VanVorster wrote:
Devil
Another poster on here asked why are you so hostile in your posts. So it's not just me. You come off very defensive, angry, and bitter which is why I said "seething resentment;"

and yes, you come off racist to me or as if you don't like black people and that is certainly your right.

Saying I'm racist is ridiculous as I have nothing against white people, Asians, etc.

but I do take umbrage if you're going to denigrate black and Latino people -- people who I know very well and call us lazy, crappy or whatever pejorative term you can devise.

I assume because of the cloak of anonymity on here you feel uninhibited to come off like an asshole but if there was transparency, I think you'd be more judicious and diplomatic with your words.

I am glad you think you're not a crappy person and ostensibly a winner because you have a "great, high paying job, have multiple grad degrees from elite schools and own a house in DTJC". We all have to derive our sense of self esteem from somewhere but the seething anger is baffling, is it deficient looks, physically unattractive or something?

Try to be a calmer person in 2016 or express yourself with less vitriol.

PS. It doesn't anger me in the least when black people (Glenn Loury) make similar arguments but at least they don't come off like the Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh prototype like you do.

Again, if other reasonable people have said you're hostile, perhaps ponder that.

#6 as to your comparison of disparities between blacks versus Jews/Asians. http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

Also, to what extent does unconscious bias alienate black and Latino youth when they are on the receiving end of things like this and everyone is saying it's a figment of their imaginations. These are law firm partners doing this. http://www.vault.com/blog/vaults-law- ... -firm-partners-are-racist

JimmyMook wrote:
So McNair has an admission system based on race and it is not disputed that to fill these quotas certain criteria are different for these racial groupings ?

VanVorster wrote:
Devil
Another poster on here asked why are you so hostile in your posts. So it's not just me.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Here's the disconnect here: she is saying "statistically, it is likely to result in X", to which you are countering with a personal anecdote that you didn't fit X. You may be a counter-example, but you don't disprove the statement, which is correct.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of what you wrote implies that you wouldn't have been better off if you didn't major in something inherently marketable, rather than needing to rely on being a "quick learner" (which, in this market is a massively tough sell - I'm not going to hire even an entry level developer that doesn't have a CS degree because why would I? Nor will I hire a project manager with a "fluffy" degree even from an ivy when I could have many with an MIS, CS or at worst, straight up business management degree also from good schools).

What I'm saying is the average Ivy grad leaves school with a much lower student debt load than those who went to a non-Ivy private school, like NYU or Northwestern, and often lower than those who attended a state university. In 2012, the average debt owed by a Princeton grad was just over $5,000. At Yale, it was around $9,000. You owe more buying your first car. And its even possible to pay that off waiting tables. I have no idea what the job market is nowadays for those graduating with liberal arts degrees. I agree it's much tougher than it was 25-30 years ago and if I had a kid, I probably wouldn't want him/her to pursue a liberal arts degree. Your argument is narrowly based on hiring a software developer. Of course, you should only hire someone with a CS degree (fwiw, my ex has a CS degree and lost three jobs over a relatively short period because someone in or from India did the work for a lot less money). What I'm talking about are fields that DON'T require specific STEM skills. They do exist. For example, media, marketing and even finance. I know lots of people in finance - currency and bond traders and asset managers - who majored in history, philosophy and foreign languages.

I don't dispute your contention that I would have been better off pursuing something, as you put it, "inherently marketable." I certainly would be making more money, if that's what you mean by better off. But I know myself well enough to know I would have been bored and miserable in a technical field. Life is full of trade-offs that way. I'm in a job I mostly love and perform well (when I'm not on JC List). I'll never be wealthy, but I do all right: I have no debt besides the mortgage and I have enough to pay my bills, save decently for retirement and still have a little leftover to splurge on shoes or a vacation once in awhile. Btw, why are you so hostile to everyone posting on this thread? I mean this as a sincere question.

You are cherry picking the student debt data. Princeton is considered a model school in terms of how to best serve its student body with its "no loan policy". The average undergrad student load debt exceeds 27K. That's AVERAGE. For every Princeton grad with a debt of 5K, there's (statistically) one or more students with much more in debt.

Pebbles contention that data is not being provided is turning a blind to established facts: as a country, we are facing a student load debt crisis. Too many grads are coming out of school with too much debt. Add to these totals and numbers the people who continue their studies in fields like law, medicine, etc. Tons more money. The average law school loads debt is around 100K. For many schools, it is much more.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Here's the disconnect here: she is saying "statistically, it is likely to result in X", to which you are countering with a personal anecdote that you didn't fit X. You may be a counter-example, but you don't disprove the statement, which is correct.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of what you wrote implies that you wouldn't have been better off if you didn't major in something inherently marketable, rather than needing to rely on being a "quick learner" (which, in this market is a massively tough sell - I'm not going to hire even an entry level developer that doesn't have a CS degree because why would I? Nor will I hire a project manager with a "fluffy" degree even from an ivy when I could have many with an MIS, CS or at worst, straight up business management degree also from good schools).

What I'm saying is the average Ivy grad leaves school with a much lower student debt load than those who went to a non-Ivy private school, like NYU or Northwestern, and often lower than those who attended a state university. In 2012, the average debt owed by a Princeton grad was just over $5,000. At Yale, it was around $9,000. You owe more buying your first car. And its even possible to pay that off waiting tables. I have no idea what the job market is nowadays for those graduating with liberal arts degrees. I agree it's much tougher than it was 25-30 years ago and if I had a kid, I probably wouldn't want him/her to pursue a liberal arts degree. Your argument is narrowly based on hiring a software developer. Of course, you should only hire someone with a CS degree (fwiw, my ex has a CS degree and lost three jobs over a relatively short period because someone in or from India did the work for a lot less money). What I'm talking about are fields that DON'T require specific STEM skills. They do exist. For example, media, marketing and even finance. I know lots of people in finance - currency and bond traders and asset managers - who majored in history, philosophy and foreign languages.

I don't dispute your contention that I would have been better off pursuing something, as you put it, "inherently marketable." I certainly would be making more money, if that's what you mean by better off. But I know myself well enough to know I would have been bored and miserable in a technical field. Life is full of trade-offs that way. I'm in a job I mostly love and perform well (when I'm not on JC List). I'll never be wealthy, but I do all right: I have no debt besides the mortgage and I have enough to pay my bills, save decently for retirement and still have a little leftover to splurge on shoes or a vacation once in awhile. Btw, why are you so hostile to everyone posting on this thread? I mean this as a sincere question.

devilsadvocate wrote:


Now you're just equivocating. "Oh, as long as they're REASONABLY smart it is GOOD ENOUGH." No, there are admissions criteria and you're supposed to choose people that *best* fit them.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
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

It's kinda sad, once upon a time college wasn't trade school. It was where you learned enough about the world and yourself to think critically and be able to adapt to whatever life brought you.

The current specialized state of things reminds me of an apocryphal story told to me by a sculptor years ago. A renowned sculptor goes see a prospective client who needs a statue of a cow. He shows a portfolio full of gorgeous figures of horses, but the client sends him on his way, saying he's looking for a cow sculptor.

maybe universities should do away with sat scores/gmat as the key determinant.....i believe harvard business does not require gmat scores any longer.

also, i would expect that someone who is going to study fine arts at a good school also would have lackluster scores on the math portion as someone who intends to be an astrophysicist or an engineer. maybe the liberal arts schools should simply get rid of their arts/theater/history and other such programs.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

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

Here's the disconnect here: she is saying "statistically, it is likely to result in X", to which you are countering with a personal anecdote that you didn't fit X. You may be a counter-example, but you don't disprove the statement, which is correct.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of what you wrote implies that you wouldn't have been better off if you didn't major in something inherently marketable, rather than needing to rely on being a "quick learner" (which, in this market is a massively tough sell - I'm not going to hire even an entry level developer that doesn't have a CS degree because why would I? Nor will I hire a project manager with a "fluffy" degree even from an ivy when I could have many with an MIS, CS or at worst, straight up business management degree also from good schools).

Quote:

1. He only stated that it was statistically likely to end up with piles of debt and not a job. There was no actual evidence supporting this statement. While JadedJC did make anecdotal argument, it should carry more weight than one which is not supported by any facts.

2. I find your hiring requirements a bit funny.

VanVorster wrote:
Devil:
First, to the extent there's a vast discrepancy (that wasn't the case when I was in college and the black enrollment was roughly 5-6%) in test scores vis-a-vis whites and also Asians, I do think that would be largely attributable to the social and public policies that have been in place since time immemorial in this country that ensured blacks and Latinos would be consigned to lesser quality schools and their parents not have the same privileges or access as others (e.g. poor whites who made into the middle class afforded all the preferences and privileges simply for the mere fact of being white or perceived as white).

Many of the Asians with whom I went to college were quite affluent also and had the resources to ensure optimal test scores on the SAT (tutors, etc.). For instance, my roommate in college was Asian and went to boarding school in the US and his dad was some big shot in Hong Kong and the same could be said for most of his friends.

Second, your insipid narrative below about poor white kids knowing they had to work twice or three times as hard to get into a good school and your veiled allusion to black kids being lazy rings hollow for me.

What's next in your vignette, the white kids wore bread bags to school and walked 5 miles to the recreation center for extra homework tutoring? That black kids with whom I went to college and grad school were quite industrious and hard working. Also, if you know any history, America has been one big preferential platter and Affirmative Action bonanza for white people for CENTURIES from the plunder of land and people (eg. slaves) to ensure maximum resource allocation for white people (land, schools, jobs, property, GI bills, pensions, etc.)

If you are Asian, then I may indulge your ax to grind but I suspect you're white and using this as a wedge issue to foment dissension between the so-called model minority and blacks & Latinos. That is what conservatives like yourself do. I have seen a lot of white mediocrity in my lifetime (school and work) so really not indulging your BS.

Second, the schools which you revere and covet so much made much of their wealth through slavery and exploitation.

Third, I don't know if it was brewster or someone else who mentioned the Southern Strategy but just a cursory inspection of your posts makes me feel like you're the very audience in the last article by Barbara Ehrenreich.

You have a lot of seething resentment and I guess you feel sort of stoked or amped up because you and your ilk (JCMan8) get to be anonymous and blithely posts your racists posts.

Sad. Fourth, the one shred we agree on is that I do think AA should be class based (class often inextricably linked to race and there's a reason white people have 21x the wealth of black people, perpetual systemic discrimination).

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
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

It's kinda sad, once upon a time college wasn't trade school. It was where you learned enough about the world and yourself to think critically and be able to adapt to whatever life brought you.

The current specialized state of things reminds me of an apocryphal story told to me by a sculptor years ago. A renowned sculptor goes see a prospective client who needs a statue of a cow. He shows a portfolio full of gorgeous figures of horses, but the client sends him on his way, saying he's looking for a cow sculptor.

JadedJC wrote:
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

devilsadvocate wrote:

Here's the disconnect here: she is saying "statistically, it is likely to result in X", to which you are countering with a personal anecdote that you didn't fit X. You may be a counter-example, but you don't disprove the statement, which is correct.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of what you wrote implies that you wouldn't have been better off if you didn't major in something inherently marketable, rather than needing to rely on being a "quick learner" (which, in this market is a massively tough sell - I'm not going to hire even an entry level developer that doesn't have a CS degree because why would I? Nor will I hire a project manager with a "fluffy" degree even from an ivy when I could have many with an MIS, CS or at worst, straight up business management degree also from good schools).

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

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

Here's the disconnect here: she is saying "statistically, it is likely to result in X", to which you are countering with a personal anecdote that you didn't fit X. You may be a counter-example, but you don't disprove the statement, which is correct.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of what you wrote implies that you wouldn't have been better off if you didn't major in something inherently marketable, rather than needing to rely on being a "quick learner" (which, in this market is a massively tough sell - I'm not going to hire even an entry level developer that doesn't have a CS degree because why would I? Nor will I hire a project manager with a "fluffy" degree even from an ivy when I could have many with an MIS, CS or at worst, straight up business management degree also from good schools).

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.

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.

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.

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:
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!

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.

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.