0

I don't recall the exact law offhand, but from what I've read, in the United States, any 'Affirmative Action' process that actually does use the ethnicity of a candidate for a position (school, job, or other) is in violation of the very law which supposedly supports them. The purpose of the law was to ensure that NO ONE got any special privileges. And I vaguely recall reading that, when said law was passed, there were arguments about whether or not it would be used to create just such a 'racial quota' system as we have today.
Naturally, the politicians passing the law said <paraphrase>"Oh, no, that will never happen!"</paraphrase>

And while the 'diversity' issue is getting played out, consider the question of what kind of diversity is valued, and what kinds aren't. For example, picture the reaction of most (US) college instructors in anything from Political Science to English Literature if you were to try taking the traditional 'conservative' ideological stance in their presence...especially in their classes. Is biological diversity (ethnicity or gender) worth anything if it's accompanied by an ideological homogeneity?

The 'Affirmative Action' quota system was indeed declared unconstitutional by the supreme court; however, affirmative action policies today are no different now than what they used to be.. Colleges and businesses still hire people based solely on race in order to accomplish their diversity goal. Some state courts have actually declared all forms of affirmative action illegal (I think the specifics are in my essay).. But the fact remains that some schools in the United States will enroll less-qualified students over students who deserve to attend the school simply b/c the school wishes to become more diverse.

What if the poor have 9 A's at GCSE and are super intelligent? Shouldn't they get a shot at a career they might do better than some shithead rich kid?

Statistically, what is the probability that poor students will do well in school? Most poor kids are not intelligent, and care nothing about education. They are not to blame.. More than likely, they grew up in a bad atmosphere by parents who did not care about education, and so quite naturally the children did not find education essential.
And so, the people of low class are stuck in society... Exactly as the way it should be, so that the rest of us can enjoy at least moderate wealth.

0

Statistically, what is the probability that poor students will do well in school? Most poor kids are not intelligent, and care nothing about education. They are not to blame.. More than likely, they grew up in a bad atmosphere by parents who did not care about education, and so quite naturally the children did not find education essential.
And so, the people of low class are stuck in society... Exactly as the way it should be, so that the rest of us can enjoy at least moderate wealth.

Does the term 'Zero-Sum Game' sound familiar? I'm fairly sure that education doesn't qualify.
And I think you're mixing the ideas of intelligence (or the lack thereof) and willful ignorance together. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend things; last I checked, it's not limited to only one social group or structure. However, some social microcultures do not prize intelligence, leading to a condition of willful ignorance: Those who posess intelligence attempt to hide it, and actually act less intelligent than they are, in order to fit into their surroundings. And after a while, this habit of willful ignorance becoems ingrained enough that it not only obscures but actually mars the individual's intelligence. Intelligence is a gift, but also a talent; it has to be honed or it will decay.

0

9 A's?

Lol I didnt even get 9 GCSEs A-C . I got a C in ICT tho, wtf is up with that ? im obviosuly not that dumb at computers......

yeah, i got the highest overall grades in my year........

*arkward silence*

I'm not poor like on the streets, but neither i nor my parents have the money to go to uni without a loan (something my cousin has managed to do)

0

Yeah i know, uni is expensive. At uni im either gonna do an in-workpace web technologies degree (earn cash therefore pay for uni) or else study in scotland (tuition is under £2000 pa there and we have a house :))

So are you at 6th form now then hbk619? or work?

0

College, ironicly, doing BTEC national IT and AS psychology.. possibly A2 next year, depending on if the new timetable comes in place. Otherwise continue with teh btec.

A work place sounds a good idea..

0

You only doing 2 subjects?

My friend (he caleld serunson or seruson or something on this site) does BTEC IT and he says u have to do it for the full 2 years or u get nothing?

Im doing AS Compting Myself

0

Does the term 'Zero-Sum Game' sound familiar? I'm fairly sure that education doesn't qualify.

I was referring to wealth.. The poor and rich cancel each other out. Thus, if more and more people went to college, received a good education, and became wealthy.. Then there would be less wealth, and the previously rich people would fall into the lower class..

And I think you're mixing the ideas of intelligence (or the lack thereof) and willful ignorance together. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend things; last I checked, it's not limited to only one social group or structure. However, some social microcultures do not prize intelligence, leading to a condition of willful ignorance: Those who posess intelligence attempt to hide it, and actually act less intelligent than they are, in order to fit into their surroundings. And after a while, this habit of willful ignorance becoems ingrained enough that it not only obscures but actually mars the individual's intelligence. Intelligence is a gift, but also a talent; it has to be honed or it will decay.

I don't think intelligence can 'decay', as you say. Someone may be born intelligent, but never really utilize their skill.. so it is wasted.

I'm not saying that only the wealthy are intelligent.. and that all lower-class people are stupid (My family isn't rich.. probably middle class). All I'm saying is that if we educate more people who would normally be in the low social class, then the rest of us will lose wealth. Everyone can't be rich.. and you are a fool if you believe so. We need dirt poor people in order for wealth to exist. Without the extreme poor we would have no extremely wealth..

0

Economics isn't a zero-sum game either. Wealth, unlike matter or energy, can be created and destroyed, not merely shuffled around. The idea that wealth is a zero-sum gamef is the one that lies behind traditional socialist thinking.

And no, everyone can't be rich, because 'rich' is a relative term. Unless you'd like to put a specific value on it, either a unique static value relative to some year's dollar value (1986, for example) or perhaps as a constant percentage of the local GNP or GDP? Still, it's quite possible for others to become affluent without you going down, or for you to become affluent without them going down. Trade, commerce, tech, etc, all of these can have an effect. Consider it this way: Due to enhanced commerce, you personally probably have a higher buying power as an individual than most noblemen did back in the middle ages, simply because it's so much less expensive for something to get from point a to your doorstep. Due to enhanced tech, you can keep tabs on what goods and services are thereby available, without having to keep an entire office full of economists or traders directly in your employ. From what you've said, then by the standards of the middle ages, you're rich. By those standards, so am I, and so probably are most if not all of the people at Daniweb. Yet you define yourself as not being rich...and by the standards of this time, you are correct, no doubt. (It's not like I can exactly keep financial tabs on you, after all...I don't know whether or not you're rich, middle class, or poor. But I'm willing to take you at your word.)

And while innate intelligence perhaps doesn't decay, if it's actively ignored, then the habits of that time will make it harder for someone to use it properly later in life. The overall effect of it can decay. Perhaps my argument was phrased incorrectly, perhaps I used the wrong words. I will try to do better in the future on that. I will acknowledge that if past habits of willful ignorance can be broken (difficult but not impossible) then the underlying intelligence of the individual can quickly procede as it should have been permitted to originally.

0

Economics isn't a zero-sum game either. Wealth, unlike matter or energy, can be created and destroyed, not merely shuffled around. The idea that wealth is a zero-sum gamef is the one that lies behind traditional socialist thinking.

I wasn't saying that economics was a zero-sum game either.. Simply wealth in general (relative to today's standards). I'll use 'millionaires' instead of 'wealthy' to be more specific in my next couple of examples..

Not everyone can be millionaires, because then the economy would not function properly. Who would want to work at a gas station if they had one million dollars? And in order for there to be rich people, then there must be poor people.. fore how would you define being 'rich' if there was no poor?

Actually, wealth cannot truly be created and destroyed.. There is a certain amount of available money to the public, the money supply. Tampering with it would cause inflation or vice versa, extreme unemployment. Wealth actually does only shuffle around from person to person.. with a very small percent of inflation per year.

So, the only way that a particular country can have more rich people is if it has more poor people also. As more and more people join the upper class, the wealth becomes more evenly distributed among the people.. and soon there is only one class of people, aka communism..

0

IActually, wealth cannot truly be created and destroyed.. There is a certain amount of available money to the public, the money supply. Tampering with it would cause inflation or vice versa, extreme unemployment. Wealth actually does only shuffle around from person to person.. with a very small percent of inflation per year.

yes that happened to germany pre hitler but post WW1. They couldnt pay repairations so they printed more leading to hyperinflation. People had to take wheelbarrowlaods of cash to buy bread. It was actually worth less as money than as paper.

and soon there is only one class of people, aka communism..

but USSR type communism wasnt true communism. There was still money.

0

but USSR type communism wasnt true communism. There was still money.

True communism does not exist.

Well, there will be only one class of people if all the poor became educated and then 'wealthy'. Then a form of communism would exist, b/c everyone would get about equal pay for any job.

0

True communism does not exist.

Well, there will be only one class of people if all the poor became educated and then 'wealthy'. Then a form of communism would exist, b/c everyone would get about equal pay for any job.

I think it's better to say that it has not existed yet.

0

I doubt it ever will exist.. No government would care only for its people.. Every human looks out for his/her own self-interest, and therefore it is highly unlikely that a government would not become corrupt and abuse its powers in a communist nation..

0

@joshSCH: I'm not referring to money (printed or minted), I'm referring to wealth; purchasing power. Or perhaps if you prefer, bartering power, with the printed/minted items merely being a special substance bartered for/with. If the skills and/or talents (including intelligence) that you have are in desire, and you hone them to keep them functioning, rather than allowing them to sit idle or decay, you increase your own value in such a system. In terms of your bartering ability (with, again, physical currency merely being another item bartered for) you have become wealthier. You are now worth more than you were before.

0

Funny how you guys which never know what is communism talk about it
"Study, study, study, said Mr Lenin", lol that was well know slogan in 80's back in Easter block
Idea behind it wan't bad but after Lenin get ill Stalin take over and twist that idae how he need it, if you seen movie Enemy at the gates you may get some feeling how was it
This completely of topic you anted to talk about college and uni
jbennet been right about computing subject to certain extend C#, Java and PHP but this realy depend on university. I do Westminster in London
1st year C++, HTML, JavaScript, CSS, SQL on Oracle
2nd C++ advanced, Java, event driven programming with Java, MySQL, C, C on networks, PHP
3rd Java & MySQL in Internet app, Java in my final year project, CISCO, little of C again, network security and forensig
Lucky for me as continuing student had to pay only £1300 agains starting 1st years that was over £3000

0

JBennet, BTEC = 3 a levels. And yup you have to do the full 2 years to get either pass, merit or distiction. Doing an AS level as well is very rare (have to have really good grades), most stick with the BTEC.

0

Anyway.. trying to revive this thread:

What college(s) are daniweb members attending / planning to attend ?

0

Ive got one more year to go in 6th form and at University I hope to study either Computer Science, Computer Networking or E-Commerce and Web Development

0

I'm graduating from hs this year! yay! Finally off to college, and living far from my parents!!

0

Heh, I moved a whopping 15 miles from my parents, but that was even far enough. 'Course the traffic around here makes it seem farther :P

0

Really?

Most people at my college take BTEC National IT Practicioner with 3 other ASes

probably because i'm doing a BTEC National Diploma in ICT not practictioner...

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.