Ahh, gotcha. This reminds me of the Dee dee dee song by Carlos Mencia... "Lower the Standards" is the refrain.

It would be one thing if this were a program designed to help college students... a residential college or something like that, but this is an Honors College. The whole point is that we are supposed to meet a certain level of academic achievement. Notice, I did not say intelligence. There are plenty of smart people who didn't do well in school for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean this program is for them. It means, in fact, just the opposite.

Some really don't Doc.

I know.  But the answer is not to lower the standards.  But to raise the standards of those who are not getting the full measure.  As I said.

Unfortunately, the focus is not on increasing the opportunity, but lowering the standards.

I think diversity is a good thing and if you want to encourage it then you probably can't hold everyone to the same standard because we are all different. Not smarter or dumber just different.

So to look at this differently, how about something like the 'Cream of the Crop' instead? Top 10% of students based on Gender, Race, etc?

I think diversity is a good thing and if you want to encourage it then you probably can't hold everyone to the same standard because we are all different.

Diversity is a good thing, but when it comes to something like this, everyone must be held to the same standard. Certainly we are all different, that is why diversity exists. The idea is that given the same circumstances, the potential for achievement is equal for everyone, regardless of race, finances, etc. This is why the focus must be on making all student's resources as equal as possible.

Taking the top 10% based on race, gender, or any other biological grouping will ultimately fail because it is just a well-meaning form of segregation. The problem is not that the top students get into the top programs. That is exactly as it should be.

Taking the top 10% based on race, gender, or any other biological grouping will ultimately fail because it is just a well-meaning form of segregation.

Aren't the standards at the moment already promoting segregation? Who were the standards written by anyway? Minorities are on the back foot from the start.

Which is in fact nothing more than a form of racism. Are you saying that minorities are simply not capable of being smart enough or motivated enough to meet the standards as they are? If so, you're a bigot.

Those students, minority or otherwise, who are bright and motivated but economically disadvantaged should be given the financial aid needed to help them succeed. But those same students should be expected to meet the same standards as anyone else. If they are bright and motivated they are just as capable of doing so as anyone else. Minorities are not in any way incapable of doing so despite the Liberal mentality to the contrary.

I have personally met some highly intelligent people in my life who just happened to be of a "minority" race. I do not believe that minorities are in any way inferior to anyone else and are just as capable of success as anyone else.

There are plenty of white students out there who don't meet the current honors stanndards either but I don't advocate lowering the standards for them either.

Motivated people succeed when they are given goals to strive for and I do not for a second believe that a black student who is motivated is any less capable of doing so than a white one.

I firmly believe in economic help for financially disadvantaged students based upon economic need, but race is not and should not be a factor at all. I despise racism in any form.

Which is in fact nothing more than a form of racism.

Aren't the existing standards already racist? If they weren't racist in the first place wouldn't there be more diversity? (Sorry for the double negatives).

If they weren't racist in the first place wouldn't there be more diversity? (Sorry for the double negatives).

No.  Everyone does not have the same likes, dislikes and goals.  Looking at the end result and seeing racism is specious as there are many Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers that care nothing for the liberal arts, so they are not represented.

Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.

Exactly.

Minorities are on the back foot from the start.

So the solution is to make the footing equal from the start, not re-start the race from somewhere in the middle.

... there are many Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers that care nothing for the liberal arts, so they are not represented.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean they are not represented on the Honours program?

Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.

What does this statement really mean? I seem to be missing some context, are you speaking generally or in relation to what Sugar posted? If there is no equality of outcome then how can there be equality of opportunity?

So the solution is to make the footing equal from the start, not re-start the race from somewhere in the middle.

Can't we do both?


This is such a complex issue but its a really interesting topic to ponder over.

I'm not sure we can. With the current way students are admitted to the Honors Program, there is no way to take a "top 10%". I don't think it would work out either. That would leave some students with high scores left out just because they are white and middle class. Wouldn't that be racist against them? "Oh, sorry. You're a white male from a middle class family. While your scores beat out many other applicants, we've filled our quota of white males." Isn't it more fair to just take people based on scores? (yeah, I know, I said 'fair')

The only thing that would make things fair all the way around would be to change the way we evaluate high school students. Find a way of testing that measures ability, not knowledge. However, I don't think that way of testing exists, and probably never will.

Or, we could take all children away from their parents at birth, then allow the state to raise them. That way, they will all be raised equally and have equal opportunities. (I am so joking right now. Seriously. Joking.)

No. The standards are achievable by anyone who is both intelligent enough and motivated enough. Which of these two are you trying to say minorities aren't capable of?

There is nothing in the standards that excludes or favors one race over another. The second you do so, it does become racist by definition.

Race can not and should not be a factor under consideration in any way, shape, or form without it becoming racist by nature and definition. Racism in any form is wrong.

Find a way of testing that measures ability, not knowledge.

I was wondering if the problems were in the test themselves. I don't know much about them, so are they internally assessed (assignments), one big written exam or an oral exam etc?

And how about the actual questions in the exams, could they be reworded to be more diverse?

What does this statement really mean? I seem to be missing some context, are you speaking generally or in relation to what Sugar posted? If there is no equality of outcome then how can there be equality of opportunity?

You are being intentionally obtuse.

Let me put it to you this way.  EVERYONE has an opportunity at the lottery.  one in 180 million.Only one wins.  That one is not black, brown, white, yellow and red.

Equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome.

The ACT is the standard test. You answer a series of questions in four areas: math, science reasoning, reading and English. The problem with the tests is not that they aren't worded diversely, but that students from economically lower classes do not do as well in school (typically) and therefore do not do as well on the tests. Students whose parents read to them as children are usually better readers than children whose parents did not. Children of parents that speak grammatically will do better on the English section. Children who have been encouraged to take advanced classes in math and science will do better on those sections.

Students have the same classes growing up. They are supposed to have the same opportunities for learning. This isn't universal, which is the biggest problem. Once they get to college, it is too late to try and even the playing field.