Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

let's have a calm, rational discussion about scholarships for minorities


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#41 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:29 AM

is the intent of scholarships to reward people for hard work or to provide opportunities for people and lift society at large?

#42 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

Providing opportunites for people and lifting society at large doesn't have to be race-based.

#43 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,012
  • Reputation: 440
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

Providing opportunites for people and lifting society at large doesn't have to be race-based.


i didn't say it did... I was curious what people thought.

#44 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 07-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,831
  • Reputation: 311
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

It should be based on the household income, not the color of the skin. Individuals are programmed to think someone is black when they hear "underprivileged". There are more whites living in poverty in the south than any other based on the population percentages

#45 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,852
  • Reputation: 5,765
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:34 AM

Nope but it should be need based.

This is just another way that republicans want to keep the income gap growing

#46 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:37 AM

i didn't say it did... I was curious what people thought.


Well the answer is yes.

There still can be scholarships that do that in addition to inticing the best/brightest to their university.

#47 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,727
  • Reputation: 13,293
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

I prefer using the term "targeted scholarships" myself. Doesn't necessarily have to be race based but it has some criteria other than just academics. And in the interest of disclosure, I went to college on a full ride academic scholarship (tuition, room and board, book allowance) and my family couldn't have paid for it otherwise.

Reality: When the scholarship comes from a public university (which means it's coming from the government) adding race as a criteria is going to mean issues. You're always going to wind up with a case where someone's kid meets all the criteria except race, and that's a bad spot. And there's the rightful argument that you don't become "color blind" by considering color.

Money that comes from the university/government should be portioned by as objective a set of criteria as possible. If you're going to consider anything at all in the demographics, the one that'll get the least argument is income. Though there'll be some with issues there too, scholarships based on income are the easiest sell.

(I'm honestly not a big fan of giving scholarship advantages to in-state kids over out-of-state either, though I get why it's done)

But if you still wanna keep some targeted scholarships - and I'd be fine, with that, would encourage it, honestly - maybe the thing to do is privatize them.

There are plenty of businesses, foundations, endowments, and other entities who sponsor educational grants and such. If you want to have scholarships and such that are targeted to race, gender, religion, or whatever, have them be sponsored by private entities. The selection process can still be administered by the school, but the money can be paid and the criteria set by the entity that's sponsoring it.

When the funding comes from a private source, you lessen the "challengability" because a private entity can do whatever it wants with it's money. Government could even encourage this sort of thing by offering tax breaks, though to avoid issues, the tax breaks shouldn't have particular criteria attached (puts you back to square one). Could people still boycott or sue those entities? Yeah, but again, since they're private entities, who's to tell them how they can spend their money?

So in the end, my best suggestion for continuing to offer targeted scholarships would be to privatize them, thus taking the focus off the government but still allowing the school to benefit and administer. Issues to be worked out? Sure, as there are with anything, but I think it could work.

#48 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,926
  • Reputation: 18,354
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:20 PM

so is eliminating this scholarship a victory for anyone? is this truly a step towards a colorblind future?

#49 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 8,994
  • Reputation: 1,385
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:21 PM

Nope but it should be need based.

This is just another way that republicans want to keep the income gap growing



Andrew Luck didn't need that scholarship money, his Dad is a pretty well to do fella.

What the fug does family income have to do with it.

#50 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

Interesting how those opposed to minority scholarships are taking an incredibly socialistic view of the distribution of scholarship money by suggesting that the correct thing to do would be centralize the money and redistribute it to eliminate any "unfair advantages"

Where as the truth is, Scholarships are primarily from private firms, organizations or colleges. There is no central fund for scholarship money and while it is regulated it does not exclude people from contributing money to whatever their heart desires. The government does participate in minority scholarships but has not done so by eliminating any other scholarship they already have. Meaning there is no disadvantage. Not everyone is going to qualify for the children of farm workers scholarship, but you cant get mad unless that scholarship is actually going to replace one you would otherwise get.

The introduction of minority scholarships did not eliminate other scholarships. Meaning that there is generally the same amount of merit-based or non minority scholarships as there was before its introduction. So this is a moot point. Seriously, what is the problem. You want to eliminate a scholarship because you dont quailfy? There should be no say so by any non-contributor about where the money is going, until the introduction of one scholarship means that another one can no longer exist. All scholarships are inherently biased and the people who win them likely had some advantage over their competition.
Academic scholarships are predominately won by a certain demographic, Minority scholarships have their own demographic, as does union scholarships, athletic scholarships, needs based, religious etc... Literally dozens of categories and THOUSANDS of scholarships.

It truly is a sad and pathetic individual that is so jealous and hateful they they feel that they need to remove a scholarship from the pot as opposed to adding another one.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users