Don't lost hope

[jasonbourne]

The point is, URM's think its a great thing and those that are not in that niche think it's unfair. Absolutely anything that shows preference to anyone's color is unfair. End of story.

Yeah, AA is great because everybody knows the history of this great nation. It is this unfortunate past that has led to many people not believing that they would get an equal shot at a dream. It is due to past mistakes by our ancestors that have led to such Major policies such as AA nowadays. If such mistakes where never made, AA would not even exist.

Even the founding fathers brought the electoral college so that smaller states would not feel overrun by larger states. This example has a perfect analogy to AA. You cant leave a majority to decide if not they might get carried away and forget the minority. AA is not meant to favor anybody, it is meant to promote equality amongst all so everyone gets a fair share.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yappy]

Affirmative action - "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The question is - what steps are being taken? In my opinion, the steps that should be taken need to be implemented in primary education. They should NOT be implemented in the selection process for a professional medical degree applicant. This is much too late. This type of AA is unethical and will alienate the achievements of the otherwise selected candidates.

Advocates of AA - is this a fair compromise? or am I missing the boat?

 

[PharmDKid89]

I hope this is the case for me..I got waitlisted, and I really don't if I"ll get a seat..doubt it

 

[drpharMD]

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Those that feel that URM should not benefit from a program designed to give them an opportunity to get a position upon a "tie" with an ORM is entitled to do so. But one must also realize that much of our thinking is NOT the same as those who hold positions of power in many institutions. They, most of the time, did not grow up in the same environment that Passion4sci, or MRSA did - where they interacted with minorities and understand their backgrounds. Many of them (not ALL) show favor to those who look like them and do everything in their power to accept them into their institutions. Without AA, these people will determine the racial outlook of the various science professions and leave URMs out in the cold. It is plain fact. Look at the past in this country. You can literally count the number of URMs as presidents, deans, and officials in ORM institutional academia with one hand. Ultimately, if you are qualified/have good stats, you should get in to SOMEWHERE regardless of your color/race. But do not bash AA when it was implemented to make the admissions process more open to those of color. Without it, the percentages that everyone is spouting (for asians, hispanics, etc.) would be DRASTICALLY lower for ALL OF THEM. That is a fact that NO ONE can deny.


If you do, look at the statistics for the ten years previous to AA and the ten years immediately following its implementation. What is the difference, Passion4Sci? The numbers, most likely, will be higher post AA. Is it that now, all of a sudden, URMs are making better grades and getting better scores than they were back then? There IS no difference - except the system that states that if two candidates of EQUAL footing are compared, the person who is of an underrepresented origin should get in because there is a DEARTH of them in the field. We HAD a system where the "most qualified" person could get in to a stellar institution based on numbers (pre AA) and LOOK AT THE STATISTICS. Whether you grew up in a rough neighborhood or not, those who look like you and I were the ones who benefitted from the system. If the previous system worked for EVERYONE, AA would never have been implemented. Who cares what URMs in your class stated -- this argument has nothing to do with attitudes, feelings, or what WE THINK. It is about numbers, statistics, and FACTS.

 

[pharmplz11]

...

 

[jasonbourne]

...except now ethnic discrimination is bull crap and disadvantages the poor classes that aren't a part of a URM. Racial prejudice is behind us, and AA, as it currently is, not what it is meant to be, disadvantages those that are not an under represented minority. If you want proof, look to our current president and tell me we still need this system to keep discrimination in check. Or are you saying that because he is a URM he became president... I think not.

Your post shows how naive you are. If you think that there is no racism because America has elected a Black, then you are definitely dreaming or maybe a little bit out of touch with reality. Go get some minority friends Maybe you'll get a wake up call.

 

[jasonbourne]

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Those that feel that URM should not benefit from a program designed to give them an opportunity to get a position upon a "tie" with an ORM is entitled to do so. But one must also realize that much of our thinking is NOT the same as those who hold positions of power in many institutions. They, most of the time, did not grow up in the same environment that Passion4sci, or MRSA did - where they interacted with minorities and understand their backgrounds. Many of them (not ALL) show favor to those who look like them and do everything in their power to accept them into their institutions. Without AA, these people will determine the racial outlook of the various science professions and leave URMs out in the cold. It is plain fact. Look at the past in this country. You can literally count the number of URMs as presidents, deans, and officials in ORM institutional academia with one hand. Ultimately, if you are qualified/have good stats, you should get in to SOMEWHERE regardless of your color/race. But do not bash AA when it was implemented to make the admissions process more open to those of color. Without it, the percentages that everyone is spouting (for asians, hispanics, etc.) would be DRASTICALLY lower for ALL OF THEM. That is a fact that NO ONE can deny.


If you do, look at the statistics for the ten years previous to AA and the ten years immediately following its implementation. What is the difference, Passion4Sci? The numbers, most likely, will be higher post AA. Is it that now, all of a sudden, URMs are making better grades and getting better scores than they were back then? There IS no difference - except the system that states that if two candidates of EQUAL footing are compared, the person who is of an underrepresented origin should get in because there is a DEARTH of them in the field. We HAD a system where the "most qualified" person could get in to a stellar institution based on numbers (pre AA) and LOOK AT THE STATISTICS. Whether you grew up in a rough neighborhood or not, those who look like you and I were the ones who benefitted from the system. If the previous system worked for EVERYONE, AA would never have been implemented. Who cares what URMs in your class stated -- this argument has nothing to do with attitudes, feelings, or what WE THINK. It is about numbers, statistics, and FACTS.

This post is excellent an hit the nail in the head. The thing is a lot of people wanna blame their Rejections on Affirmative Action. They fail to understand that this "Affirmative Action was designed so that minorities and women have a chance when there is a tie."

Also, I realized that some of the people who post here are simply naive and think that URMs dont perform as well as ORMs. There are a lot of intelligent URMs out there and if you got rejected, "Get over it"
It is nobody's fault if you where rejected. Its yours. There are many smart URMs out there who performed as good or even better than you during the application cycle. They also have excellent stats and experience. If you cant stand the heat of rejection, Get out of the kitchen. Dont blame your misfortunes on people you dont even know. Some of these guys dont even have access to the URMS application files but seem to complain about URMs. How do they even know if the URM was more qualified than they are. Stop making baseless excuses and get over it. You can apply next year. Maybe you'll get accepted if you stop whining

 

[balab]

Your post shows how naive you are. If you think that there is no racism because America has elected a Black, then you are definitely dreaming or maybe a little bit out of touch with reality. Go get some minority friends Maybe you'll get a wake up call.

Exactly I dont know why everyone seems to think that because Obama is black, racisim is over!!! Thye mere fact that we make such statements is proof that it isn't. We can all pretend all we want, and make our selves feel better because "we elected a black man" but we have barely scratched the surface of the issues that divide us. I for one don't know why we are still arguning over this topic. these are the facts
1) There will always be inequality, some people will always fare better than others in the "free soceity"
2) We enact a system that is "unfair" to some (AA), but this inequality is acceptable because it tries to help the least well of in our soceity, who MOST of the time are URM's.
3) So instead of complaing about how unfair AA is, how about we work to change the social fabric of our soceity and eliminate the original disparity that is leading to more inequality. Sadly, this seems too idealistic, but if we change our attitudes towards racial issues then we can make a better argument for eliminating AA!!!

 

[jasonbourne]

Exactly I dont know why everyone seems to think that because Obama is black, racisim is over!!! Thye mere fact that we make such statements is proof that it isn't. We can all pretend all we want, and make our selves feel better because "we elected a black man" but we have barely scratched the surface of the issues that divide us. I for one don't know why we are still arguning over this topic. these are the facts
1) There will always be inequality, some people will always fare better than others in the "free soceity"
2) We enact a system that is "unfair" to some (AA), but this inequality is acceptable because it tries to help the least well of in our soceity, who MOST of the time are URM's.
3) So instead of complaing about how unfair AA is, how about we work to change the social fabric of our soceity and eliminate the original disparity that is leading to more inequality. Sadly, this seems too idealistic, but if we change our attitudes towards racial issues then we can make a better argument for eliminating AA!!!

You are so right. We see ignorance like this everyday.

Balab, My real problem is the fact that quite a number of Non-minorities who get rejected to pharm or med school try to blame Affirmative action.
What makes them believe that these minorities dont have better grades and experience? They should get over it an study harder. I am black. My GPA is 3.8 and i have a 90% pcat. I have other minority friends who performed better than me. There are many of us out there who are qualified but it seems like ignorance has blindsided some folks. They should get over their complains and swallow their rejections.

 

[pharmplz11]

...

 

[balab]

You are so right. We see ignorance like this everyday.

Balab, My real problem is the fact that quite a number of Non-minorities who get rejected to pharm or med school try to blame Affirmative action.
What makes them believe that these minorities dont have better grades and experience? They should get over it an study higher. I am black. My GPA is 3.8 and i have a 90% pcat. I have other minority friends who performed better than me. There are many of us out there who are qualified but it seems like ignorance has blindsided some folks. They should get over their complains and swallow their rejections.

I feel you, I am black too, and i always wonder if an ORM can blame a URM when they are rejected, who does the URM blame when an underqualified URM gets accepted and they don't? Do we go dang those URM's are taking up all the spots? The issue with professional school is that though grades, scores, LOR's and EC's are important one has to wonder how they make their decisions. On this forum we have seen people with great stats get rejected and people with lower stats from the same race get accepted, so for me there is a certain amount of "arbitrariness" involved.

 

[jasonbourne]

I feel you, I am black too, and i always wonder if an ORM can blame a URM when they are rejected, who does the URM blame when an underqualified URM gets accepted and they don't? Do we go dang those URM's are taking up all the spots? The issue with professional school is that though grades, scores, LOR's and EC's are important one has to wonder how they make their decisions. On this forum we have seen people with great stats get rejected and people with lower stats from the same race get accepted, so for me there is a certain amount of "arbitrariness" involved.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they developed what is called the electoral college process where larger states would not overrun smaller states. Each state (NEW Jersey Plan i think, I cant rem clearly) has 2 senators. Then the house was created to have proportionate representation. This helped. This is why it is possible to have lesser votes but win the presidency. This is so because the small states are given an equal shot at making their voices heard.

This is the same thing here, There is a majority and there are minorities. If the majorities had the opportunity to vote on AA, I can guarantee you that it would not exist. Its been banned in colorado. But the USA supreme Court also knows that AA exists to help heal certain wounds and encourage equality. This is the main reason why the have not repealed this policy. If there was no AA, who knows whether there would have been bias in the admissions process

 

[pharmplz11]

...

 

[jasonbourne]

Your analogy is only partially viable. You want all the states to be able to vote, you don't want Rhode Island to be able to sneak laws in that gives extra economy to their own state and leaves out, oh I dunno, California because it's a bigger place.

what you just stated is in no way compared to affirmative actionor the admissions process. The majority-minority situation I mentioned seeks to make people understand why democracy may not always be our best friend. You must remember that states have their own rights and the feds have their rights too. The fact is that if AA ever reaches the supreme court again, It would be upheld. I guarantee you.

 

[PharmDKid89]

Yea..don't lose hope..I lost all hope even though I was waitlisted

 

[trailrider400]

Okay. Playing on the earlier posts. There is a tie between an URM student and a caucasion student so they pick the URM student based on race! On race! That is so not discrimination. Alright second situation. There is a tie between an URM and a caucasion applying for the same job. They pick the caucasion (for whatever reason). That is so racist! Really? Put on your tap dancing shoes and show me the difference here. But you're right they are UR so its okay to make a choice based this concept of race. There are 1000's of URM admitted with better stats than me (>3.5 gpas and great pcats scores) and they deserve it! Ethnicity or background plays no role here, nor should it, because they've worked their ass off, overcome their obstacles (like every human being), and ****ing earned it times 3. No one is complaining about an URM admitted with a 4.0, a 3.5, or even a 3.2 gpa. Its when someone who isn't even close to competitive gets in with a 2.?? gpa (don’t try to tell me this doesn’t happen). I don't care if they are antarctican, caucasion, african american, or asian - they ARE NOT QUALIFIED! We all want equality right? Equality is submitting your stats, your work experience, and ‘why pharmacy’ and letting the admissions committee make their decision objectively without checking the box in the lower left corner. I’m sorry I still don’t see the equality. ‘Proper’ proportion of URM’s will come from a desire to work hard (like all of you reading this) and pursue a health profession. Not by changing the rules and showing favor towards a select group of professionals (whatever they may be.) But I know I’m just another racist, privileged, whatever you want to call me who doesn’t ‘get it’.

 

[thephoenician88]

i still can't get over the title of this thread

don't
lost
hope

don't
lost
hope

 

[jasonbourne]

Okay. Playing on the earlier posts. There is a tie between an URM student and a caucasion student so they pick the URM student based on race! On race! That is so not discrimination. Alright second situation. There is a tie between an URM and a caucasion applying for the same job. They pick the caucasion (for whatever reason). That is so racist! Really? Put on your tap dancing shoes and show me the difference here. But you're right they are UR so its okay to make a choice based this concept of race. There are 1000's of URM admitted with better stats than me (>3.5 gpas and great pcats scores) and they deserve it! Ethnicity or background plays no role here, nor should it, because they've worked their ass off, overcome their obstacles (like every human being), and ****ing earned it times 3. No one is complaining about an URM admitted with a 4.0, a 3.5, or even a 3.2 gpa. Its when someone who isn't even close to competitive gets in with a 2.?? gpa (don't try to tell me this doesn't happen). I don't care if they are antarctican, caucasion, african american, or asian - they ARE NOT QUALIFIED! We all want equality right? Equality is submitting your stats, your work experience, and ‘why pharmacy' and letting the admissions committee make their decision objectively without checking the box in the lower left corner. I'm sorry I still don't see the equality. ‘Proper' proportion of URM's will come from a desire to work hard (like all of you reading this) and pursue a health profession. Not by changing the rules and showing favor towards a select group of professionals (whatever they may be.) But I know I'm just another racist, privileged, whatever you want to call me who doesn't ‘get it'.

They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified. They are underrepresented so admitting a URM over another non minority applicant who is equally qualified is not discrimination. non minorities are over represented and we all know it. dont try to play innocent unless you are simply ignorant to the facts. however, It is discrimination to reject a URM who is equally qualified when you know that your school is made up a majority.

Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?

I agree, the rules should not be changed to favor one group. It seems you are oblivious to the fact that before AA was upheld by the supreme court of USA (Smart men and women of wisdom), the rules that existed favored the majority. Now that AA exists, it gives everyone an equal share of the cake so that no group is favored over the other.

You are so naive and oblivious to the fact that the rules that existed before affirmative action favored the majority and discouraged a lot of minorities from pursuing their dreams.

By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldnt exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.

Secondly, getting a job does not mean if there is a tie between a URM and an a non URM, the URM must get the job. You didnt even give a context to your argument. For your information, you would have to take a look at the entire make up of that office before making a decision. By the way, hiring a caucasian over a URM in one situation for a job doesnt mean it is racists. However if the employer keeps hiring caucasians over equally qualified URMs without trying to promote diversity among his employees, there is every reason to believe he/she is racist.

Think of this situation. An office is made up of 100 workers. 90 white, 3 latinos, 3 blacks, 3 asians, 1 native Amercan. If the employer has 3 more spaces left and has 6 more applicants. 2 whites, 2 blacks, 2 latinos who are equally qualified in all aspects(Extra curriculars, GPA, Experiences), what should he do? If you think he he is discriminating by choosing the blacks or latinos over the whites, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning. By hiring more whites in such a situation when there are equally qualified minorities out there is flat out discrimination against the other groups. I hope your eyes are now opened to see the way affirmative action works. It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why dont you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination? Dont you think that is discrimination against other races? why didnt you think of that? That was your argument in the post above

This is the central premise of AA. It requires you admit people from all ethnic groups proportionally when they are equally qualified.

I assume you probably think the supreme court judges were wrong to have upheld AA. These judges are smart and experienced folks who know why they upheld this rule.

Well, you decided to assume that people will call you a racist in your post. Nobody called you a racist so i assume you are simply feeling guilty even though nobody has called you a racist.

 

[atticus27]

ok..long story short...I have a 2.8 gpa----56 pcat---zero volunteer, but great LOR's and 3 & 1/2 years pharm experience.


Applied to 8 schools
6 Interviews-1 Rejection-1 declined interview
4 Acceptations (My number 1 & 2 schools)-2 Holds
5 Accredited Schools-1 Candidate School


So for those of you who r stressing, don't!!

Yo stats is weak dawg.

 

[Carboxide]

They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified. They are underrepresented so admitting a URM over another non minority applicant who is equally qualified is not discrimination. non minorities are over represented and we all know it. dont try to play innocent unless you are simply ignorant to the facts. however, It is discrimination to reject a URM who is equally qualified when you know that your school is made up a majority.

Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?

I agree, the rules should not be changed to favor one group. It seems you are oblivious to the fact that before AA was upheld by the supreme court of USA (Smart men and women of wisdom), the rules that existed favored the majority. Now that AA exists, it gives everyone an equal share of the cake so that no group is favored over the other.

You are so naive and oblivious to the fact that the rules that existed before affirmative action favored the majority and discouraged a lot of minorities from pursuing their dreams.

By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldnt exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.

Secondly, getting a job does not mean if there is a tie between a URM and an a non URM, the URM must get the job. You didnt even give a context to your argument. For your information, you would have to take a look at the entire make up of that office before making a decision. By the way, hiring a caucasian over a URM in one situation for a job doesnt mean it is racists. However if the employer keeps hiring caucasians over equally qualified URMs without trying to promote diversity among his employees, there is every reason to believe he/she is racist.

Think of this situation. An office is made up of 100 workers. 90 white, 3 latinos, 3 blacks, 3 asians, 1 native Amercan. If the employer has 3 more spaces left and has 6 more applicants. 2 whites, 2 blacks, 2 latinos who are equally qualified in all aspects(Extra curriculars, GPA, Experiences), what should he do? If you think he he is discriminating by choosing the blacks or latinos over the whites, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning. By hiring more whites in such a situation when there are equally qualified minorities out there is flat out discrimination against the other groups. I hope your eyes are now opened to see the way affirmative action works. It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why dont you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination? Dont you think that is discrimination against other races? why didnt you think of that? That was your argument in the post above

This is the central premise of AA. It requires you admit people from all ethnic groups proportionally when they are equally qualified.

I assume you probably think the supreme court judges were wrong to have upheld AA. These judges are smart and experienced folks who know why they upheld this rule.

Well, you decided to assume that people will call you a racist in your post. Nobody called you a racist so i assume you are simply feeling guilty even though nobody has called you a racist.

I think the problem with your argument, that you are not seeing, is that there are NEVER two completely identical candidates. IF there are two pharmacy school candidates vying for one spot that have absolutely identical resumes, GPAs and PCAT scores, then that's what LORs and interviews are for - and the same with job interviews. I highly, highly doubt that there has EVER been a situation where two candidates had identical GPAs, PCAT composite and section scores, LOR strengths, resume builders, AND were ranked exactly the same in how they performed in interviews. That is the ONLY situation in which AA is remotely appropriate, and it would rarely - if ever - happen.

 

[atticus27]

ok..long story short...I have a 2.8 gpa----56 pcat---zero volunteer, but great LOR's and 3 & 1/2 years pharm experience.


Applied to 8 schools
6 Interviews-1 Rejection-1 declined interview
4 Acceptations (My number 1 & 2 schools)-2 Holds
5 Accredited Schools-1 Candidate School


So for those of you who r stressing, don't!!

Why would you word a thread in such a way that degrades the pharmacy profession by suggesting that acceptances with horribly below par stats are the norm?

 

[Passion4Sci]

Why would you word a thread in such a way that degrades the pharmacy profession by suggesting that acceptances with horribly below par stats are the norm?

He is the most ultimate troll, quite possibly better than Thetan?

 

[pharmplz11]

..

 

[SHC1984]

Yes, affirmative action is extremely unfair and it use to piss me off just thinking about it. Just like medicaid, welfare, (any "free" handouts the Gov gives to lazy asses etc.) are all UNFAIR!

***Thats why I need to work at Costco b/c they don't accept medicaid which cuts out all the trashy people I have to deal with...

Anyways yes its very unfair and it use to make me mad just thinking about it...but now I don't care b/c I know I will succeed in no matter what I do, so why worry about a bunch of lazy people? I mean if you are smart and successful why worry about people that are nothing but a drain to society? those people should be last thing on everyone's mind.

 

[jasonbourne]

And they have supporters who said do it or we withdraw your monetary support. Or are YOU naive enough to believe otherwise? I'm guessing you are choosing to infer what you want rather than what is.

It's all fine and dandy to defend an ideal, but you're a zealot man. Unrelenting and unwilling to even try and see where the opposition is coming from. You can't really believe that reverse discrimination doesn't happen.

You definetely need to go take a government class. Unless your professor was Alan Keyes. I didnt think you would reason in this way even though i am a little bit surprised. Some court justices could receive donations when running for election. In texas, federal judges ascend to power by elections. There is however a huge difference between the state courts and the US supreme court. The US supreme court is not a political body. Once seated, they are there for life. They can never be fired by the president and they are not a political body. A US supreme court justice does not receive donations from anyone because it is unethical and they dont need it. They are not allowed to run political campaigns due to conflicts. However, they may donate to another candidate they support, but they are not allowed to receive campaign funds themselves. For you to state that the US supreme court justices receive money is totally absurd and wrong. Another point i wanted to emphasize is that there are more oponents than supporters when it comes to AA. Even If US supreme court judges could receive donations, they probably would have received millions more from people against affirmative action when compared to people who are for it. It shows that you dont even know what you are talking about. You really need a government class. Go have your facts straightened out before you try to have a successful debate. Do some research next time.

Nowadays, a lot of people have started talking about reverse discrimination. When the government makes a policy that says equality, many people wanna say its reverse discrimination. USA has 68% white, 15% hispanic, 13% black, 5% Asian American.

In the past, we all know that whites made up a majority in the health professions. If a policy like AA tries to have proportionate representation like the US population, what is the problem with that? Are they not trying to create a balance so no ethinic group is left out?

Why dont you say it is discrimination when a whole class has 75% non minorities? Try to think about other peoples points of view. In a lot of cases Democracy may also be our enemy. If the USA took up a vote on AA, it would be outlawed and we all know it as a fact. The Supreme court Justices were not foolish to have upheld this decision. they did it because they got brains that reason carefully.

The connecticut plan was put in place because smaller states felt their voices would not be heard. This is an excellent analogy. If you leave it to the hands of the majority to make the decisions, they would forget the minority. By the ways, they have done it in the past before several times. What is the problem with a rule that makes sure that they dont do it again or get away with it. If you think AA is such a stupid policy, then maybe you should think of the history of this Great nation and also about the Justice system. Read this three links below and you wold probably realize that racism exists today and Adcoms implement affirmative action because they want to ensure equality for all ethinicities. I am sure you havent gone through a lot in life. I dont blame you for it. You cant go through a tenth of what some of us have overcome.

There are many flaws in our society, some of which are mentioned here. It is clear that even though most segments of the populations commit certain crimes, some are targeted more than the others.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n771.a03.html

http://english.sina.com/1/2007/1204/134940.html

http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/kids.htm

If you cant stand affirmative Action, take your ten fingers and point them at the people who exercised Jim Crow. This problem has its roots in our past and you know it.

It is really unheard of that being a minority has been an advantage. You are definitely dreaming and you need to wake up from sleep. You probably dont get searched by the police anytime your your car is pulled over. You probably dont know how it feels or what it means when my ex girlfriend asked me to escape her home through the back door cuz her grandparents didnt wanna see her dating a black guy. Ask me how it feels, i would explain. Your ignorance amazes me. I have noticed from this forum that many but not all non minorites are clueless about the life of a minority. It is shocking to see how ignorant some of you are. When rules are put in that try to bring proportional representation, you try to twist it around to say it is reverse discrimination. find a better excuse man

 

[trailrider400]

They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified. They are underrepresented so admitting a URM over another non minority applicant who is equally qualified is not discrimination. non minorities are over represented and we all know it. dont try to play innocent unless you are simply ignorant to the facts. however, It is discrimination to reject a URM who is equally qualified when you know that your school is made up a majority.

Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?

I agree, the rules should not be changed to favor one group. It seems you are oblivious to the fact that before AA was upheld by the supreme court of USA (Smart men and women of wisdom), the rules that existed favored the majority. Now that AA exists, it gives everyone an equal share of the cake so that no group is favored over the other.

You are so naive and oblivious to the fact that the rules that existed before affirmative action favored the majority and discouraged a lot of minorities from pursuing their dreams.

By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldnt exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.

Secondly, getting a job does not mean if there is a tie between a URM and an a non URM, the URM must get the job. You didnt even give a context to your argument. For your information, you would have to take a look at the entire make up of that office before making a decision. By the way, hiring a caucasian over a URM in one situation for a job doesnt mean it is racists. However if the employer keeps hiring caucasians over equally qualified URMs without trying to promote diversity among his employees, there is every reason to believe he/she is racist.

Think of this situation. An office is made up of 100 workers. 90 white, 3 latinos, 3 blacks, 3 asians, 1 native Amercan. If the employer has 3 more spaces left and has 6 more applicants. 2 whites, 2 blacks, 2 latinos who are equally qualified in all aspects(Extra curriculars, GPA, Experiences), what should he do? If you think he he is discriminating by choosing the blacks or latinos over the whites, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning. By hiring more whites in such a situation when there are equally qualified minorities out there is flat out discrimination against the other groups. I hope your eyes are now opened to see the way affirmative action works. It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why dont you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination? Dont you think that is discrimination against other races? why didnt you think of that? That was your argument in the post above

This is the central premise of AA. It requires you admit people from all ethnic groups proportionally when they are equally qualified.

I assume you probably think the supreme court judges were wrong to have upheld AA. These judges are smart and experienced folks who know why they upheld this rule.

Well, you decided to assume that people will call you a racist in your post. Nobody called you a racist so i assume you are simply feeling guilty even though nobody has called you a racist.

Haha I'm so ridden with guilt! You didn't call me racist because I threw that card out there before anyone could wrongly label me. If I told you not to call me naive or oblivious you'd feel stupid for throwing those words at me too and would have busted out your thesaurus instead.
They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified.
-Then AA plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE HERE. If they were more qualified its a no brainer! If every URM is more qualified then of course. And that’s not an issue with me if you read my post. Equally qualified? You know for the sake of no one changing anyone’s mind here I'll give you the W. My issue is with the URMs who get accepted over someone who is, like you said, better qualified (but yeah I know this doesn't EVER happen). I can't wait until Caucasians are the minority. But when they are the minority and get (and they never will) AA it will be discrimination.
It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why don’t you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination?
Haha bingo! 'Whites' should in some cases make up 85% of the class IF that is representative of the population in which they serve. I'm going to use Minnesota as an example. 92% of the population of Minnesota was considered 'white' in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota - if you really don't like wiki I'll dig deeper) In 2008 roughly 60% of the students accepted to U MN were listed as Caucasian - http://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/statistics/home.html. Now is that 60% truly representative of the demographics of the state (which is 92% Caucasian)? Or are Caucasians actually underrepresented in this school based on the populations that they serve? Also the majority of qualified applicants who applied were likely Caucasian (it would stand to reason that there are simply more Caucasian applicants based on the fact that 92 out of 100 people in the state are Caucasian). What exactly do you expect?
By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldn’t exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.
Me too. This is one of the darkest moments of American history. But guess what. I WASN'T THERE. I had nothing to do with it. And even if I should be held accountable for someone who I never knew but am linked to genetically, they haven't been here that long and were in no way involved with slavery. Although this is a terrible part of history, when will 'our' (not my) ancestor's mistakes be repaid? In 4000 years will society still be repaying it? Or are you going to set the expiration date? And what about the Japanese that were wrongly put in internment camps during WWII. Or the million’s of people who have suffered the tragedies of genocide? How are they getting repaid? Why aren't you fighting for them?
Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?
Because THEY ARE THE MAJORITY! And see above. They are the majority in the US and the majority of applicants. That’s like saying I'd be discriminating by reaching into a pile with 10 square marbles and 90 round marbles and picking only 2 square ones.

And AA was, like most things, created with the absolute best intentions in mind. Diversity is a great thing and promotes critical thinking and a better understanding of each other. But is using this idea as a compromise to potentially admit a less qualified applicant fair or even rational? Is it still necessary? Is it still fair? And has it gone to far?

 

[trailrider400]

And if I were an URM would I see this unfair? I don't know. Every one of us has done everything we can to give us that extra advantage which is why we volunteer, work at pharmacies, get good grades, and work our butts off. I can see why someone would embrace this advantage because its tough out there and any edge you can get helps. But take a step back, remove yourself from your specific situation, and ask yourself if its fair. I'll do the same. I can see your point of view. Any advantage is good and certain groups of people have been wronged by others since the beginning of human history. But is it fair? Well, I still don't think it is.

 

[jasonbourne]

Yes, affirmative action is extremely unfair and it use to piss me off just thinking about it. Just like medicaid, welfare, (any "free" handouts the Gov gives to lazy asses etc.) are all UNFAIR!

***Thats why I need to work at Costco b/c they don't accept medicaid which cuts out all the trashy people I have to deal with...

Anyways yes its very unfair and it use to make me mad just thinking about it...but now I don't care b/c I know I will succeed in no matter what I do, so why worry about a bunch of lazy people? I mean if you are smart and successful why worry about people that are nothing but a drain to society? those people should be last thing on everyone's mind.

A drain to society, that is arrogant man. You are being arrogant. I agree that some people are lazy and dont wanna work. I agree that some people have also used the welfare system even when they may not need it. But you dont need to call such people a drain on society. That is extremely rude and arrogant man. Have some respect to fellow human beings. You dont even know some of their life stories.

even if you are annoyed with medicaid, does that mean we should leave sick people in the streets. You dont like welfare and i understand that. I admit that some people have used the system but that doesnt mean that we should let them sleep under bridges. This is America Man, land of Opportunity, Land of Corn and Wine. Without each other, the union would not be as strong. Even if we dont like some of these things, dont ditch your fellow brothers that way. Dont be self centered even if you are angry about the mistakes they make in their life. You are blessed, but not everyone may have made smart decisions like you do. Some may not have been as lucky as you

You could go work at costco if you want

 

[jasonbourne]

Haha I'm so ridden with guilt! You didn't call me racist because I threw that card out there before anyone could wrongly label me. If I told you not to call me naive or oblivious you'd feel stupid for throwing those words at me too and would have busted out your thesaurus instead.
They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified.
-Then AA plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE HERE. If they were more qualified its a no brainer! If every URM is more qualified then of course. And that's not an issue with me if you read my post. Equally qualified? You know for the sake of no one changing anyone's mind here I'll give you the W. My issue is with the URMs who get accepted over someone who is, like you said, better qualified (but yeah I know this doesn't EVER happen). I can't wait until Caucasians are the minority. But when they are the minority and get (and they never will) AA it will be discrimination.
It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why don't you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination?
Haha bingo! 'Whites' should in some cases make up 85% of the class IF that is representative of the population in which they serve. I'm going to use Minnesota as an example. 92% of the population of Minnesota was considered 'white' in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota - if you really don't like wiki I'll dig deeper) In 2008 roughly 60% of the students accepted to U MN were listed as Caucasian - http://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/statistics/home.html. Now is that 60% truly representative of the demographics of the state (which is 92% Caucasian)? Or are Caucasians actually underrepresented in this school based on the populations that they serve? Also the majority of qualified applicants who applied were likely Caucasian (it would stand to reason that there are simply more Caucasian applicants based on the fact that 92 out of 100 people in the state are Caucasian). What exactly do you expect?
By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldn't exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.
Me too. This is one of the darkest moments of American history. But guess what. I WASN'T THERE. I had nothing to do with it. And even if I should be held accountable for someone who I never knew but am linked to genetically, they haven't been here that long and were in no way involved with slavery. Although this is a terrible part of history, when will 'our' (not my) ancestor's mistakes be repaid? In 4000 years will society still be repaying it? Or are you going to set the expiration date? And what about the Japanese that were wrongly put in internment camps during WWII. Or the million's of people who have suffered the tragedies of genocide? How are they getting repaid? Why aren't you fighting for them?
Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?
Because THEY ARE THE MAJORITY! And see above. They are the majority in the US and the majority of applicants. That's like saying I'd be discriminating by reaching into a pile with 10 square marbles and 90 round marbles and picking only 2 square ones.

And AA was, like most things, created with the absolute best intentions in mind. Diversity is a great thing and promotes critical thinking and a better understanding of each other. But is using this idea as a compromise to potentially admit a less qualified applicant fair or even rational? Is it still necessary? Is it still fair? And has it gone to far?

For your information, my family and i are giving monthly payments to three kids in AFrica, south America and Asia. Dont assume i have not helped people in tragedy cuz it is a family tradition to help. I have worked with churches doing humanitarian work so its important to note that I am not oblivious to the world around me. Secondly I am not disputing Minnesota's case. I am refering to the broader context that is United states as a whole so get that fact straight in your head.

You defintely took my quote out of context. When refering to the US as a whole, I mention that if you have qualified applicants who are minorities applying to a school with majority whites>68%, then you should look to create an equilibrum. In all my posts, the only URMs I have defended are those who are equally or more qualified. Go read all my posts. I guarantee you that I have not defended those who are not as qualified. I deeply support affirmative action when there is a tie.

Moreover, if whites make up the majority of applicants and they are still taken in larger numbers, then why is there an outcry against Affirmative action. A lot of You would say i am defending URMs. I say yes, i am. In all my posts, I have defended only the URMs who are equally or better qualified. I have never implied that an underqualifed URM should be taken over a non minority, never have i done that.

 

[trailrider400]

For your information, my family and i are giving monthly payments to three kids in AFrica, south America and Asia. So dont assume i dont help cuz i do that a lot. I have worked with churches doing humanitarian work so its important to note that I am not oblivious to the world around me. Secondly I am not disputing Minnesota's case. I am refering to the broader context that is United states as a whole so get that fact straight in your head.

You defintely took my quote out of context. When refering to the US as a whole, I mention that if you have qualified applicants who are minorities applying to a school with majority whites>68%, then you should look to create an equilibrum. In all my posts, the only URMs I have defended are those who are equally or more qualified. Go read all my posts. I guarantee you that I have not defended those who are not as qualified. I deeply support affirmative action when there is a tie.

And I sponsor children in several different countries. Would you like a metal? You missed my point apparently because I have no idea where this is coming from. I can tell you're a good person.

And lets say a school does except more than 68% white students. So what. This statistic shows us nothing. What if 75%, 80%, or even 90% of students who apply to pharmacy school are white? If that is the case then are URMs not adequately admitted based on those who chose to apply? You can't force any person or group of people into a profession that maybe they have no interest in. And as far as encouraging a minority student to pursue a health profession through the use of AA - aren't the incentives already there? What about a shot of a better life, an amazing paycheck, the chance to help people, and a solid job (isn't this why we are all doing this). And through the availability of student loans and government help to virtually everyone with financial need isn't this goal attainable to even people who have been dealt a bad hand?

 

[jasonbourne]

And if I were an URM would I see this unfair? I don't know. Every one of us has done everything we can to give us that extra advantage which is why we volunteer, work at pharmacies, get good grades, and work our butts off. I can see why someone would embrace this advantage because its tough out there and any edge you can get helps. But take a step back, remove yourself from your specific situation, and ask yourself if its fair. I'll do the same. I can see your point of view. Any advantage is good and certain groups of people have been wronged by others since the beginning of human history. But is it fair? Well, I still don't think it is.

Trailrider, I understand you. I know that nobody should be given a fair advantage over the other. If you read all my posts, I defend only URMs who are equally qualified or better. I have never supported a URM who is not as qualified as a non minority. The reason i support those who are equally qualified is simple. Minorities underrepresented in the health professions and we all know it. When i say equally, I dont mean 50-50. I am saying it should look like the make up of the American population which is a mix of so many races. A lot of people blame their rejections on URMs and i think this is unfair. I want them to know that there are many URMs out there who are qualified and admitting them encourages the nation as a whole that progress is being made towards equality. I am against an underqualified URM taking the spot of someone who is qualified. That is why i have defended only those who are equally qualified. That is the way Affirmative Action is meant to work. If not many minorities have applied, it is not the school's fault. I dont blame the school for not having many URMs. I am simply talking about a situation where there are applicants from all groups

when you talked of Genocide. I had to counter that claim because I was tryna show you that i have been actively involved.

-Note that i am refering only to situations where there are qualified URMs. If they didnt apply, I am not blaming the school. I am not saying the school should force them into something they have not signed up for. I have been refering only to situation where schools have qualified URM applicants

 

[trailrider400]

Moreover, if whites make up the majority of applicants and they are still taken in larger numbers, then why is there an outcry against Affirmative action. A lot of You would say i am defending URMs. I say yes, i am. In all my posts, I have defended only the URMs who are equally or better qualified. I have never implied that an underqualifed URM should be taken over a non minority, never have i done that.

The outcry is based on the fact that although the majority of students accepted are caucasion, (for reasons that I have mentioned such as a larger number of caucasion applicants and the obvious fact of there being more of the majority), the unfairness of qualified applicants who may be denied admittance can be a result of AA. And you say you are defending URMs who are equally or better qualified. But again, if they are more qualified then race plays absolutely no factor (nor should it) in this decision because they are clearly more qualified than another applicant of ANY race.

 

[trailrider400]

I hear ya. I'm not sure we disagree with eachother as much as we might think. But lets say there are 4 URM students with 4.0 gpa's, a strong pcat, and an overall good application. They are obviously well qualified and will be accepted regardless of race. I just don't see how AA would even come into play here nor is it necessary with this example of what you are describing.

 

[jasonbourne]

Haha I'm so ridden with guilt! You didn't call me racist because I threw that card out there before anyone could wrongly label me. If I told you not to call me naive or oblivious you'd feel stupid for throwing those words at me too and would have busted out your thesaurus instead.
They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified.
-Then AA plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE HERE. If they were more qualified its a no brainer! If every URM is more qualified then of course. And that’s not an issue with me if you read my post. Equally qualified? You know for the sake of no one changing anyone’s mind here I'll give you the W. My issue is with the URMs who get accepted over someone who is, like you said, better qualified (but yeah I know this doesn't EVER happen). I can't wait until Caucasians are the minority. But when they are the minority and get (and they never will) AA it will be discrimination.
It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why don’t you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination?
Haha bingo! 'Whites' should in some cases make up 85% of the class IF that is representative of the population in which they serve. I'm going to use Minnesota as an example. 92% of the population of Minnesota was considered 'white' in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota - if you really don't like wiki I'll dig deeper) In 2008 roughly 60% of the students accepted to U MN were listed as Caucasian - http://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/statistics/home.html. Now is that 60% truly representative of the demographics of the state (which is 92% Caucasian)? Or are Caucasians actually underrepresented in this school based on the populations that they serve? Also the majority of qualified applicants who applied were likely Caucasian (it would stand to reason that there are simply more Caucasian applicants based on the fact that 92 out of 100 people in the state are Caucasian). What exactly do you expect?
By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldn’t exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.
Me too. This is one of the darkest moments of American history. But guess what. I WASN'T THERE. I had nothing to do with it. And even if I should be held accountable for someone who I never knew but am linked to genetically, they haven't been here that long and were in no way involved with slavery. Although this is a terrible part of history, when will 'our' (not my) ancestor's mistakes be repaid? In 4000 years will society still be repaying it? Or are you going to set the expiration date? And what about the Japanese that were wrongly put in internment camps during WWII. Or the million’s of people who have suffered the tragedies of genocide? How are they getting repaid? Why aren't you fighting for them?
Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?
Because THEY ARE THE MAJORITY! And see above. They are the majority in the US and the majority of applicants. That’s like saying I'd be discriminating by reaching into a pile with 10 square marbles and 90 round marbles and picking only 2 square ones.

And AA was, like most things, created with the absolute best intentions in mind. Diversity is a great thing and promotes critical thinking and a better understanding of each other. But is using this idea as a compromise to potentially admit a less qualified applicant fair or even rational? Is it still necessary? Is it still fair? And has it gone to far?

You seem to over emphasize the fact that I support less qualified people. Let me make it clear. In all of my posts, I have never backed up less qualified minorites. I have never backed them up. I have shown support only for those who are equally or more qualifed. I am not saying a white candidate should be rejected while a black candidate who is not as qualifed should be accepted. If a black candidate is underqualifed, then dont take him, take the white guy who is qualifed. I have no problem with that. I am simply talking of situations whereby there is a tie or the URM is more qualified. Then you could use AA. I have always tried to clearly define AA in all my post. To me, it should be used when there is a tie or better. When there is not tie, you cant blame anybody.

 

[jasonbourne]

Haha I'm so ridden with guilt! You didn't call me racist because I threw that card out there before anyone could wrongly label me. If I told you not to call me naive or oblivious you'd feel stupid for throwing those words at me too and would have busted out your thesaurus instead.
They got admitted because they were more or equally qualified.
-Then AA plays ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE HERE. If they were more qualified its a no brainer! If every URM is more qualified then of course. And that’s not an issue with me if you read my post. Equally qualified? You know for the sake of no one changing anyone’s mind here I'll give you the W. My issue is with the URMs who get accepted over someone who is, like you said, better qualified (but yeah I know this doesn't EVER happen). I can't wait until Caucasians are the minority. But when they are the minority and get (and they never will) AA it will be discrimination.
It seeks to create a balance so that every group is represented. Why don’t you also say that taking more whites into a pharm school when they make up 85% of a class is discrimination?
Haha bingo! 'Whites' should in some cases make up 85% of the class IF that is representative of the population in which they serve. I'm going to use Minnesota as an example. 92% of the population of Minnesota was considered 'white' in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota - if you really don't like wiki I'll dig deeper) In 2008 roughly 60% of the students accepted to U MN were listed as Caucasian - http://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/pharmd/admissions/statistics/home.html. Now is that 60% truly representative of the demographics of the state (which is 92% Caucasian)? Or are Caucasians actually underrepresented in this school based on the populations that they serve? Also the majority of qualified applicants who applied were likely Caucasian (it would stand to reason that there are simply more Caucasian applicants based on the fact that 92 out of 100 people in the state are Caucasian). What exactly do you expect?
By the way, Affirmative action also exists due to mistakes our ancestors made (JIM Crow laws) . If our ancestors had never enslaved other people and had treated them equally, Affirmative action wouldn’t exist. I wish you can travel back in time and stop them.
Me too. This is one of the darkest moments of American history. But guess what. I WASN'T THERE. I had nothing to do with it. And even if I should be held accountable for someone who I never knew but am linked to genetically, they haven't been here that long and were in no way involved with slavery. Although this is a terrible part of history, when will 'our' (not my) ancestor's mistakes be repaid? In 4000 years will society still be repaying it? Or are you going to set the expiration date? And what about the Japanese that were wrongly put in internment camps during WWII. Or the million’s of people who have suffered the tragedies of genocide? How are they getting repaid? Why aren't you fighting for them?
Why cant you say that admitting more majorities while rejecting minorities into a majority populated school is discrimination?
Because THEY ARE THE MAJORITY! And see above. They are the majority in the US and the majority of applicants. That’s like saying I'd be discriminating by reaching into a pile with 10 square marbles and 90 round marbles and picking only 2 square ones.

And AA was, like most things, created with the absolute best intentions in mind. Diversity is a great thing and promotes critical thinking and a better understanding of each other. But is using this idea as a compromise to potentially admit a less qualified applicant fair or even rational? Is it still necessary? Is it still fair? And has it gone to far?

You seem to over emphasize the fact that I support less qualified people. Let me make it clear. In all of my posts, I have never backed up less qualified minorites. I have never backed them up. I have shown support only for those who are equally or more qualifed. I am not saying a white candidate should be rejected while a black candidate who is not as qualifed should be accepted. If a black candidate is underqualifed, then dont take him, take the white guy who is qualifed. I have no problem with that. I am simply talking of situations whereby there is a tie or the URM is more qualified. Then you could use AA. I have always tried to clearly define AA in all my post. To me, it should be used when there is a tie or better. When there is not tie, you cant blame anybody.

 

[Phoenix585]

"I am simply talking of situations whereby there is a tie or the URM is more qualified. Then you could use AA. I have always tried to clearly define AA in all my post. To me, it should be used when there is a tie or better. When there is not tie, you cant blame anybody."

Shouldn't it more correctly be ONLY when their is a tie. If the minority is the better candidate then he/she is a better candidate and therefore should be picked over the non-minority. I actually agree with your AA stance, but you have to make it equal.

"If a black candidate is underqualifed, then dont take him, take the white guy who is qualified."

You state that if the white caucasian is better candidate then he/she should obviously be picked. It must go both ways.

 

[Carboxide]

JasonBourne: Are you going to address my point about ties above? You seem to think that ties is the only situation in which AA should be used, so it is VERY relevant.

 

[SHC1984]

You seem to over emphasize the fact that I support less qualified people. Let me make it clear. In all of my posts, I have never backed up less qualified minorites. I have never backed them up. I have shown support only for those who are equally or more qualifed. I am not saying a white candidate should be rejected while a black candidate who is not as qualifed should be accepted. If a black candidate is underqualifed, then dont take him, take the white guy who is qualifed. I have no problem with that. I am simply talking of situations whereby there is a tie or the URM is more qualified. Then you could use AA. I have always tried to clearly define AA in all my post. To me, it should be used when there is a tie or better. When there is not tie, you cant blame anybody.

, maybe in your own dream world does that happen. AA pretty much supports lazy asses period. I was at Columbia dental for a semester. The average DAT score is a 22 there. I know one black girl with a 17 that got accepted and I also know a mexican guy in that class as well. Thats AA for you. Yeah I know you "support" AA only when there is a "tie" but that never ever happens. AA DOES NOT SUPPORT WHAT YOU SUPPORT. What AA does is give lazy asses an "free" handout. AA is just like welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc. THEY ALL SUPPORT LAZY ASSES.

No, I am not arrogrant, I just work hard for what I have. I don't need any free things thrown in my face. Unlike people on welfare that justs want to sit on their asses all day and eat, I actually have a job! Imagine that!

But yeah, I know you "WISH" AA supports ties, but it just supports laziness.

 

[SHC1984]

A drain to society, that is arrogant man. You are being arrogant. I agree that some people are lazy and dont wanna work. I agree that some people have also used the welfare system even when they may not need it. But you dont need to call such people a drain on society. That is extremely rude and arrogant man. Have some respect to fellow human beings. You dont even know some of their life stories.

even if you are annoyed with medicaid, does that mean we should leave sick people in the streets. You dont like welfare and i understand that. I admit that some people have used the system but that doesnt mean that we should let them sleep under bridges. This is America Man, land of Opportunity, Land of Corn and Wine. Without each other, the union would not be as strong. Even if we dont like some of these things, dont ditch your fellow brothers that way. Dont be self centered even if you are angry about the mistakes they make in their life. You are blessed, but not everyone may have made smart decisions like you do. Some may not have been as lucky as you

You could go work at costco if you want

They are a drain to society! Truth hurts but its the TRUTH. What do you call someone that does nothing all day but eat, sleep, and use Welfare then? Future prisoners of America? LOL...

And No I don't feel sorry for them b/c if they wanted to they can be do whatever they wanted to if they only just get their fat asses off the couch once in a while.

There is no such thing as being blessed everyone chooses what their life will be like in the future. YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU ARE! ITS YOUR CHOICE. If someone does end up living under a bridge, well then thats their CHOICE. It has nothing to do with being blessed or not...just whether or not you are hardworking or not.

 

[Thumper17]

This thread reminds me of the flashback dinner scene in american history X.......

 

[balab]

They are a drain to society! Truth hurts but its the TRUTH. What do you call someone that does nothing all day but eat, sleep, and use Welfare then? Future prisoners of America? LOL...

And No I don't feel sorry for them b/c if they wanted to they can be do whatever they wanted to if they only just get their fat asses off the couch once in a while.

There is no such thing as being blessed everyone chooses what their life will be like in the future. YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU ARE! ITS YOUR CHOICE. If someone does end up living under a bridge, well then thats their CHOICE. It has nothing to do with being blessed or not...just whether or not you are hardworking or not.

I cannot believe that you would make crass generalizations about medicaid and foodstamps. If you even knew what it was all about you wouldn't be making ignorant statements about such programs and use them to make a parrellel argument with AA. For your information not every one who is on FS or medicaid is a "lazy ass" (as you eloquently put it). Some people genuinely hit a rough patch and need help. What kind of soceity would we be if we did not have support programs for the underpriviledged? I think you have deeper issues, with people who get aid that you need to sort out (probably with a therapist).
-I have actually researched this programs and "most" people who are on these programs actually want to work, they either can't find jobs or good paying jobs. The system wants them to work, and people who do work lose their benfits, but they dont make enough money at their jobs to survive and they fall back on aid again, it is a cycle of poverty which is difficult to break. Do you think that these people like living in poverty, do you think the appreciate the derogatory looks and comments from people like you? This is not meant to insult you in anyway but you really need to calm down and realize that the reason why we have AA, food stamps and medicaid are all symptoms of social failure. Because as a country we failed to foster equality we failed to foster justice and we failed to foster fairness. This is why we have these programs to compensate for a shameful past. So the next time you are sitting in a corner sulking about how unfair life is, remember that some people have it worse than you do.

 

[balab]

And by the way medicaid is for indigents, medicare is for senior citizens, so do you also think that the 65yr old with end stage renal disease is a "lazzy ass" choosing to receive handouts?

 

[trailrider400]

I cannot believe that you would make crass generalizations about medicaid and foodstamps. If you even knew what it was all about you wouldn't be making ignorant statements about such programs and use them to make a parrellel argument with AA. For your information not every one who is on FS or medicaid is a "lazy ass" (as you eloquently put it). Some people genuinely hit a rough patch and need help. What kind of soceity would we be if we did not have support programs for the underprivileged? I think you have deeper issues, with people who get aid that you need to sort out (probably with a therapist).
-I have actually researched this programs and "most" people who are on thesw programs actually want to work, they either can't find jobs or good paying jobs. The system wants them to work, and people who do work loose benfits but they dont make enough money at their jobs to survive and they fall back on aid again, it is a cycle of poverty which is difficult to break. Do you think that these people like living in poverty, do you think the appreciate the derogatory looks and comments from people like you? This is not meant to insult you in anyway but you really need to calm down and realize that the reason why we have AA, food stamps and medicaid are all symptoms of social failure. Because as a country we failed to foster equality we failed to foster justice and we failed to foster fairness. This is why we have these programs to compensate for a shameful past. So the next time you are sitting in a corner sulking about how unfair life is, remember that some people have it worse than you do.

I agree that there is a place for these forms of state aid for people who are genuinely in a tough circumstance that would warrant it but it also does support "lazy asses" as SHC put it.
Do you think that these people like living in poverty, do you think the appreciate the derogatory looks and comments from people like you?
Yes, some people love living off the government. I know a handful of people who haven't worked in years because they are able to get enough money from the government to live how they want. And what the hell makes you think that SHC is out there rattling off derogatory comments and shooting minorities dirty looks. What an insanely stupid comment.
This is not meant to insult you in anyway but you really need to calm down and realize that the reason why we have AA, food stamps and medicaid are all symptoms of social failure.
These are 'symptoms' of INDIVIDUAL failure. I know tons of extremely successful minorities. But guess what it wasn't welfare or AA that made them what they are, it was hard work and determination. And it wasn't because there parents were privileged either.
What kind of soceity would we be if we did not have support programs for the underprivileged?
We do its called hard work. And anyone can go to college these days. The poorer the better in my opinion. Government loans and grants are always available. I haven't gotta an ounce of help from my parents and could very well be considered underprivileged.
I think you have deeper issues, with people who get aid that you need to sort out (probably with a therapist).
These comments are just silly. If you feel like you have to attack the person because you can't tackle the issue then don't bother posting. Its also fair to assume that because his views are different he needs a therapist.

 

[trailrider400]

And by the way medicaid is for indigents, medicare is for senior citizens, so do you also think that the 65yr old with end stage renal disease is a "lazzy ass" choosing to receive handouts?

Yeah, someone who is old and dying of renal disease who is so sick they can barely walk should really get out there and get to work. Are you really going to make that argument? Lets compare someone who is dying to a healthy adult who won't work. WOW.

 

[balab]

Yeah, someone who is old and dying of renal disease who is so sick they can barely walk should really get out there and get to work. Are you really going to make that argument? Lets compare someone who is dying to a healthy adult who won't work. WOW.

well before u get on ur high horse the OP specifically mentioned medicare so he either doesn't know what it means or feels that old people don't deserve aid either, get you facts straight before you start shooting bullets blindly!!!

 

[balab]

I agree that there is a place for these forms of state aid for people who are genuinely in a tough circumstance that would warrant it but it also does support "lazy asses" as SHC put it.
Do you think that these people like living in poverty, do you think the appreciate the derogatory looks and comments from people like you?
Yes, some people love living off the government. I know a handful of people who haven't worked in years because they are able to get enough money from the government to live how they want. And what the hell makes you think that SHC is out there rattling off derogatory comments and shooting minorities dirty looks. What an insanely stupid comment.
This is not meant to insult you in anyway but you really need to calm down and realize that the reason why we have AA, food stamps and medicaid are all symptoms of social failure.
These are 'symptoms' of INDIVIDUAL failure. I know tons of extremely successful minorities. But guess what it wasn't welfare or AA that made them what they are, it was hard work and determination. And it wasn't because there parents were privileged either.
What kind of soceity would we be if we did not have support programs for the underprivileged?
We do its called hard work. And anyone can go to college these days. The poorer the better in my opinion. Government loans and grants are always available. I haven't gotta an ounce of help from my parents and could very well be considered underprivileged.
I think you have deeper issues, with people who get aid that you need to sort out (probably with a therapist).
These comments are just silly. If you feel like you have to attack the person because you can't tackle the issue then don't bother posting. Its also fair to assume that because his views are different he needs a therapist.

1. As with any case there will always be people who abuse the system, so do we get rid of aid becasue of the few that do? If we apply this argument to AA are we trying to say that only underqualified URM's get accepted via AA? what of a qualified URM applicant? If schools are deliberately accepting underqualified URMS over qualified ones then shame on them, but AA should genuinely help qualified URM's who would normally be excluded, and we can not cancel AA because some schools are abusing it.

2. Well he may not be looking, but he is definately commenting and he is expressing the same erroneous sentiments that people have about aid, and this stigma actually affects people who receive aid or want to receive aid. So from my view point it is definately not stupid but i don't expect you to understand this.
3. I am not saying there aren't sucessful minorities because there are, the point I was trying to make was that we wouldn't have this problem, if from the begining we had always treated people equally. Even if we give everyone equal opportunities someone always finishes last, but the point with AA is that opportunities are not equal for some, who for the most part are minorities and so how can we claim that the race is fair when we do not all start from the same point? If we all started off equally, then the lazzy asses would have no excuse, but right now as it stands they do, and it is almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least from the stand point of the adcom. So you cannot generalize and say its individual failure, because some of these people are hardworkers and you should not judge unless you work a mile in another's shoes

4. Though the attack me have been below the belt , and petty the OP does seem to have strong feelings towards people on aid, hence the comment.

 

[SHC1984]

1. As with any case there will always be people who abuse the system, so do we get rid of aid becasue of the few that do? If we apply this argument to AA are we trying to say that only underqualified URM's get accepted via AA? what of a qualified URM applicant? If schools are deliberately accepting underqualified URMS over qualified ones then shame on them, but AA should genuinely help qualified URM's who would normally be excluded, and we can not cancel AA because some schools are abusing it.

2. Well he may not be looking, but he is definately commenting and he is expressing the same erroneous sentiments that people have about aid, and this stigma actually affects people who receive aid or want to receive aid. So from my view point it is definately not stupid but i don't expect you to understand this.
3. I am not saying there aren't sucessful minorities because there are, the point I was trying to make was that we wouldn't have this problem, if from the begining we had always treated people equally. Even if we give everyone equal opportunities someone always finishes last, but the point with AA is that opportunities are not equal for some, who for the most part are minorities and so how can we claim that the race is fair when we do not all start from the same point? If we all started off equally, then the lazzy asses would have no excuse, but right now as it stands they do, and it is almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least from the stand point of the adcom. So you cannot generalize and say its individual failure, because some of these people are hardworkers and you should not judge unless you work a mile in another's shoes

4. Though the attack me have been below the belt , and petty the OP does seem to have strong feelings towards people on aid, hence the comment.

if you are truely smart and hardworking and confident. Why do you need to have something free handed to you? just show them your stats...if a URM works hard and have higher stats then why do they need AA? I still don't get it? won't it be easier to just work hard and get high stats? then to look into something that can possibly equal a free seat to a college? I personally think it is easier to just work hard and have the stats to show for it.

 

[SHC1984]

well before u get on ur high horse the OP specifically mentioned medicare so he either doesn't know what it means or feels that old people don't deserve aid either, get you facts straight before you start shooting bullets blindly!!!

First of all I mean medicaid. That was a typo.
Secondly, you are wrong America is fair and there is equality. EVERYONE GETS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUTURE. EVERYONE GETS TO CHOOSE THEIR LIFE. YOU ARE WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE PERIOD.
I used welfare and medicaid b/c it promotes the same kinds of people as AA. Hell, if you are on welfare chances are you abuse AA as well. LOL... I mean come on now, if you are really a smart/hard working person why in the hell do you need a "free seat" handed to you just b/c you are a minority? (I am a minority by the way and I disagree with AA)
Just like if you are perfectly able to get a job why do you need free money from the govrnment? its just so pathetic. I still do not see how anyone can be that needy and lazy that they can't just go out and get a job.
I will give you another example, when I was just 16 years old I worked at an upscale restaurant, I also collect handbags and resell them on ebay, I also did a few other things. But I remember I made around 35,000 to 40,000 dollars a year just by working. AND I WAS A TEENAGER BACK THEN!!! So I cannot imagine any ADULT needing free money thrown at their faces...I mean come on now, if a 16 year old can do it why can't someone thats twice as old as me do it??? I just don't get the laziness of people sometimes. I don't have anything aganist these lazy people, but I am just amaze by them...I mean do they need the government to wipe their ass as well? lol

 

[balab]

First of all I mean medicaid. That was a typo.
Secondly, you are wrong America is fair and there is equality. EVERYONE GETS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUTURE. EVERYONE GETS TO CHOOSE THEIR LIFE. YOU ARE WHO YOU CHOOSE TO BE PERIOD.
I used welfare and medicaid b/c it promotes the same kinds of people as AA. Hell, if you are on welfare chances are you abuse AA as well. LOL... I mean come on now, if you are really a smart/hard working person why in the hell do you need a "free seat" handed to you just b/c you are a minority? (I am a minority by the way and I disagree with AA)
Just like if you are perfectly able to get a job why do you need free money from the govrnment? its just so pathetic. I still do not see how anyone can be that needy and lazy that they can't just go out and get a job.
I will give you another example, when I was just 16 years old I worked at an upscale restaurant, I also collect handbags and resell them on ebay, I also did a few other things. But I remember I made around 35,000 to 40,000 dollars a year just by working. AND I WAS A TEENAGER BACK THEN!!! So I cannot imagine any ADULT needing free money thrown at their faces...I mean come on now, if a 16 year old can do it why can't someone thats twice as old as me do it??? I just don't get the laziness of people sometimes. I don't have anything aganist these lazy people, but I am just amaze by them...I mean do they need the government to wipe their ass as well? lol

I appreciate your hard work and efforts to pull your self up by your boot straps. But my parents always told me all fingers are not equal, just because you did it doesn't mean others can. And I can assure you that there are probably people who worked just as hard as you did and didn't make it. We all have our own philosophy of life, I believe in a higher power and I believe some people don't catch the right breaks so yes they can work hard and still not succeed in anything ever!!! I know such people, ever tried hard and hard for a class, studied so hard, burnt the midnight candle and you barely pull a C, thats what I am talking about, we cant just assume, or lump people into categories.

 

[balab]

if you are truely smart and hardworking and confident. Why do you need to have something free handed to you? just show them your stats...if a URM works hard and have higher stats then why do they need AA? I still don't get it? won't it be easier to just work hard and get high stats? then to look into something that can possibly equal a free seat to a college? I personally think it is easier to just work hard and have the stats to show for it.

Well this argument is becoming convoluted, If all URM's had to do was work hard and they would be accepted then there would be no need for AA; as everyone would be accepted based on merit. Are you trying to say that all the URM's who got rejected from institutions before AA was enacted were all underqualified? did we not have genuises amongst our ranks? This is the main point, if it was all about hardwork and grades I know quite a few people who would have made it. So let us not disillusion ourselvess into thinking this controversy is about qualification. Ask you self this question why did they create HBCU's? So let my position not be taken wrongly, I am all for hard work, I have worked hard to acheive everything I have today, but I was also born with a silver spoon and had all the right opportunities, but there could also be someone out there who worked twice as hard but didn't catch a break.

Plus IDT AA is all that great because it makes those URM'S selected based on merit look bad, but if it gives other people opportunities that they might otherwise have been unable to receive, then its my cross to bear. My opinion.