's what I hear too. Both my wife and myself are Asian, 100%, and we don't want to cheat on picking the racial category. It truly sucks though to be Asian on being admitted into top academic schools in JC.

We do NOT want to bring up our kid in a way that focuses on academic performance solely. But it looks like the system is very much against us...

Og_jerseycity wrote:
I have never posted but feel the need to since I am an Academic Alumni back when it was on Bentley and Bergen and the downtowners weren't all over it. This school has done wonders for people like me who grew up poor in Bergen Lafayette. Back when I was in that area Snyder and Lincoln were in worse shape than now and we had very few choices. Now everyone is trying to get their kids in but it is impossible because there is many more children than their are good schools. Why not push to create another school just like Mcnair to accommodate more students.
Academic has worked and it is still working. The fact is that now things are changing in JC. If everyone has a problem with the Jersey city school system then either get involved and make the change or don't move here and complain that it is horrible. Many people who are professionals now went to JC schools and we turned out just fine. If you can afford it then send your kids to private school. The answer is to re-evaluate the other high schools, create another boot camp style school for kids who don't want to go to college or study and continue encouraging those who work hard to get into Academic. It is still very challenging and a tough school. Many kids can't handle it.
JC schools were far worse when I was a kid and we dealt with it because we had no choice. This is not a suburb it is still JC. Downtown might have changed but the rest of us are still living with similar conditions to a decade ago. I wish Academic students continued success and encourage their hard work.