Interesting discussion in class today - Feminism

[annalena]

But here's the part that sent my brain into "OMG, must go home and post on FJ" mode. Bill said, "If I were a black woman, it would be much easier for me to get a scholarship," which made me want to simultaneously :lol: and :angry-cussing: because it sounded almost exactly like what That Husband apparently said at some point.

Well, just checking, but according to a post here, the goal of affirmative action is to make it easier for minorities and children from less educated backgrounds to get into college (or scholarships, for that matter...) Right?

Technically, he is right, then.

The reasons can be debated and may be justified, but the fact he stated is correct.

[genericJname]

I was still drinking the Koolaid when I was first looking for colleges. Some of the Christian ones have admission quotas for the male students, because less of them meet the criteria. I was applying to one prominent evangelical college and they openly stated that they accept half male and half female students. I'm guessing its also to encourage good christian marriages. If they allowed the 70%/30% ratio like other colleges, then there might be a bunch of single educated women running around after graduation and that would be trouble. :lol:

[annalena]

If they allowed the 70%/30% ratio like other colleges, then there might be a bunch of single educated women running around after graduation and that would be trouble. :lol:

:mrgreen:

BIG TIME.

[emmiedahl]

Really? I mean, $700 a semester. Thats $1400 a year. Thats $27 a week .I think it's affordable.

50 grand...well that's whole different story there. :shock:

But it is not just tuition. The student in question has to work less, pay for books, supplies and gas, which easily will come to the same amount as school. Possibly childcare as well at $600 or more per month per child.

If someone is working at minimum wage and making $1000 per month, asking them to pay the equivalent of $50 per week can be huge. That is almost a quarter of their income and might be their entire food budget. That's without childcare. That's without the fact that their employer might cut their hours or fire them because they aren't 100% available to work.

It does sound nice to me, since I am paying 15 times as much in tuition for a state college, but I can see how it would be a barrier.

[Rosa]

Well, just checking, but according to a post here, the goal of affirmative action is to make it easier for minorities and children from less educated backgrounds to get into college (or scholarships, for that matter...) Right?

Technically, he is right, then.

The reasons can be debated and may be justified, but the fact he stated is correct.

Nope.

It used to be that Black women weren't allowed at most universities at all. Or Black men. Or Jewish men. Then, there was a period when some were allowed, but there were caps - no more than 15 Jews, and 2 black men. Or whatever. They were quite specific.

Going from "not allowed at all" to "weighted admissions policy to correct for bias" makes it much, much easier for Black people to get into college - 100% improvement. But it doesn't lower the chance of a white man one little bit, or make it as easy for a Black woman as a white man. It would probably get harder for that white man to get in and succeed if he were magically transformed into a Black woman. Starting with the fact that his family would likely be poorer and less educated, which is a legacy of the past, but including bias of teachers, administrators, employers, and test evaluators in the present.

It's not even more difficult for white men numerically, except at specific schools, because the number of college students has gone up while educational access has widened - it's not the same number of seats as in 1920 or 1950, there are more total seats available as well.

[emmiedahl]

Some medical schools give preference to minority candidates.

When I was first told this by a UW admissions person, I was pissed. I could look around my chemistry class and see many minority students, who I generally loved working with, but I knew enough about them to realize that I work longer hours, I have children and a home while they still live with their parents, and that they were getting more financial aid than me. They are wearing Hollister and I am wearing hand-me-down sweatpants; they walk in with McDonald's every day while I am eating PBJ or if I forget, nothing. What about the black male who is the son of a doctor and went to private school his entire life? Is he more disadvantaged than me?

But, as a white female, I have never walked into a county office and had people be afraid of me. I have never been "those people". I have never been pulled over just because of my race. I started kindergarten speaking the majority dialect of the majority language. Everywhere I go, people receive me positively because I am an attractive white female.

Does this make a big enough difference that the minority classmates deserve an advantage? I really can't say, because I have never been a minority. I can only imagine that it probably deeply affected them, that there is someone hurt and angry behind the Armani Jeans. It's not for me to decide, and I am glad. Like I said above, I wish admissions considered socioeconomic status and working status along with race, but any system will be imperfect. I can't whine that taking away an advantage is unfair to me. It may suck for me, but it does not make the system itself unfair as a whole.

[Eponine]

Well, just checking, but according to a post here, the goal of affirmative action is to make it easier for minorities and children from less educated backgrounds to get into college (or scholarships, for that matter...) Right?

Technically, he is right, then.

The reasons can be debated and may be justified, but the fact he stated is correct.

No, not at all. I must not have been clear.

The idea is this: your average black woman has to work much harder to get the SAME qualifications as your average white man. She has had to fight against racism and sexism in her school system, and is more likely to have been economically disadvantaged (obviously a case to case situation). Standardized tests are shown to have racial biases. Teachers unconsciously direct female students in certain directions and don't treat them the same as male students. The black woman might have the same qualifications as the white man, and the university might choose her to receive the scholarship knowing she has had to fight against a lot to have achieved those qualifications. I would not call having to overcome racism and sexism having an "easier" type of winning the scholarship, not to mention the fact that, as I said, the black woman is statistically more likely to be poor as well.

So having had more difficulty throughout her life thus far, when the black woman's file comes across the admissions desk it is possible she might have some small advantage over a white male with the same qualifications - although since women way outnumber men in American universities many want to give some small preference to men of any race, depending on the program. It's not as if black women coast along and enjoy lots of privilege.

I have to say, I've only heard this type of argument (minorities have it easier when it comes to getting places in universities or getting jobs) from pretty much anyone except whiny white men who for the first time have found somewhere where they do not have as much privilege as normal. They're the same types who say racism and sexism don't exist any longer.

[Eponine]

Like I said above, I wish admissions considered socioeconomic status and working status along with race, but any system will be imperfect. I can't whine that taking away an advantage is unfair to me. It may suck for me, but it does not make the system itself unfair as a whole.

They do, more so than race or gender. At least in my experience.

In our admissions we took much more heavily into account the school where the student graduated than any other statistical information. In a metropolitan area, school district is generally the easiest way to tell the socioeconomic status of a prospective student. The university where I worked actually recruited more from a lot of the poorest high schools in the area. So while graduating from a prestigious prep school would give students an academic advantage we also tried to get a large amount of students who did well in bad districts.

That's just for admissions, though; once the students are accepted we would have to decide whether to offer a scholarship, and if so how much. At that point the individual financial records come into play more - if we knew a student we really wanted would not be able to afford to come without a large scholarship we would be more inclined to give them a lot of money. Race and gender were never taken into consideration in the least while giving out scholarships.

Honestly from my experience working in financial aid and sitting in on scholarship committees, if there is a financial advantage to one group it is poorer students who are smart. Their scholarships are often increased because the schools want to have them and they get much more in federal and state grants, and are eligible for subsidized loan money. I've seen far more poor students who have fully funded private university education than any others. Of course, these are extraordinary students, having earned very large scholarships to begin with. The average students from lower middle class backgrounds are in the worst situation: often they don't qualify for any federal or state grants, admissions aren't as motivated to give them bigger scholarships for economic reasons, and sometimes they aren't even eligible for subsidized loans. It was not unusual for me to have students in this situation having bills of around $20k or more per semester if they lived on campus - which their families definitely could not afford, and more often than not the parents had to take huge loans.

[Lostie]

I finally looked up the conversion, and that is almost $700 a semester, which (unless you have government grants in your country) would put an education out of reach for a lot of people.

I'm not American, I'm Canadian, but still I wish my school was only $700 a semester. Each class you take at my school is approximately $500. I'm taking 4 classes a semester this year so my tuition for the year is about $5600 (once you add in student fees and things).

I'm considering a program where one of the requirements is that you spend a semester in a European country. Out of curiosity do you have any idea how that would stack up money wise?

[Haligh the Liar]

I HATE when people insist that minorities are given extra privileges in academia and the work place.

Two words: Bull. Shit.

From an article by Tim Wise, here is the amount of money that is dedicated for minority students: .25% of all financial aid. Only 1/4 of 1% of all available aid is strictly for minority students.

Only 2.5% of minority students receive scholarship funds designated only for minorities. All other scholarships received by minority students are those available to all applicants: need based aid, merit scholarships, athletic funding, etc.

As for the workplace, I definitely want to send TT and his ilk the results of studies that show that all other things being equal, resumes with "black" names are far less likely to be called in for interviews. Not sure what would happen to an Azariah (sp?), but it is definitely better to be an Ethan than a Jamal.

Link to another interesting Tim Wise article : http://www.zcommunications.org/white-whine-reflections-on-the-brain-rotting-properties-of-privilege-by-tim-wise.pdf

[Boogalou]

I'm not American, I'm Canadian, but still I wish my school was only $700 a semester. Each class you take at my school is approximately $500. I'm taking 4 classes a semester this year so my tuition for the year is about $5600 (once you add in student fees and things).

I'm considering a program where one of the requirements is that you spend a semester in a European country. Out of curiosity do you have any idea how that would stack up money wise?

A lot of programst like that have you pay tuition to your own university and they have deals worked out with places abroad. You also have to figure that the $700 a semester is probably for citizens, international fees are generally higher.

[jaelh]

annalea - i read this this morning. it's written in china, but i think it speaks to a universal truth about accessing education:

http://www.chinahush.com/2011/10/25/i-f ... -with-you/

[annalena]

I'm not American, I'm Canadian, but still I wish my school was only $700 a semester. Each class you take at my school is approximately $500. I'm taking 4 classes a semester this year so my tuition for the year is about $5600 (once you add in student fees and things).

I'm considering a program where one of the requirements is that you spend a semester in a European country. Out of curiosity do you have any idea how that would stack up money wise?

Well it depends if your school has partner schools abroad. In my opinion, it's not that expensive. Tuition would be the 500€, not positive about other European countries. A place to live and food you have to pay for both here and there. My American exchange school sent their students abroad, while abroad they still had to pay tuition at home, but not at the European school. I think it really depends on how the school handles it. Unfortunately, not a lot of people took advantage of that.

Their reason was they didn't speak the country's language. Well, here's my opinion on that one: Go there, and you'll learn it automatically. Because you have to.

Since room & board you'll always have to pay for, it's probably not as expensive as people think. Beware the exchange rate though, that alone makes for some extra costs.

[annalena]

Well, just checking, but according to a post here, the goal of affirmative action is to make it easier for minorities and children from less educated backgrounds to get into college (or scholarships, for that matter...) Right?

Technically, he is right, then.

The reasons can be debated and may be justified, but the fact he stated is correct.

Nope.

It used to be that Black women weren't allowed at most universities at all. Or Black men. Or Jewish men. Then, there was a period when some were allowed, but there were caps - no more than 15 Jews, and 2 black men. Or whatever. They were quite specific.

Which sucks. I think we can all agree on that.

Going from "not allowed at all" to "weighted admissions policy to correct for bias" makes it much, much easier for Black people to get into college - 100% improvement. But it doesn't lower the chance of a white man one little bit, or make it as easy for a Black woman as a white man. It would probably get harder for that white man to get in and succeed if he were magically transformed into a Black woman. Starting with the fact that his family would likely be poorer and less educated, which is a legacy of the past, but including bias of teachers, administrators, employers, and test evaluators in the present.

l.

I just think there should be the same access abilities for everyone.

As someone else stated, some schools do give preferred access to minority candidates. In my opinion, that's just as wrong as giving preferred access to majority candidates.

What bothers me about this - imagine you had, say, 1000 applicants for 100 spots. Applicationwise, you'd give 70% (or whatever) of the spots to males. Would you do that? Probably not. There would be a ratio, say 50%/50%. Now imagine 70% of the eligable applications come from females. Would that be accepted? Most likely.

I just think those spots should go to the ones who deserve them most academically and not to others due to some gender ratio.

[annalena]

No, not at all. I must not have been clear.

The idea is this: your average black woman has to work much harder to get the SAME qualifications as your average white man. She has had to fight against racism and sexism in her school system, and is more likely to have been economically disadvantaged (obviously a case to case situation). Standardized tests are shown to have racial biases. Teachers unconsciously direct female students in certain directions and don't treat them the same as male students. The black woman might have the same qualifications as the white man, and the university might choose her to receive the scholarship knowing she has had to fight against a lot to have achieved those qualifications. I would not call having to overcome racism and sexism having an "easier" type of winning the scholarship, not to mention the fact that, as I said, the black woman is statistically more likely to be poor as well.

So having had more difficulty throughout her life thus far, when the black woman's file comes across the admissions desk it is possible she might have some small advantage over a white male with the same qualifications - although since women way outnumber men in American universities many want to give some small preference to men of any race, depending on the program. It's not as if black women coast along and enjoy lots of privilege.

I have to say, I've only heard this type of argument (minorities have it easier when it comes to getting places in universities or getting jobs) from pretty much anyone except whiny white men who for the first time have found somewhere where they do not have as much privilege as normal. They're the same types who say racism and sexism don't exist any longer.

[

Well I think that's a little bit too easy. How do you even know she had to fight harder. That's a vast generalization here. I bet in certain areas there are schools where hardly any white kids go, which might make for them have it harder with (i'm assuming) almost all black teachers and students.

Also, it's not surprising white men tend to complain about this. The ones taking advantage of it will be a lot less likely to complain, I guess.

Real example from here: A big insurance company (it may be the biggest in Germany? don't know) has a new "diversity" program. A friend of my boyfriend works there. So, now they hire people from everywhere, to increase their diversity. The languages they speak in the company are German and English. Now they hire people from, say, China, who can't communicate properly in German OR English. To make it look like they're such a greatinternational diverse company. But what does it help if those people can't actually work?

Somewhat OT:

This whole race thing is really judged with double standards. A friend of mine is an English teacher and she had to prepare a lesson about NYC...I think. One of the articles she used was called "There goes the neighbourhood" and was about Brooklyn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... rack-obama Here it is. Now IMAGINE a white person talking about their neighbourhood like this when more Hispanics and Blacks moved there. How DARE they. But for Blacks apparently it's perfectly fine to do so... I'm just sick of double standards.

Somwhat even more OT:

While I do enjoy discussing on this board, actually I've come to the conclusion political discussion are pointless. i'm not going to change my opinion, the other one is not going to change their opinion. Unless you already are close in opinions, but then it's not really a discussion, but more of a nice talk to confirm each other's views. Anyone ever had this thought?

[JesusFightClub]

Well, annalena, two points.

First of all, think of where all black schools with all black teachers are likely to be located. In areas of huge wealth where everyone has two Mercs and pays for their kids to get private tutors to bring up their scores? I'm guessing not.

There is still a massive racial/class disparity in the US. And this is the legacy of very bad things which happened to black people historically and continue now.

Secondly, discussing politics is good and it intertwines with patriarchy because that is political too. And we are soooo not a hive vagina. I am 100% sure there is no one who subscribes completely to my politics here. I agree with Peter Singer on abortion and respect Felix Dzerzhinsky. Show me the queue of FJists lining up behind me.

Sometimes you lose in a debate and it feels uncomfortable. This happened to you. That does not mean "debate is useless" though.

[meda]

annaleana,

Now might be a good time to stop going off about how people who are not white and not as economically privileged as you have it so so easy. You may instead consider how lucky you were to be born the right color, to parents who had enough money, in a developed country where affordable educational options are a given. You are in no way a victim of affirmative action, but you do come across as someone who thinks that all other people should conform to your personal cultural expectations. May want to unpack that privilege a bit.

[annalena]

annaleana,

Now might be a good time to stop going off about how people who are not white and not as economically privileged as you have it so so easy. You may instead consider how lucky you were to be born the right color, to parents who had enough money, in a developed country where affordable educational options are a given. You are in no way a victim of affirmative action, but you do come across as someone who thinks that all other people should conform to your personal cultural expectations. May want to unpack that privilege a bit.

Well, maybe I am free to have my own opinion, although it may not be politically correct or the desired one?

[meda]

Well, maybe I am free to have my own opinion, although it may not be politically correct or the desired one?

You may have any opinion you want, as ignorant, myopic and self absorbed as it may be.

[Eponine]

Somewhat OT:

This whole race thing is really judged with double standards. A friend of mine is an English teacher and she had to prepare a lesson about NYC...I think. One of the articles she used was called "There goes the neighbourhood" and was about Brooklyn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... rack-obama Here it is. Now IMAGINE a white person talking about their neighbourhood like this when more Hispanics and Blacks moved there. How DARE they. But for Blacks apparently it's perfectly fine to do so... I'm just sick of double standards.

:lol: Are you serious? White people have been saying that for ages in NYC, particularly Brooklyn because there have been so many population shifts there. And they still do. This is what created the whole "white flight" thing from NYC into the suburbs.

The only reason you don't hear about it as much in NYC anymore is because the minority populations have stayed in (relatively) the same places for the last few decades while the white population is moving back into the areas they fled from in the early to mid 20th century when minorities started coming in larger numbers. But you can definitely still find this attitude in NYC from white people today. Imagine if the Upper East Side suddenly had a huge influx of minorities - that would be a total mess.

Also, neighborhoods of poor minorities in NYC actually have a pretty valid reason to be annoyed at the white hipsters/trust fundies moving in: when there is suddenly this type of population shift it brings in businesses that cater to wealthier clientele, which can put the older, cheaper establishments out of business, and drive prices up for the whole neighborhood. This happened recently in Williamsburg - it's now significantly more expensive to live in certain areas of Williamsburg, which were primarily populated by poor Hispanics, than it was 15 years ago because so many richer, mostly white, people moved there. Families who lived there for generations have had to move out because of this shift.

Until this summer I lived in Clinton Hill, an area of Brooklyn that has also been gentrified in the last 20 years or so, and which used to be somewhat of a black ghetto. There were still some blocks where you could find remnants of the "old" neighborhood, but a lot of it now has trendy cafes, restaurants, and shops - places the "old" locals surely wouldn't be able to afford on a regular basis. This is why the article talks about black people not being able to stay in Harlem if the trend continues (leaving aside the influx of Latinos, as they're mostly coming from Spanish Harlem/Washington Heights, which is the next neighborhood over and traditionally has a similar socioeconomic status). The same thing happened years ago in lower Manhattan and now that area is one of the most expensive in the city, and overwhelmingly white. It's not like the resentment of gentrification comes from nowhere.

As to the point about not knowing if the hypothetical black woman had to fight harder for her place than the white man: any black woman in the US at the very least has had to deal with racism and sexism. Period. She might have other advantages, possibly economically, but I already explained how universities generally give socioeconomic status greater weight than race or gender. But the idea of affirmative action is to help minorities as a group, not to take individual anomalous situations into consideration. Because they as a group have had to deal with far more prejudice and hate than white people as a group. I don't think affirmative action is the best possible solution to equalize opportunity but it's absolutely better than nothing and I can't really come up with anything better.

[Patsy]

While I do enjoy discussing on this board, actually I've come to the conclusion political discussion are pointless. i'm not going to change my opinion, the other one is not going to change their opinion. Unless you already are close in opinions, but then it's not really a discussion, but more of a nice talk to confirm each other's views. Anyone ever had this thought?

You stated an opinion, several people pointed out good reasons why it wasn't the most considered one, and nobody fell over themself to immediately agree with you, therefore discussion is pointless. Got it.

[Austin]

Well, maybe I am free to have my own opinion, although it may not be politically correct or the desired one?

Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but before spouting off about it, you might consider unpacking that backpack of white privilege that was bestowed on you by mere virtue of your birth. :roll:

[annalena]

You stated an opinion, several people pointed out good reasons why it wasn't the most considered one, and nobody fell over themself to immediately agree with you, therefore discussion is pointless. Got it.

Well I've come to this conclusion generally, may it be on this board or in real life.

Discussion would be just as pointless if everyone agreed with me, because then, it wouldn't be a discussion.

[Patsy]

Well I've come to this conclusion generally, may it be on this board or in real life.

Cool. With the timing of it I read it as 'just now, from this, I have come to the conclusion...' which would strike me as, er, flawed reasoning.

[annalena]

Cool. With the timing of it I read it as 'just now, from this, I have come to the conclusion...' which would strike me as, er, flawed reasoning.

No, a while ago.