Do know the Rooney rule.....so what? Actually, you may want to do some homework before you embarrass yourself again. There were 7 black head coaches in the NFL last year and 5 were fired at the end of the season. Are you going to try and say the NFL is racist? Or will you agree they just weren't performing their jobs? Please be explicit and don't do the liberal dance around the subject.

And some would say, karma is a bitch....and this is only round one for paulie

Get out of here with that mumbo jumbo.

We all know traditional american values are wives as property, only land owners can vote, slavery, asians in concentration camps, Native americans should be killed, Catholics are the devil, non-christians are worse

The purpose of the Rooney Rule was to create equity in the game. It's to realize there is a problem and it does need a solution. Did you read any of the page I posted. Did you see the reasoning behind the rule?

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Greetings gphin,

Continuing on the subject of TAV and internet searching: I have 2 more questions. But first allow me to correct my record above. My first internet search was Yahoo and not google. As I was working on finding my Google engine I happened onto a bing engine.

On both Bing and Yahoo on the first page was Dale Robbins authored explanations of American Values. But nowhere could I find the term Traditional American Value here. Should I ignore Dale?

Way back on page 12 or so on Bing I found a listing of the 10 American Core Values from Andrews.edu. They are as follows: Individualism-Equality-Materialism-Science and Technology-Progress and Change-Work and Leisure- Competition- Mobility- Volunteerism- Action and Achievement Oriented. I like these more than the Robbins' guy list. Let me guess, there might be a couple values in here that don't quite meet that, as yet imprecisely defined, Traditional American Values definition? Eh?

Still seeking edification from you beyond the quality of life of the newborn and racial preferences for college admissions? I got a full night in the bag, rarin' to have at it. Hopefully Google, when I find it, will help cause it seems I can't get either you or better educated Greg to pitch in in direct response. I can understand your reluctance given my smart ass bent. I promise to go straight in the future, just had to get it out of my system.

Are you saying that everyone had equal opportunities beginning in the '64 with the civil rights act? Hopefully not. For example, redlining didn't end until the 90's. There have been numerous studies comparing equal resumes of black versus white or male versus female job candidates and the white male has a greater advantage. Diversity did not become a common buzzword on college campuses until the mid 90's but, don't worry, because believe it or not there are still plenty of white conservative males attending college. When was the last time you walked on a college campus? Can you honestly say that you'd have a better or equal chance as a minority job candidate, than a white candidate?

https://hbr.org/...declined-in-25-years

Thanks for the help. Not! Your hyperbole, while funny and granular in truth, probably is not helping my effort to have an open debate on the subject of TAV. Keep you arm warmed up though, I tire easily and may not make 9 innings.

This TAV divide is at the crux of our current woes. Maybe we can get together and bridge the --black, white, brown, christian, muslim, hetero, homo, family unit, life unit, moral, amoral-- morass of beliefs into a revised Constitution or some other acceptable standard defining American Values. It sure beats the current pissin into the wind efforts to turn back the hands of time and ignore our short still evolving history.

Can you honestly say that you think that if someone is a better candidate that they should be discriminated against because they are not a minority?

Take this for instance. My wife works with many HS kids on SAT/ACT testing. We recently learned that a student on GreenCard from the UK (been here for 3 years, going on 4 for high school), has to pay international rates to go to college in Colorado, while an illegal alien gets in-state tuition. In other words, following the rules hurts you. What about was it Harvard that was sued by some Asian student who were denied entry because they said the already had enough Asians. It's not just a white thing. In many cases it should be the best candidate period.

The question then comes “who is the best candidate?.” You are assigning an objective score to a subjective task.

Straight standardized scores? Weighted with gpa? Weighted with class rank? Outside variables considered? Legacy? Socio economic? Out of state? How much are outside value things

I think most state schools have some parameters anyway. Like if you are top x percent you automatically get into state school y. Obviously then you have the question of if school a is equal to b.

Edit. Also being able to afford personalized tutoring for standardized testing shifts who is actually the best candidate.

That is a fair question. The reason behind SAT and ACT is because schools and education is not all the same. For instance my wife has 4.0 students at one school that only score around a 19 on ACT while 3.5 students at another school often score in the mid to high 20s (first time) on ACT.

The question is should someone less academically qualified be given a spot over a student who worked hard and is more academically qualified? Should the person who followed the rules be penalized?

You should remove the "worked hard" from that equation. hard work is going to be subjective, and doesnt reach the question of academically qualified. Regarding GPA every schools is different. I had a much harder time getting in top rated law schools because I had an engineering major where being in the top 1/25 of my class = around a 3.3 gpa, opposed to poly scis at the same school having a gpa of 3.8. Law schools looked at GPA and LSAT (then weighted things somewhat).

Should someone who is more academically qualified get admission vs. someone less academically qualified. The answer is no.

However, as stated before, what makes someone more academically qualified is going to be somewhat subjective.

I can agree that the term academically qualified can be subjective, but can you admit that using affirmative action removes part of the academically qualification? Accepting someone with lower scores to fill a racial or socio-economic slot. That is not to address potential.

n=2

Back before the suits, I worked in undergrad admission at Michigan. They used a point system. If you had a 4.0, you got 40 points. If you had a 1600 SAT you got 40 points. If you had a 1.5 you got zero points.
You also got 10 points as a Michigan resident. 10 points from a underrepresented county in Michigan. 10 points if a relative went to Michigan. 20 points as a direct legacy. 10 points as an underrepresented minority (i.e. not Asian or White).
There wasn't a cutoff. But there was about 7500 spaces available, so the top 7500 applicants got accepted.

The California system took a different approach. If you are in the top 9% of your graduating class from a California HS, you are supposed to get a place in a UC. If you are outside the top 9%, but have a 3.0+ you basically get free entry in to a Cal State campus

So now we are at the stage of academic qualifications are subjective.

After that, if the kids are in a certain range, you need to bring in the other subjective factors. If Timmy has a 1400 SAT and a 3.0 gpa but the average SAT of his school is 1500 (meaning more smart kids) vs. Sally who has a 1350 but a 3.5 GP at a school with an SAT of 1300, which kid is actually more academically qualified.

Even with these two metrics things are incredibly subjective. Then after that you can compare the kids with some form of point system (which what I think most schools do). If you dont meet a minimum number of points you are not getting in. If you have the maximum number of points you are getting in. So in the field of everyone else, should sociology-economic, how many other kids from your school/district are going to that school, diversity, location (in state v. out of state) make a difference in this subjective standard. I am in a firm yes. In a subjective world (which we have already stated we are working with), there has to be some way to distinguish candidates.

This is also widely different. If you have top marks, go to a technical school where things are going to be more geared towards straight qualifications.

The thing that confuses me is over and over I hear Trump fans say that one thing they like about him is that he talks like a regular person. He absolutely does not talk like a regular, rural American. Sarah Palin could pull that off OK. Mike Rowe, the Dirty Jobs guy has it down to perfection.

Trump has mannerisms, gestures, pet phrases, wardrobe, facial expressions, makeup, diction, and rambling self-infatuation that are just completely foreign to rugged, self-reliant, straight-talkin' American. He's certainly very far from typical Washington DC Slick Politician Drone. But he's equally far from "regular person."

You are right that Universities have a desire to be more diverse and this has influenced who they select as students. My response to gphin was about job place discrimination and his implication that everything has been fair since the 60's. But if you look at the link I posted, a white job applicant has a 50% greater chance to receive a call back than a black applicant and this has been constant for 25 years. Is this the way it should be? Would having more diverse campuses help change it?

A couple of the highly rated colleges ($$$) around me also accept and give a few scholarships to underprivileged students from the local area. Is this also wrong when they are likely bumping students from better school districts with better SAT's?

Yes, it is wrong. If you are going to base entry into your school on a competitive criteria, you don't say, "these people that won don't get their medal. Instead we'll give their medal that they worked for to someone who we think probably hasn't ever gotten a medal so they can feel better and we can feel better". If I'm a student that meets the criteria but then gets shafted for someone who doesn't meet the criteria, I'd be resentful and pissed off.

C'mon, it wasn't a factor back when those pesky brown folks were denied any proportionate representation, duh...

Forget it, he's rolling...

I think you're making a mistake in looking at college admissions simply through the lens of a competitive contest, which should somehow always hand out their 'awards' in a fair and consistent manner like whomever had the fastest time or jumped the farthest, etc.

Consider some of the UC system schools where white people (surely this'll blow gphin's mind) are actually given preference points over ethnic minorities, or else the student body would look too overwhelmingly Asian. The key point is that when a student is accepted for admission, you also become part of the 'product' (i.e., the classroom composition/environment) that is being sold to your peers as well. You don't just learn from only books & professors, right? So I can absolutely see the case as a hypothetical admissions officer that merely inserting test score A into slot B doesn't necessarily give you the optimum student body composition if you're pulling from too limited a demographic, such that you end up with classrooms that are too homogeneous. Diversity goals aren't just an endpoint for you, the minority applicant, to get in more easily; it's a starting point so that the overall educational product the school provides will be more well-rounded as long as you're there.

You're trying too hard to objectify (objectivize?) one component of a larger process which inherently has way more subjectivity baked in.

How far back do you want to go? Up until 1978 race wasn't a factor in college admissions. strictly based on several factors including achievement and recommendations. The Supreme Court ruling in 1978 gave colleges and universities the go ahead to include race in who gets admitted......basically reverse discriminating against whites who may have got better grades and SAT scores.....so for the past 40 years. You are not trying to say colleges discriminated (denied) against minorities prior to that.....are you?

Wait. So you think the Supreme Court allowed race to be a factor to proactively discriminate against white people?

Why should you have any say in their process? It's literally none of your business. Some of the spots are not based on the same competitive criteria. They are giving scholarships to underprivileged students in their area because they want to help improve their own community which in turn will benefit the colleges. It's called being a part of society and it's their decision to lose money because of this charity. You want control over how they support their local community? Should they have control over your charity? How do you feel about athletes getting preferential treatment?

Because if its a state school receiving a portion of your tax dollars.......you have every right to ensure they are not being discriminatory in their selection process.