This morning the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a new study from the National Center for Education Statistics that contains, among other things, graduation rates of students who enrolled in four year colleges in 1996.
The Chronicle reports that “women were more likely than men to complete their degrees.”
In terms of race or ethnicity, students who identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander had the highest rate of completion, with 62.6 percent finishing within six years. Non-Hispanic black students had the lowest completion rate, 32.3 percent.
This last number, the non-Hispanic black rate of 32.3%, is incorrect. According to the report itself (Table 32), the correct number is 38.2%. The lowest rate (36.7%) was achieved by American Indians/Alaska Natives.
The highest rate (66.2%) was achieved by Asian/Pacific Islander women, the lowest (32.3%) by non-Hispanic black males.
Some missing data that would have been useful in this report:
- A comparison of the graduation rates of black male athletes with non-athletes;
- A comparison of the graduation rates of minorities at colleges (such as the Univ. of California system) that eliminated racial preferences, both before and after the elimination;
- A comparison of the graduation rates of students who received legacy preferences with those who did not.
UPDATE [11:25AM]
DISCRIMINATIONS gets results! The Chronicle of Higher Education has corrected its article. The paragraph I quoted above now reads:
In terms of race or ethnicity, students who identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander had the highest rate of completion, with 62.6 percent finishing within six years. American Indian and Alaska Native students had the lowest completion rate, 36.7 percent.
John,
What is your view of legacy preferences, since you mentioned it?
Chet
YOu and Jennifer Gratz should join in demanding the abolition of ALL KINDS of preferences for admissions to UM _ ANN ARBOR with the Committee for a United MIchigan and BAMN . All kinds of preferences are vile, evile, sick, demented and depraved. They are a pestilence on the face of the earth, an abomination. They belong to the AGE of the Dinosaurs. You can tell that WArd Connerly, Jenny Granhol, Mary Sue Coleman , Leon Drolet. So no racial preferences, no preferences for alumni chlldren, no preferences for applicants from the UPPER Peninsula ( are all applicants from the the Upper Peninsula poorer than other applicants from other parts of MIchigan, Huh?), no preferences for whites who attended an urban high school ( a white parrent who lives in DEtroit might be wealthy ), no peferences for those who attend top high schools in MIchigan, no preferences for those who have taken AP courses ( what if a high school does not have an AP course ) and every other kind of preference mentioned in the UM – Ann Arbor admissions index for undergraduates. The only valid preferences are preferences for the Poor. So do my bidding…….
Chet – I don’t feel all that strongly about legacy prefs one way or another. Since I rather like merit as traditionally defined, to that degree I’m not fond of legacy prefs (except that at some places — Middlebury, for example, about which I posted a good while ago — the legacy admits had higher SAT scores than the average freshman). On the other hand they may well be instrumental in building alumni loyalty (read: contributions) and certainly don’t violate the Con. or civil rights laws (I say that as someone who rejects “disparate impact”).
John my friend,
You are suffering from momentary confusion a bit I suspect. You say that you would support alumni legacy preferences in the case of MIddlebury College. The rationale that you gave was that the average SAT score of alumni legacy freshman at Middlebury than the average was higher than the average SAT score of freshman at MIddlebury. That is like saying that race preferences are justified because blacks gave a higher graduation rate than whites at Mount Holyoke which happens to be true. It is generally agreed among people who look at such data that on the average alumni legacy preferences in the Ivies, Stanford and the liberal arts colleges have lower and even significantly lower average SAT scores than their fellow freshman who are not beneficiaries of alumni legacy preferences. The csse at Middlebury is a rare occurence, just as the case in MOunt Holyoke. In a random sample distribution the case at Middlebury is one that you would call an ” outlier “. GEt the picture JOhn? Let us examine the reasons as to why such a thing happened at Middlebury. Middlebury is a liberal arts school. In fact, the founding members of the UC Santa Barbara languages department came from Middlebury, refugees from the bitter cold up there in Vermont. The warm climes of California came calling…. and you know the rest of the story. Applicants to Middlebury are mostly white, wealthy and coming from the NOrtheast. It contains a higher proportion of applicants who come from private schools, maybe not Philips Andover but lesser ranked private schools like Milton, Deerfield Academy etc. WE all know that people apply to schools for all kinds of reasons. If you are a white kid with a SAT score of 1500, do you really wanna go to MIddlebury or do you want to end up at an Ivy school or Tufts or Carnegie Mellon? I don’t care or believe at all in the US NEWS & World REport rankings. However given the mentality of people back EAst, many white students with SAT Scores above 1500 will probably like to end up in the Ivies or some other college held in higher “esteem ” than Middlebury. Of course the majority of these white students with SAT scores above 1500 who end up in the “better ” colleges are more likely to be non -alumni legacy applicants. There are of course a lesser number of alumni legacy applicatns who score above 1500 SAT. AFter all John, even if you are a mediocre student, if you attend one of these private schools be it Andover, Exeter,ST. Paul, Groton, Milton, Lawrenceville etc, the constant SAT prep class, SAt drills and SAT exercises and private tutors will raise even a mediocre student’s SAT score of 1100 to 1300. I agree with the contention that the SAT can be ” gamed ” to your advantage.
Since those alumni legacies with SAT scores above 1500 are rarely gonna end up in MIddlebury, Middlebury is gonna enroll alumni legacy applicants SAT scores in the range of 1300 SAT or 1400 and certainly much lower even below 1000 SAT. Even applicants who are non – alumni legacies who have SAT scores above 1450 are less likely to end up at MIddlebury compared to other Ivy schools. If you have 2 appliants with similar SAT scorest of 1300, who do you think would be more likely be accepted by Middlebury? The average non -legacy freshman at MIddlebury could be non -white, accepted by a geographical preference, athletic preference aand every other kind of preference imaginable. AFter all private schools engage in a wider array of preferences than public schools. It is possible that the average white kid accepted thru an athletic preference at MIddlebury will have a lower SAT score than the average SAT score of alumni legacy preferences. It is also possible that the average sAT score of black freshman is also lower than the average SAT score of alumni legacy preferences. I could go on and on JOhn, but you should realize JOhn that these 2 cases alone would be enough bring down the average SAT score of the freshman class and possibly even lower than the average SAT score of alumni preferences at MIddlebury. John remember also that the average SAT score of the freshman class at Middlebury is lower than the average sAT score of freshman in the IVies and some other liberal EASTERn arts colleges. Due to the reasons I had stated above, the situation at MIddlebury should be of no surprise to you. It does not jutify alumni legacy preferences or race preerences. John, you mean the folks at the Chronicle of HIgher Education weren’t able to figure this one out?
The post dated 1:26 AM by Leo CRuz was directed toward Chetly Zarko
Leo CRuz
When enough minorities have graduated from the top-tier colleges that the legacy admits ARE minorities, I wonder if l. admits will still be an issue.
Does anybody know if Howard U. gives points to applicants who are legacies?
Laura,
they do, just like Morehouse and Spelman. I had talked about the issue many times. Alumni contributions are motivated by greed and self -interest , that is certailnly true now or in the future. Of course you will get the usual palaver from these bribe makers that alumni contributions are made “to help the poor , to improve conditions for their fellow students, to advance learning ..” The overwhelming majority of Ivy school students and liberal arts schools are well off people. At Harvard for example only 9 % of the freshman are eligible for Pell grants. Pell grants are a measure of poverty. The majority of funds used for medical research at Harvard come from the NIH and foundations, not from alumni contributions.In the first place, public tax money should never be used to fund private institutions. Let the public universities compete for these tax money used for medical research. Why should I want my tax money used to fund a school that practices alumni legacy preferences?. And even if more blacks are admitted as legacies in the future, that does not justify them taking the places of more qualified applicants. I have said before many times that private schools are businesses. There is no difference between harvard, stanford or a prostitute, they are all businesses. They should be looked upon and treated as a business. Should we use our tax money to support businesses? I cannot prevent people from bribing private schools with alumni contributions, since there is no law against it. But public tax money should never be used to fund private institutions that practice alumni legacy preferences whether it is for medical research or student financial aid.
b
Leo writes:
>>>YOu and Jennifer Gratz should join in demanding the abolition of ALL KINDS of preferences for admissions to UM _ ANN ARBOR with the Committee for a United MIchigan and BAMN.”
C’mon Leo. You don’t REALLY think Gratz and Zarko would EVER propose that, do you? That would adversely affect white males, and since the MCRI is little more than another white male advocacy movement, it would make no sense for them to do so. If you don’t believe me, go to their website.
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/
Skim through their so-called “highlights”. If they aren’t attacking racial preferences in admissions, they’re attacking black economical development in African Town, or they’re attacking gender preferences, (when they aren’t attacking the Governor of MI, that is.)
All of these attacks are in absolute DENIAL of statistical evidence that shows the NEED for the existance of these programs.
I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card.”
However, my viewpoint takes into account that America is still a racist and sexist nation, and that preferences are still needed. The MCRI’s viewpoint is apparently to destroy anything that doesn’t directly benefit white males, and let the “system” correct itself. The same system of course, took nearly two centuries for people who look like me to get civil rights–at least on PAPER. With Gratz and Zarko, I wonder often why they feel the system is in any hurry to correct itself, given its historical track record. Given their affiliations, however, I can hazzard a guess as to why they don’t seem to have any sense of URGENCY.
–Cobra
“…America is still a racist and sexist nation….”
Cobra, would you favor us with YOUR definition of racist?
“The same system of course, took nearly two centuries for people who look like me to get civil rights–at least on PAPER.” How did people who look like you get those civil rights? After all, people who looked like you had no power, right?
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits.
“That would adversely affect white males, and since the MCRI is little more than another white male advocacy movement, it would make no sense for them to do so.”
Cobra, I’d like you for once to answer my question about this line of reasoning. You do very little except advocate for blacks. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this. It’s your way of trying to get for yourself.
However, flip the coin, and you start talking as if an evil conspiracy were in effect. While I do not agree with your statement about MCRI, what would be wrong with a group advocating for white men?
Really, Cobra, I’ve been refusing to play this children’s game with you for some time. You do not have rights that I do not have. If you have the right to advocate for black men, I’ve got the right to advocate for white men.
If it’s evil for me, it’s evil for you. Please get off that high horse. You ain’t getting over on me. When are you going to stop your evil advocacy of black men? It’s evil, Cobra. You gotta stop it. (And forget the weeping about your family and racial background. Unless you want to listen to mine, I con’t care. Got it? I don’t give a damn.)
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Stephen writes:
>>>While I do not agree with your statement about MCRI, what would be wrong with a group advocating for white men?”
Hey, Stephen, you’ve got the wrong guy if you think I want to ban white male advocacy groups. It is perfectly legal for these types of groups to exist, and God bless them, one and all. My problem with the MCRI is that they don’t come out and ADMIT what they TRULY are.
Other groups in Michigan have no problem with proudly proclaiming their agenda:
“White supremacist group distributes flyers in Grand Rapids area”
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2877050&nav=0RceVm3j
Hell, they’re even auctioning Klan regalia nowadays there:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002164809_klan30.html
According to that report, a “Klan knife”, fetched a whopping $400. That’s beats E-bay with a stick if you ask me.
So you see, Stephen, Michigan is fertile ground for white male advocacy, and it’s quite easy to see how Gratz and Zarko could dredge up 500,000 signatures.
–Cobra
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
Cobra says,
“I think that your stance that is anti-ALL PREFERENCES, including the ones that benefit WHITES, is more consistant, and intellectually honest than the run-of-the-mill anti-affirmative action type who posts in here, and CERTAINLY more congenial than any of the screeds from the MCRI. I think you should go farther, though, Leo…attack nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, interlocking directorates, back-scratching and old boys networks that have for centuries made white skin the ultimate “American Express Card….
Cobra,
In my various reincarnations in various blogsites under different guises, I had always said the same thing about preferences, they are smply rotten, vile or evil. I am not here to make anybody happy be it laura, nieporent, actus, john etc. or you. One thing I realized, in my long stance against preferences of every kind is that the ideologues of both the right and the left in regards to the preference issue is they are pretty much the same. Be it Guinier, Edley, Clegg, Chavez, Gurin, the CIR, CEO, the CATO Institute, the NAACP or MALDEF . bok, bowen, bollinger etc. is that they support a preference of some kind. YOur description of preference of the alumni kind as mothing but ” interlocking directorships, blah, blah….is accurate “, however it is no different from a racial preference, they both have the same effect. If you are expecting me to believe that Gratz and ZArko will ask the MCRI to ask for a blanket condemnation of all kinds of preferences is indeed a slim chance. That is something I had known a long time ago. yET I PERSIST IN THIS fight because it is both a matter of principle and the eventual good of the people of this country. I am appealing to the religious members of the COMMITTEE for a
UNITED MICHIGAN ( be they minister, rabbis or priests ) to demand an end to all kinds of preferences. They must demand an end to race preferences but also to all kinds of preferences in the UNIVERSITY of MICHigan admisions index be they preferences for alumni legacies , for residents of the Upper Peninsula, for those who took AP tests in school etc. These people call themselves men of the cloth and men of God, they should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed of their hypocrisy, they should demand the end of preferences that favors blacks, and preferences that favor whites.
Laura says,
I can’t get bent out of shape about legacy admissions because they are so extremely limited. I don’t care how rich and powerful and male and white you are, if your daddy went to Yale you can’t be a legacy admit at Harvard, Princeton, or anywhere else. And as I stated before, as more minorities are admitted to those schools, there will be more minority legacy admits. ”
Laura,
This is a foolish answer, I could not really care if you twist your neck or your ankle over this matter. Apparently you do not understand the landscape of college education. Legacy admissions for whites is not “extremely limited ” as you claim it to be.
About 14 % of harvard’s freshman class are white alumni legacies, that means close to 200 whites in the freshman class. Harvard on the average has about 1600 freshman per year.That is certainly far greater than the number of blacks who get into harvard’s freshman because of race preferences. Aside from that, many other whites get into Harvard because of all kinds of preferences. There are 3000 private colleges in this country.Multiply that number with the percentage of alumni legacy preferences given to whites at harvard ( the number of each freshman at each private college and you will get an idea of what I mean. I actually gave a you a very simple explanation. I can give you a far more detailed explanation). The bottom line is this Laura, in terms of absolute numbers more whites get preferences of all kinds in private schools than blacks.
In public universities it might be a different story. The more varied the preferences that are offered in a public university, the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, the more likely there will be more whites getting preferences of one kind or another than blacks. The less varied the preferences that are being offered by a university ( say just race and athletic preferences ), the more likely that in terms of absolute numbers, there will be more blacks who will be recipients of preferences of all kinds than whites. Since the UM – Ann Arbor has more varied preferences than say Berkeley. It is probably true that more whites got inside UM – Ann ARbor thru all kinds of preferences than blacks. You further said that the son or daughter of a white alumni at harvard could not get inside another Ivy or private school like Yale or Amherst thru a legacy preference. Maybe not thru a legacy preference, but the white son or daughter of that Harvard alumnus could get into Yale or another school thru another kind of preference be it a preference of somebody well known, being wealthy, geographical or an athletic preference etc. Now, who wants to climb the pedestal marked with an insignia at its bsse marked “ignoramus “?
OK, Cobra, then the fact that you constantly advocate for blacks means you are a member of the Crips. Sorry, no use denying it. You are guilty on the face of it.
Yes, I know that you will pretend that your advocacy of black men is not just a cover for your gang affiliation and your desire to terrorize white people, but that is just a front.
I’ll get busy and find those news articles about black gangs that prove it. If black gang activity exists, you are guilty.
Do you wear your gang colors when you go out?
A Yahoo search produces 42,400 hits for black street gangs in Detroit. Here’s one of them:
http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html.
So, there you go, Cobra, absolute undeniable proof that your advocacy of black men is nothing more than a cover for your support of black gangsterism.
Why, I bet you can even go on eBay and find memorabilia of Tupac Shakur, can’t you?
Stephen,
Are you saying that the black street gangs in Detroit should have a preference program to diversify their ranks?
–Cobra
And, by the way, this Klan member has a date in a few days with a very beautiful black woman. She’s educated, has a good job and she’s athletic. Great girl. Don’t know yet if she’s wife material, but she’s dynamite girlfriend material.
This will be our third date. On the first date, she told me a tale I hear every time I go out with a black woman. She would love to have a black man because she really admires the athleticism, macho and fight of black men. But, she’s fed up with men with drug problems, jail records, AIDS and no job. She’s really learned to like me as I’ve demonstrated that I am athletic, macho and full of fight. She didn’t know that white men are capable of this.
Watch out, Cobra, if black men keep behaving badly I might have a harem of seven black women. All I have to do is convince the girls to let me.
Stephen writes:
>>>And, by the way, this Klan member has a date in a few days with a very beautiful black woman. She’s educated, has a good job and she’s athletic. Great girl.”
Good for you, man! Tell Condi I said “hi”, ok?
>>>She’s really learned to like me as I’ve demonstrated that I am athletic, macho and full of fight. She didn’t know that white men are capable of this.”
Oh, I have NO DOUBT that you’re “full of fight,” but I can’t believe that Condi, working in THIS Administration, would find this trait so rare in white males.
>>>Watch out, Cobra, if black men keep behaving badly I might have a harem of seven black women. All I have to do is convince the girls to let me.”
Well aren’t you the family values man and a paragon of virtue for fantasizing about a “harem of seven black women.” I would expect this type of talk on a UPN series, or a bad Snoop Dog video. All this from YOU, Stephen? Exactly WHAT kind of blog are you running over there
at “Harleys, Cars, Girls and Guitars?” Is there an age disclaimer? A personals section? Live web cams?
Hey…God bless you man. Play on, Playa.
–Cobra
Cobra, you haven’t heard?
Polygamy is just another of the many valid and enriching personal lifestyles. Why shouldn’t I marry 7 women? This is the next frontier after gay marriage, and I intend to be one of the pioneers.
How can the state justify this discrimination against me and my 7 girl friends? Don’t we have the right, same as monogamous heteros, to choose who we want to marry? What business is this of the state? Vile discrimination! What bigots!
Hey, it works for Sen. John Ford.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050123/ap_on_fe_st/ford_child_support