ClumsyMonkey.net

This is the only area where I support Bush. This should be abolished, it's not fair. Why should I have lose out on a spot in a college I want to attend because some one that is light brown is clearly dumber than I am, but wants to go there too? I am fucking glad people are suing U of M, maybe grades will matter when it comes to getting into college again. But then again, if I change my name to something like LaPhonso and paint my skin brown, I would have like 20% of my admission to U of M already complete. Then I can be as ignorant as I want to be and still get a better education than people that are clearly smarter than I am!

you should also change your name to Keyshawn.

it's the same around here. i told my torontonian friend that i wanted to go to U of T and she suggested putting my name on the application as Alexandra Ho.

"George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants. "At the undergratuate level," said Bush, "African-American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not ecause of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic, or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he mihgt have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These froms of affirmative action still go on. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni, but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so.

George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments. yet boodlines and connections had put him into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business school, and even finally provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments. Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bush's life and success up to that point. And yet seven years later he was President of the U.S.

So what is the difference between the find of affirmative action that got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race is an especially toxic subject. Of course, George W.'s affirmative action is about race too, at least indirectly. The class of wealthy, influential children of alumni of top universities is disproportionaltely white. And it will remain that way for a long time -- especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed.

A second difference is that the Michigan system is crudely numerical, whereas the favoritism enjoyed by George W. Bush is baked into the way we live. Between these two extreme examples are the familiar varieties of preference: explicit racial favoritism without numbers, favoritism based on something as amorphous as social class or as specific as your high school, favoritism limited to recruitment and preparation, and so on.

Opponents and supporters of affirmative action actually tend to agree that there is something bad, generally called quotas, and something good, generally called something like diversity. Their argument is about where you draw the line. Bush calls the Michigan 20-point bonus a quota, and his critics insist that it is not. But both sides are wrong. If your sole measure of the success of any arrangement is whether it increases the
representation of certain minorities, then it doesn't really matter what procedure you use to achieve that resulte: some people are getting someting desirable because of their race, and an equal number of people are not getting it for the same reason.

Of couse a series of somebodies didn't get into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School because their blood wasn't as blue as Bush's, and other sombodies didn't get a chance to own the Texas Rangers or to use the capital Bush borrowed to buy his share of the team because these somebodies were nobodies. Life is unfair. A legitimate criticism of affirmative action is that it politicizes life chances and focuses blame on race. If you get turned down by Yale to make room for a George W., you're not even aware of it. But if you get turned down by the University of Michigan, you're likely to blame affirmative action (if you're white), even though the numbers say you probably would have been turned down anyway.

So ask yourself: Would you rather have a gift of 20 points out of 150 to use at the college of your choice? Or would you rather have the more amorphous advantages President Bush has enjoyed at every stage of his life? If the answer to that isn't obvious to you, even 20 extra points are probably not enough to get you into the University of Michigan."

--Michael Kinsley, in the January 27th issue of Time magazine.

Narbus wrote: ...It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math. ...

And he is president how? Someone refresh my memory on how he "won." This place will become a wasteland by the time his 4 years are up. Too bad you can't impeach someone for fucking up so many times.

oh yeah, I forgot that SAT scores are a good indication of how good a president you are.

Have you taken the SAT's? Those aren't exactly bad scores.

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."
-George W. Bush, June 14 2001, speaking to the Swedish Prime Minister, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

Well, considering he got C's in school, I doubt he was the sharpest crayon in the box. Dubya says so many stupid and braindead things it kills me..

so will his bombs

Having those SAT scores and getting into Yale is just ridiculous. I could get those scores, and this lower-middle class white boy would never ever ever get into Yale, or any other Ivy League school, unless I start getting better at tennis.

It's all about the benjamins. And the fact that his dad was prez.

His dad wasn't president before he went to Yale. It's all about the fact his daddy went there and was running for a political office. If not for that, Dubya wouldn't get into Georgetown, hell, he wouldn't get into U of M.

Dubya would be livin' it up at OCC.

LMAO I wouldn't say OCC, but yeah, Michigan State would be realistic with those scores...

I still say OCC.

what be this OCC

interesting and funny little article:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html

For all those who wonder... who was the dumbest president?

OPP...

...Ontario Provincial Police?

If affermitive action is supposed to stop rascism, then why is it so rascist?

A) It presents the view that all non whites are not as smart as whites, so we should feel sorry for them. Shouldn't fighting rascism also be fighting stereotypes that are completly untrue, not reenforcing them?

B) It is completly rascist to those who are not included. A recent immigrent from a Middle Eastren counrtry is not included because why, their skin is not dark enough. I'm sure we can all agree that someone who speaks little english, probably has less money than average and is faced with more rascism than most middle-class black kids deserves it more than a black kid who slacks off because he knows he can depend on affermative action.

C) What makes black kids more deserving than whites? I am white. My sister (who is adopted) is black. I get better grades than her because I try harder. We both grew up in the exact same environment and with the exact same opportunities. She has been faced with rasiscm maybe once or twice in her life. With this system, she gets in to college before i do. Sound fair?