Let's talk about gas.

[thekid]

I'm disturbed by trend here to described the Republicans and and Democrats basically same, (in the pockets of wealthy, powerful interests), making it ipso facto unimportant which one you vote for.

As a foreign observer I acknowledge the fact that neither really represents the middle and working classes of your country. Recall that I did discourse at some length on the subject of a U.S. third, (left-wing), party. Nevertheless I think there are sufficient, reliable difference between these the Reps and Dems for a voter to make a reasoned choice.

In democracies it is normal, sadly, that they we have to find and vote the least bad party or candidate.

I think you might misunderstand my position regarding Dems and Republicans. They are IMO in the pockets of wealthy or powerful interests but it is important to know the differences/sources of the interests influencing the parties and to some extent your voting should based on whether you agree or disagree with those influences.

Both parties appeal to their bases during primaries to raise money-move to the center in general election so that they generate mass appeal and then once in power move back to serving their base through legislation and pork barrel spending so they can raise money for the next election. In that sense they are cut from the same cloth and are in sense the same party. When I talk of an "independent party" I really speak of one that excercises "independent thought" and makes decisions on what is the right thing to do, not the "political" thing to do.

I do not think helping the poor rise above poverty has to be exclusively a left-wing-liberal-Democratic platform anymore than having a strong national defense has to be a right-wing-conservative-Republican platform. They are both goals we should aim for but we do not want to spend the money to do both so the parties take up opposing positions and frame it as an almost either or proposition. Again a gross oversimplifcation but it tends to hold true at is core.

Because too many voters have abandoned the political process we have allowed the two parties to only be worried about pleasing a vocal minority. They legislate towards that minority and we end up with stagnant, gridlocked government because the two minorities almost always refuse to agree unless they get paid off in some sort of quid quo pro fashion. Why do you think the largest deficits this country have ever seen have been run up while Republicans (the self-proclaimed party of small government) have been in the White House with practically no opposition from the Democrats. This behavior adds to the perception that they are the same party because they act almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining/holding power. Incumbents tend to stay elected year after year because they have mastered the act of bringing home pork to their constituents while ranting about the "do-nothing politicians back in DC". People hate Congress but love their representatives, failing to connect the two.

[bobsticks]

Gee... The thanks I get for wishing you a happy fourth.

Yes, I had a *blast* yesterday. Still smelling gunpowder!

Yeah, but did the carrier pidgeons bring any lovin' yet?

[bobsticks]

The quote/observation Sticks makes is the current play being called in the GOP huddle but I have yet heard what was the legislative act that was passed in the last 18 months that the Dems passed that is the cause/effect of high gas prices.

It doesn't have to do with a specific piece of legislation. As mentioned before the speculators that effect prices react to the current political landscape. The introduction of more union cronies and protectionists sends a ripple of confidence-quashing fear across the market.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm disturbed by trend here to described the Republicans and and Democrats basically same, (in the pockets of wealthy, powerful interests), making it ipso facto unimportant which one you vote for.

Feanor, when you look at just the surface, sure there are differences. When it comes to legislation, sure the two have differences. But when it comes to solving problems and dealing with issues, sorry, the two blend together. Why does American not have universal health care? Because BOTH sides get money from the health insurance lobby who donate to campaigns to make sure that status quo is maintained. Why has this country not moved from oil to coal? Its not technology that is for sure, its the oil companies that donate to campaigns to make sure the status quo remains. Why do we outsource jobs, and give tax credits for the practice? Because companies like MIcrosoft donate big money to make sure they have access to cheap labor. One the surface, they have different agendas. When it comes to action, they are both governed by the same rule, follow the money.

So you know, I cannot speak for EVERY American, but I can speak for those I have discussed this issue with. We all vote on the lesser of two evils. It has come to this, and has been this way for a while. I personally have not been enthused about any candidate for any office other than my local congresswoman, and the mayor we used to have. Obama is the first Presidential candidate that I have been enthused about since I started voting. Its not that I think he can really steer the ship around, its his message that I think gets me interested. Its the dramatic change and fresh thinking he brings to the table. Its the fact that he has gotten this far in a country that just 50 years ago wouldn't have let him vote in any election.

As a foreign observer I acknowledge the fact that neither really represents the middle and working classes of your country. Recall that I did discourse at some length on the subject of a U.S. third, (left-wing), party. Nevertheless I think there are sufficient, reliable difference between these the Reps and Dems for a voter to make a reasoned choice.

If you look at the surface, yes there are differences. But let's look at what the two have done over the last decade or so. Republicans which used to stand for fiscal financial and personal responsibility have ran up our national debt to the largest we have seen in decades. You have republican Senators and Congressmen chased out of office for personal indescretions, something unheard of years ago. We have been in two major wars costing millions of lives, watched the largest exodus of jobs and seen our manufacturing base(which is our power) decimated and replaced by low paying jobs. This republican President has decimated environmental laws to suit big business, has completely dismissed the will of the people(70% of us want this war over NOW), and has taken action that has drawn us enemies that would not have been in our face years ago. His action have made opposition of our friends, and set this country's foreign policy back at least 30-40 years. This is not the republican party of 50 years ago

Democrats, the party of the people has been reduced to a bunch of bumbling idiots. When they had the Senate and White House under Clinton, they could not get universal health care passed. They have not been able to stop the outsourcing of jobs, or the decimation of the manufacturing sector which was the very foundation of the middle class since WWII. They stood by and watch Cheney draft our energy policy with the very wolves that seek to suck us dry. They have not been able to stop non bid contracts going to American companies, or the corruption these contracts have fostered. Since they have gained control of the house, they have not been able to shape the course of this war through its financing, or stop the supplimental bills and requests that hide the true cost of this war. They have not been bold enough to really be the party of the people because they are too busy trying to hang on to power, which has made them truely powerless.

In democracies it is normal, sadly, that they we have to find and vote the least bad party or candidate.

Actually it does not have to be this way, but it is. Our lovely media and news agencies have essentially chased any really qualified candidates away through the vetting process. The smearing, painting and labeling, dragging out skeletons, inventing of stories and starting rumors, has killed any chance for a qualified and truely passionate person from even running for office.

I think the worst thing of all for this country is that there has only been white males in the office of the President. No women, no minorities. This has created a non diverse, monothematic thought process that has brought us from greatness to turmoil. Women and minorities tend to look at problems in quite a different way than white males(not a bad thing necessarily, but its bad when its all you have). White males are top down thinkers(a generalization and observation), and Women and minorities tend to be bottom up thinkers(also a generalization and observation), because that is where they are on the totom pole. Top down thinking is great when things are going well, but piss poor when things are going badly. Bottom up thinking is great when things are bad, but not so great when things are good. The diversity of thought that the combination of white males, minorities and women bring to the table is much more broad, and representitative of what America really is. In that combination, everyone's issues are on the table, and everyone is fairly represented, and everyone has the chance to look at problems from all angles. This is not a knock on white males, but a call for diversity of thought and opinion, which we do not have presently.

I wish I felt better about where things are headed, but I don't. I do not think the will of the American people is there. Its like we are living in some matrix where we go about our daily lives while the world around us is crumbling. We have given in to the distraction of consuming, which is exactly what our government wants us to do to keep us distracted from what they are doing in Washington. We have gotten too fat, pampered and lazy to demand change in a forceful way. Now we have pretty much gotten just what we deserve for our lack of engagement.

Damn, I have just depressed myself. I need retail therapy, and a gallon of Ben and Jerry's Rocky road.

[Feanor]

....

I do not think helping the poor rise above poverty has to be exclusively a left-wing-liberal-Democratic platform anymore than having a strong national defense has to be a right-wing-conservative-Republican platform. They are both goals we should aim for but we do not want to spend the money to do both so the parties take up opposing positions and frame it as an almost either or proposition. Again a gross oversimplifcation but it tends to hold true at is core.

...

• A party that genuinely aims to help the poor and makes that its highest priority is by definition a left-wing party. Such a party doesn't have to be socialist or even "liberal".
• Sometimes a conservative/right-wing party will claim -- and its more naive supporters actually believe -- that it has the interests of the poor in mind because it supports ideological capitalism or "family values". This is delusional however.
• The irony of the Republicans is that their stupid national security policies have actually increased the danger to the U.S. I've heard it said that most Americans feel the Republicans are stronger on national security: a classic case of SFB if ever there was one

....

Because too many voters have abandoned the political process we have allowed the two parties to only be worried about pleasing a vocal minority. They legislate towards that minority and we end up with stagnant, gridlocked government because the two minorities almost always refuse to agree unless they get paid off in some sort of quid quo pro fashion. Why do you think the largest deficits this country have ever seen have been run up while Republicans (the self-proclaimed party of small government) have been in the White House with practically no opposition from the Democrats. This behavior adds to the perception that they are the same party because they act almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining/holding power. Incumbents tend to stay elected year after year because they have mastered the act of bringing home pork to their constituents while ranting about the "do-nothing politicians back in DC". People hate Congress but love their representatives, failing to connect the two.

• U.S right-wingers -- and Canadian one too I might add -- have not proven themselves fiscally responsible. I think we should understand that the only real fiscal goal of the right-wing is low taxes. This does not preclude deficit budgeting, in fact it encourages it.
• 98% of politicians go into as a career, (often though not always with goal of personal enrichment). Accordingly they tend to affiliate to which ever party is more likely to get them elected to office and keep them there. I really don't how we can deal with the professional aspirations of politicians, or whether it's even desirable to do so.

[bobsticks]

IMO racism, and classism walk arm and arm. Careful scrutiny of these complex issues bares this out...Classism and racism used to be seperate discussions. Now they are joined at the hip when you dig deeper than the surface.

Joined in a reciprocating relationship to be sure...sometimes more like the chicken and the egg.

And, I'll agree 100% that the variance in jail sentences is a rascist construct. Anytime one raises the penalty for a crime that is disproportionally commited by a certain segment of the population it's clear that segment is being targeted. I've posted this exact thought before on these very forums.

I think you have to be careful when discussing education especially when conjoining thoughts between cause and effect. The raising of GPA is rascist? Well, it could be so I won't argue the point to feverishly. When I got out of college I was off like a shot, never to look back except for my monthly Sallie Mae reminder...recognizing that the same level of accomplishment from a few decades ago is now the expectation at a higher grade though. That's why it's not uncommon to find seventh grade textbooks being used in ninth grade. The current climate in K-12 is such that admins are pressured to prepare kids for success and unfortunately, often as not, that is as much predicated on appearance on paper as it is in their little hearts and minds.

How is a poor minority(or any poor person) to get into this school without college prep courses that by the way, their high school cannot afford. Or the fact that the really good qualified teachers tend to go to schools where the students come from realitively affluent families, leaving the poor with teachers that are underqualified and apathetic towards their students.

Sentence one, absolutely, but remember that the financial issues are often the result of how we allocate monies from property taxes on a local level. The system is lopsided to be sure but l have a hard time believing that an African-American, Latino, white, Chinese, or Bangladeshi family from the affluent suburbs would approve of money being diverted from their immediate area's school systems to the detriment of their children. Point breing it's a decision based on family and self-interest.

Obviously, as long as the system remains the same certain property values will never rise nor will certain school systems be elevated.

I guess I would stress your own parenthetical phrase, "or any poor person", and the reason I think we have to be careful and, indeed, the reason that I'm taking the time to type this demented screed is that this is one of many battles for which we're going to have to unite to find common solutions...and that doesn't happen if we're accusing and namecalling. In today's hyper-sensitive society about the worst thing one can be called, other than a rapist or a pedophile, is a racist.

We use words to batter people sometimes and this distinction will be important in consensus and team building. I think we all agree that the results of current policy are counterproductive and do nothing but perpetuate division, separation, and conflict but I think we have to be careful when assigning motive.

Heady stuff, to be sure...and we've certainly veered away from oil and attacked all the ills of society. I'm sure the lobbyists for the oil companies and the bureaucracy would be proud. Sometime soon we'll have to pop open that bottle of Gran Patron Burdeos Anejo and go head-to-head, face-to-face...

...but I ain't wearin' no dress.

[thekid]

It doesn't have to do with a specific piece of legislation. As mentioned before the speculators that effect prices react to the current political landscape. The introduction of more union cronies and protectionists sends a ripple of confidence-quashing fear across the market.

I have heard that arguement before as well and it sounds good on the surface but history does not support it. If the market reacted in such a simplistic manner it would be down during a Democratic administration and up in a Republican one which is not the case. Wall Street in the long term reacts to actions not specualtion.

If you take the reverse of your statement then under a Cheney/Haliburton lead administration oil/gas prices should have remained flat or gone down during the period of time the Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branch. That however was not the case since gas first hit $3 a gallon at the height of the Bush administration

Wall Street benefited far more under Robert Rubin in the Clinton administration than in the unregulated atmosphere of the last 7 years. A unilateral war in the Middle East which has antagonized many of our traditional allies in the area has given the specualtors more fodder than the "fear" of unions and protectionism.

[bobsticks]

On a completely unrelated, further off-topic and generally unimportant note, I had to laugh at this e-mail that I just received that included an excerpt from a recent speech given by Bill Gates at a high school graduation. The speech's focus was to encourage young people to think and act for themselves and included these eleven thoughts for the departing graduates:

" Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time..

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one. "

[thekid]

Thanks Sticks-this thread has at least given me something to do in between my recording LP's while the T-storms have been rolling through today. We need the rain and hopefully it will put out a couple of wildfires in our area. The smoke from those things has been terrible now for about a month.

I have heard variations on those rules before but it does not make them any less funny or less true.....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

On a completely unrelated, further off-topic and generally unimportant note, I had to laugh at this e-mail that I just received that included an excerpt from a recent speech given by Bill Gates at a high school graduation. The speech's focus was to encourage young people to think and act for themselves and included these eleven thoughts for the departing graduates:

" Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time..

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one. "

Sticks,
You need to get this posted in every University in this country.

I think you have to be careful when discussing education especially when conjoining thoughts between cause and effect. The raising of GPA is rascist? Well, it could be so I won't argue the point to feverishly. When I got out of college I was off like a shot, never to look back except for my monthly Sallie Mae reminder...recognizing that the same level of accomplishment from a few decades ago is now the expectation at a higher grade though. That's why it's not uncommon to find seventh grade textbooks being used in ninth grade. The current climate in K-12 is such that admins are pressured to prepare kids for success and unfortunately, often as not, that is as much predicated on appearance on paper as it is in their little hearts and minds.

Sticks,
I'll tell you why I think a 4.25 GPA is racist in this case. In order to get a 4.25 GPA, your high school must offer college prep courses. This is not a problem for schools in affluent areas(like the city of Albany where I live), but is a problem for schools in the neighboring cities like Richmond and Oakland. No high school in those areas offer college prep courses, so a student from those schools(which are largely minority) can get in to UC Berkeley. As a matter of fact almost all the schools in California with a largely minority student population cannot afford college prep courses on campus. When you add in the effects of prop 209 which does not allow race as a consideration of enrollment (just about every UC Berkeley professor has come out saying that racial diversity is paramount on that campus) it creates a real problem for minority students.
As a result of both issues, minority enrollment (with the exception of Asians) at UC Berkeley has dropped through the floor boards. African American enrollment this year is less than 2 percent, and it was 10 percent just ten years ago. Latino enrollment is about 3 percent and it as 8 percent just 10 years ago. UC Berkeley is now made up of mostly white and asian students now, UCLA is headed that way as well.

My boys both graduated with a 4.25 GPA, and they refused to enroll at UC Berkeley because they did not want to feel racially isolated on campus. A study done by Dr. Jackie Mimms showed that most minority students that could get into UC Berkeley would rather go to school out of state than in California, because they feel that UC does not want them. They have not moved to change any of these policies even though they know it is reducing diversity on their two flagship campuses. This is why I feel in this case that allowing the enrolling GPA at 4.25 is a racist practice. Its not fair to all races, or all people from all economic backgrounds. Classism and racism walking hand in hand.

[Feanor]

Sticks,
... Classism and racism walking hand in hand.

Indeed, but if you are truly not a racist, then you must oppose race-based criteria as a means to compensate for class-based problems. You need to attact class issues as class issues. Don't give preference to racial "minority" students; rather to provide adequate funding to ensure all students can get the college prep, regardless of race or class, through adequate funding everywhere.

George W. and the GOP don't hate blacks, they hate poor people -- or "wet people" as Jon Stewart would have it in relation to Katrina and midwest flood victims.

Let comment that here in Ontario we have serious under funding of post-secondary education. Here there are no private universities, i.e. they are all constrained in what they can charge for tuition; at the same time they don't receive adequate government funding to accept all qualified students. My daughter was a solid B+ student but this wasn't enough to get her into any university in southern Ontario. Since we can't afford to board her at a school outside of commuting distance, she simply didn't get to go to university. Fortunately she found some additional motivation and will be attending the dental hygenist program at a local college. To do that, she had to beat out over 1100 applicants for the program; (33 accepted / 1145 applications). Incidentally her fees, books, and suppies are >3X the average for undergrad university programs, or for that matter, my son's MSc Computer Science fees.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah, but did the carrier pidgeons bring any lovin' yet?

Oh oh oh!!! Now I get it. Yes the bird dropped a turd.

George W. and the GOP don't hate blacks, they hate poor people -- or "wet people" as Jon Stewart would have it in relation to Katrina and midwest flood victims.

There you go again making blanket assuptions about what you, the grandstander don't agree with.

Jon Stewart? Small potatoes. You should hear what Jay Leno says about Hilliary Clinton, and what he's said about Slick Willie over what, the past 15 years?

[Woochifer]

I'll tell you why I think a 4.25 GPA is racist in this case. In order to get a 4.25 GPA, your high school must offer college prep courses. This is not a problem for schools in affluent areas(like the city of Albany where I live), but is a problem for schools in the neighboring cities like Richmond and Oakland. No high school in those areas offer college prep courses, so a student from those schools(which are largely minority) can get in to UC Berkeley. As a matter of fact almost all the schools in California with a largely minority student population cannot afford college prep courses on campus. When you add in the effects of prop 209 which does not allow race as a consideration of enrollment (just about every UC Berkeley professor has come out saying that racial diversity is paramount on that campus) it creates a real problem for minority students.

T, gotta disagree with you here. The most disadvantaged students in terms of access to honors and AP courses are actually those who live in rural areas. Schools in Oakland and Richmond have a fairly broad range of honors courses. The problem is that students might need to take some courses at a different campus or enroll at community college. Yes, it is an access issue, but not nearly as bad as I've seen in rural districts.

The issue with those inner city schools is that the number of students entering high school on a college prep track is relatively low. For those students motivated and prepared enough to enroll in college prep courses, they are available. They just make up a relatively low percentage of the students and courses. Not having a lot of peer reinforcement, and counselors with the broad knowledge needed to move the students through the college admissions process, are just some of the issues to overcome.

The GPA is obviously impacted by those factors, but schools like the UC and Cal State systems already account for this in their admissions criteria. For students who do attend high schools with limited resources, their GPA is not viewed the same as someone who attends a wealthier school district that offers more honors courses.

As a result of both issues, minority enrollment (with the exception of Asians) at UC Berkeley has dropped through the floor boards. African American enrollment this year is less than 2 percent, and it was 10 percent just ten years ago. Latino enrollment is about 3 percent and it as 8 percent just 10 years ago. UC Berkeley is now made up of mostly white and asian students now, UCLA is headed that way as well.

Actually, UC Berkeley went to a comprehensive review three years ago, and UCLA went there last year. Under the old setup, close to half of the admits at Cal and less than half at UCLA were admitted based solely on GPA and test scores (with some accounting for class rank and geography). Only the remaining slots would consider other factors such as family history, school disadvantages, working to support the family, etc. Under the current setup, every applicant gets a complete read. And this is aimed at boosting the enrollment levels from those students that come from inner city and rural school districts.

UCLA's Latino enrollment for the Fall 08 class is now over 21% (up from 18% in 07), while the African American enrollment is close to 5% (up from 2% three years ago). The Latino enrollment's now close to pre-209 levels, while the African American enrollment still has a ways to go.

With the UC, I doubt that they will completely recover to pre-209 levels for one reason -- the UC did away with affirmative action, but most of the private schools that compete with the UC for the most talented minority students still have affirmative action in place. In my work on a UC scholarship committee, I can see the offers that these private schools give to the top Latino and African American applicants, and the UC often can't offer comparable scholarships.

My boys both graduated with a 4.25 GPA, and they refused to enroll at UC Berkeley because they did not want to feel racially isolated on campus. A study done by Dr. Jackie Mimms showed that most minority students that could get into UC Berkeley would rather go to school out of state than in California, because they feel that UC does not want them. They have not moved to change any of these policies even though they know it is reducing diversity on their two flagship campuses. This is why I feel in this case that allowing the enrolling GPA at 4.25 is a racist practice. Its not fair to all races, or all people from all economic backgrounds. Classism and racism walking hand in hand.

Again, I don't know how old this information is, but the UC has been putting on a full court press the last couple of years. I've been involved in some of UCLA's outreach, and I know admissions staffers who are logging a lot of miles to try and reverse the tide (and actually had been very active at inner city outreach even before the admissions changes began). It's pretty much campus by campus, and student by student, and that takes a lot of effort. To say that the campuses have done nothing doesn't account for the major changes that the admissions departments at Cal and UCLA have implemented.

And on the issue of classism, you should look at the Washington Monthly rankings, which evaluates colleges based on social mobility, research, and service. In 2007, UCLA ranked #2, while Cal ranked #3, and UCSD #4.

[Rich-n-Texas]

So Wooch, is the city of Albany really an affluent area? And does Sir talky really live there?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Indeed, but if you are truly not a racist, then you must oppose race-based criteria as a means to compensate for class-based problems. You need to attact class issues as class issues. Don't give preference to racial "minority" students; rather to provide adequate funding to ensure all students can get the college prep, regardless of race or class, through adequate funding everywhere.

They are not doing this, and are not going to do this. That is the way it is here. Minorities are underrepresented in every faucet of life in America except the jails, so to acheive SOME kind of equality you need race based preferences. Racism is institutionalized, and you cannot rely on the prevailing culture to change. There is nothing in it for them. I do not believe in preferences that put unqualified people in jobs, schools etc.. But if you let this system play out without any governing laws to address it, the only people with a decent job, a decent education and a decent life would be the prevailing race. It used to be that way right? Didn't you hear about white only resturants, toilets, Hotels, Bars, etc?

George W. and the GOP don't hate blacks, they hate poor people -- or "wet people" as Jon Stewart would have it in relation to Katrina and midwest flood victims.

He doesn't hate blacks I agree, he is indifferent towards them, which is worse.

Let comment that here in Ontario we have serious under funding of post-secondary education. Here there are no private universities, i.e. they are all constrained in what they can charge for tuition; at the same time they don't receive adequate government funding to accept all qualified students. My daughter was a solid B+ student but this wasn't enough to get her into any university in southern Ontario. Since we can't afford to board her at a school outside of commuting distance, she simply didn't get to go to university. Fortunately she found some additional motivation and will be attending the dental hygenist program at a local college. To do that, she had to beat out over 1100 applicants for the program; (33 accepted / 1145 applications). Incidentally her fees, books, and suppies are >3X the average for undergrad university programs, or for that matter, my son's MSc Computer Science fees.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like this problem is effecting everyone regardless of race. I am wondering when governments will realize that future economic growth depends on having a educated population. I think quite a few governments believe that if you do not educate large segments of your public, then its easier to keep them pacified. The Arab world has this down pat.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

T, gotta disagree with you here. The most disadvantaged students in terms of access to honors and AP courses are actually those who live in rural areas. Schools in Oakland and Richmond have a fairly broad range of honors courses. The problem is that students might need to take some courses at a different campus or enroll at community college. Yes, it is an access issue, but not nearly as bad as I've seen in rural districts.

Wooch, I am a mentor for several students at Oakland high, and they do not have a single college prep course in their campus. Since the Peralta College system began charging for community college units, it makes that resource unavailable to the poor, which in Oakland is mostly the latino and african american students. Richmond has the same issues. Its not enough to have them around, folks have to be able to afford them as well.

The issue with those inner city schools is that the number of students entering high school on a college prep track is relatively low. For those students motivated and prepared enough to enroll in college prep courses, they are available. They just make up a relatively low percentage of the students and courses. Not having a lot of peer reinforcement, and counselors with the broad knowledge needed to move the students through the college admissions process, are just some of the issues to overcome.

The GPA is obviously impacted by those factors, but schools like the UC and Cal State systems already account for this in their admissions criteria. For students who do attend high schools with limited resources, their GPA is not viewed the same as someone who attends a wealthier school district that offers more honors courses.

Wooch, I think you are missing a piece here. They only have so many slots for freshman at UC, and Cal state, and because of impeding budget cuts, those slots are getting less and less. They are first offered to the most qualified students(usually those with the highest GPA) and whatever slots are left go to the students as you describe. Lately there has not been much left, hence why UC will not recover to pre-209 levels. Cal State and UC have hiked their fee's every year for the last 7 years, and student loans are difficult to find. So even if a student can get in those schools, that cannot afford them.

Actually, UC Berkeley went to a comprehensive review three years ago, and UCLA went there last year. Under the old setup, close to half of the admits at Cal and less than half at UCLA were admitted based solely on GPA and test scores (with some accounting for class rank and geography). Only the remaining slots would consider other factors such as family history, school disadvantages, working to support the family, etc. Under the current setup, every applicant gets a complete read. And this is aimed at boosting the enrollment levels from those students that come from inner city and rural school districts.

Unfortunately there are not enough slots that take other factors under consideration.

UCLA's Latino enrollment for the Fall 08 class is now over 21% (up from 18% in 07), while the African American enrollment is close to 5% (up from 2% three years ago). The Latino enrollment's now close to pre-209 levels, while the African American enrollment still has a ways to go.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Mimms who is Vice President of School and University partnerships and educational Outreach for UC(and happens to be a good friend of mine) her figures for UCLA were quite a bit lower than what you mention for Latino students. Her figures are definately lower for African American students.

With the UC, I doubt that they will completely recover to pre-209 levels for one reason -- the UC did away with affirmative action, but most of the private schools that compete with the UC for the most talented minority students still have affirmative action in place. In my work on a UC scholarship committee, I can see the offers that these private schools give to the top Latino and African American applicants, and the UC often can't offer comparable scholarships.

According to Dr Mimms study, even if they compete with the private schools offers, most African American students would still go elsewhere. Prop 209 sent a pretty clear message to them that they are not wanted, at least that is what they think.

Again, I don't know how old this information is, but the UC has been putting on a full court press the last couple of years. I've been involved in some of UCLA's outreach, and I know admissions staffers who are logging a lot of miles to try and reverse the tide (and actually had been very active at inner city outreach even before the admissions changes began). It's pretty much campus by campus, and student by student, and that takes a lot of effort. To say that the campuses have done nothing doesn't account for the major changes that the admissions departments at Cal and UCLA have implemented.

Wooch, efforts are great, results are better. They may be trying at the campus level, but at the Office of the President they are going to lay off 80 percent of their outreach staff in three months. This information I got yesterday from a buddy who works in outreach. To me this puts serious doubt on their committment to outreach, as the campus cannot do this by themselves. And considering the fact that Awrnold is about to cut their budgets significantly, I seriously doubt they will be able to sustain their committment to outreach even at the campus level.

And on the issue of classism, you should look at the Washington Monthly rankings, which evaluates colleges based on social mobility, research, and service. In 2007, UCLA ranked #2, while Cal ranked #3, and UCSD #4.

None of these schools have a significant minority population, so just how does this raised the social mobility for them?

[Feanor]

They are not doing this, and are not going to do this. That is the way it is here. Minorities are underrepresented in every faucet of life in America except the jails, so to acheive SOME kind of equality you need race based preferences. Racism is institutionalized, and you cannot rely on the prevailing culture to change. There is nothing in it for them. I do not believe in preferences that put unqualified people in jobs, schools etc.. But if you let this system play out without any governing laws to address it, the only people with a decent job, a decent education and a decent life would be the prevailing race. It used to be that way right? Didn't you hear about white only resturants, toilets, Hotels, Bars, etc?

...

Do I remember? Oh, yeah. I remember how appalled I was visiting Florida in the late '50s by the "Whites only" sign over the water fountains. We didn't have those in Quebec.

But I have always be doubtful about affirmative action. Fundamentally you can't discriminate in favor of one group of people without discriminating against another. Yep, that simple. Does affirmative action tend to, as you say, "SOME sort of equality"? Perhaps some sort, but is it the sort we want? What we ought to want is not so some much material equality as fairness and equality of opportunity.

When a while kid with an 82% average is beat out by a black kid with a 67% average for a scarce university spot, you may say, well, the black kid didn't attend as good a high school. Maybe he didn't or maybe the white guy did well despite the fact that he too went to a not so great school; if the color rather the school is the criterion then the result is injustice. But in the instant, fix the damned high schools, so the choice doesn't have to be made.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I am a mentor for several students at Oakland high, and they do not have a single college prep course in their campus. Since the Peralta College system began charging for community college units, it makes that resource unavailable to the poor, which in Oakland is mostly the latino and african american students. Richmond has the same issues. Its not enough to have them around, folks have to be able to afford them as well.

Good point about the cost of community college units. That does present an obstacle, though I recall that fee waivers are still available to those students who really need them.

Also, college prep is not the same thing as AP/honors in the UC admissions parlance. Every high school out there has some form of college prep course work -- some of them are needed just for graduation. The shortage on a campus by campus basis has been with the AP/honors courses that count for the extra grade points. In Oakland, I recall that Skyline had a pretty solid AP program, and some students from neighboring schools went there to take their advanced classes. Oakland Tech is another school that I recall had some AP courses on campus. It's a sad situation when students have to jump through that many hoops in order to enroll in courses at their academic level, but this is less problematic than rural districts where the nearest school offering any AP courses might be more than 50 miles away.

Wooch, I think you are missing a piece here. They only have so many slots for freshman at UC, and Cal state, and because of impeding budget cuts, those slots are getting less and less. They are first offered to the most qualified students(usually those with the highest GPA) and whatever slots are left go to the students as you describe. Lately there has not been much left, hence why UC will not recover to pre-209 levels. Cal State and UC have hiked their fee's every year for the last 7 years, and student loans are difficult to find. So even if a student can get in those schools, that cannot afford them.

Actually, the number of slots has remained roughly the same across the UC, and even expanded due to the opening of the Merced campus. The real problem is that the number of applicants has soared over the past decade.

The UC Master Plan establishes that every student in California that graduates in the top 12.5% is eligible for a spot in the UC system -- but, it does not guarantee a spot at the most in-demand campuses (which are [in order of applicants] UCLA, UCSD, and Berkeley -- yes, UCSD attracts more applicants than Cal). California's population growth with the Millennial generation in particular has put that guarantee in peril, even with the opening of UC Merced.

Yes, the UC and Cal State costs have soared over the past decade, but the UC still costs about 1/4 of what a private school requires. The need-based and merit-based scholarships are out there. Half the problem with the programs I participate in is getting eligible students to apply for them in the first place. In the inner city districts, the challenge is getting the word out to the students that these financial aid programs exist. The counselors at these schools are behind the 8-ball just getting their students to graduate. They just don't have the time to keep on top of all the scholarship programs for those few students who are a college track.

There's a lot of rumormongering out there, and it's crazy what students believe to be true. Of course, the things that students believe is downright rational compared to what I hear from the parents!

Unfortunately there are not enough slots that take other factors under consideration.

Under the comprehensive review guidelines, ALL of the slots take these other factors into consideration. The weighting might not be what some advocates would like, but this is big change from how Cal and UCLA had been conducting the admissions reviews.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Mimms who is Vice President of School and University partnerships and educational Outreach for UC(and happens to be a good friend of mine) her figures for UCLA were quite a bit lower than what you mention for Latino students. Her figures are definately lower for African American students.

She's not quoting the exact figures then. I get an outreach orientation from the UCLA admissions office every year, and they go over the updated student stats. This is the latest enrollment breakdown straight from the Chancellor's office.

http://www.magazine.ucla.edu/exclusi...en-enrollment/

According to Dr Mimms study, even if they compete with the private schools offers, most African American students would still go elsewhere. Prop 209 sent a pretty clear message to them that they are not wanted, at least that is what they think.

According to the linked article, half of the African American students offered admission by UCLA for the Fall 08 quarter enrolled at the university. That 50% take-rate among AA's is higher than the 40% take-rate among all students.

If this study is more than two years old, then it's way outdated, because that was when UCLA mobilized its current outreach program.

Wooch, efforts are great, results are better. They may be trying at the campus level, but at the Office of the President they are going to lay off 80 percent of their outreach staff in three months. This information I got yesterday from a buddy who works in outreach. To me this puts serious doubt on their commitment to outreach, as the campus cannot do this by themselves. And considering the fact that Awrnold is about to cut their budgets significantly, I seriously doubt they will be able to sustain their committment to outreach even at the campus level.

Actually, with UCLA at least, their outreach has produced results. The number of African Americans enrolling at UCLA is more than double the numbers from three years ago. It took a combination of outreach to increase the number of applicants, a lot of one-on-one involvement by African American alumni, and a mass mobilization to counter a lot of the misinformation getting passed around.

In all honesty, I don't know what the UC President's office does with outreach. At the campus level, the outreach is done by a combination of admissions office staff, faculty, students, and alumni. I know that the admissions staff isn't going anywhere -- the comprehensive review needs more screeners than ever. Budget cuts are going to hit in a lot of bad places, but I doubt that it will impact the campus outreach, given that so much of it is done by volunteers rather than paid staff.

None of these schools have a significant minority population, so just how does this raised the social mobility for them?

Social mobility accounts for the number of students receiving Pell Grants (which are income-based), and the students who are the first in their family to attend college. UCLA's underrepresented minority enrollment is around 27%. Maybe that's not where it needs to be given California's changing demographics, but I wouldn't call that insignificant either.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do I remember? Oh, yeah. I remember how appalled I was visiting Florida in the late '50s by the "Whites only" sign over the water fountains. We didn't have those in Quebec.

I have never seen this in my life, and thank God. But my Godmother(who is african american) told me how it was, and how much it hurt to see it.

But I have always be doubtful about affirmative action. Fundamentally you can't discriminate in favor of one group of people without discriminating against another.

They were doing this before Affirmative Action was even heard of, and still doing now that it is here.

Yep, that simple. Does affirmative action tend to, as you say, "SOME sort of equality"? Perhaps some sort, but is it the sort we want? What we ought to want is not so some much material equality as fairness and equality of opportunity.

Blacks and Hispanics have moved out of poverty and isolation under affirmative action, and into the middle class since it started. More Blacks and Hispanics have received access to higher education because of it Before that they were relegated to being poor uneducated servants, gardners, and maids to the powers that be. While it hasn't acheive equality for all, it is far better than nothing IMO. Nothing means back to the way it was in the 30's, 40's and 50's. No thanks.

When a while kid with an 82% average is beat out by a black kid with a 67% average for a scarce university spot, you may say, well, the black kid didn't attend as good a high school. Maybe he didn't or maybe the white guy did well despite the fact that he too went to a not so great school; if the color rather the school is the criterion then the result is injustice. But in the instant, fix the damned high schools, so the choice doesn't have to be made.

In this country whites and asians have the highest average income, and blacks and hispanic are at the bottom. Racism and a poor education contributes to this. This country has a long history of discrimination based on color, so if the tables are turned, I am not going to cry one bit. Whites are so advantaged in this country there has to be some kind of balance for equality to exist. (no offense to white people, but it is true)

I am going to look in the Disney archives and see if I can find the video that 20/20 did on racism and finding a job. I am also going to see if I can locate the show that Oprah did on these two friends, one black guy, one white guy, both with the same education, working in the same field, both looking for cars, apartments, seeking help at the store, and qualifying for a loan. I am also going to find my copy of the documentary "The Color of Fear". If I can find any of these, I would love to send you a copy. I was so angry I cried on each of these stories. No, affirmative action needs to stay right where it is until it acheives the goal it was created for.

I have been on the Diversity team for Disney studios for about 10 years. If all things were ideal, then you thoughts would have a ton of merit. But the depth and breathe of this issue is so powerful and entrenched, you need something to keep the minorities from tearing this country apart for lack of oportunities. I am not willing to allow the powers that be to police themselves. We already have a history of what happens when they do.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good point about the cost of community college units. That does present an obstacle, though I recall that fee waivers are still available to those students who really need them.

You are right, fee waivers are out there, but the process is so frustrating many just give up and walk away. They already have enough problems as it is, and having to go through a process that makes them feel like less of a human doesn't help much. This is what they(the students) have told me.

Also, college prep is not the same thing as AP/honors in the UC admissions parlance. Every high school out there has some form of college prep course work -- some of them are needed just for graduation. The shortage on a campus by campus basis has been with the AP/honors courses that count for the extra grade points. In Oakland, I recall that Skyline had a pretty solid AP program, and some students from neighboring schools went there to take their advanced classes. Oakland Tech is another school that I recall had some AP courses on campus. It's a sad situation when students have to jump through that many hoops in order to enroll in courses at their academic level, but this is less problematic than rural districts where the nearest school offering any AP courses might be more than 50 miles away.

When Oakland Unified went bankrupt, all of the college prep courses were yanked in budget cuts. Skyline USED to be a pretty darn good school until Oakland unified allowed students to move to schools out of their living area but within the district. When that happen, Skyline went downhill fast. Tech has also gone down the tubes unfortunately. That state of Oaklands schools make even the most hardened skeptics cry. Hence why the crime rate here is so high.

Actually, the number of slots has remained roughly the same across the UC, and even expanded due to the opening of the Merced campus. The real problem is that the number of applicants has soared over the past decade.

You are right brudda, and many have been pushed out of the system because there are so many applications, and not enough slots.

The UC Master Plan establishes that every student in California that graduates in the top 12.5% is eligible for a spot in the UC system -- but, it does not guarantee a spot at the most in-demand campuses (which are [in order of applicants] UCLA, UCSD, and Berkeley -- yes, UCSD attracts more applicants than Cal). California's population growth with the Millennial generation in particular has put that guarantee in peril, even with the opening of UC Merced.

It was already in peril when they instituted it, and they have not been all that successful in having enough slots for everybody that fits in the 12.5%. Some are getting left behind. If the guarantee doesn't extend to their flagship schools, then what is the point? Is the message that UC wants to send "You minority and poor people are allowed in our system, but not at our best campuses?"

Nice weather and nice beaches does tend to attract a large amount of students doesn't it? LOL

Yes, the UC and Cal State costs have soared over the past decade, but the UC still costs about 1/4 of what a private school requires. The need-based and merit-based scholarships are out there. Half the problem with the programs I participate in is getting eligible students to apply for them in the first place. In the inner city districts, the challenge is getting the word out to the students that these financial aid programs exist. The counselors at these schools are behind the 8-ball just getting their students to graduate. They just don't have the time to keep on top of all the scholarship programs for those few students who are a college track.

There is not enough money in the need and merit based system to support all of the students even if they did apply for them. You hit the nail on the head with your comments on inner city schools, which unfortunately most minorities go, and that is part of the problem right there.

Most all of the UC schools cost at least $15,000 a year to attend. It cost about the same to go to USC and the University of California at Irvine. It cost between $15-20,000 to go to all of the schools you named. It cost a little over $30,000 to go to USC(one of my boys goes there and I write the check) and upwards of $38,000 to go to a school like Stanford(my other son goes there). So the University system still is no bargain, and is becoming less and less of one yearly. Another part of the problem is that once the poor kids get in, they cannot afford to stay in, or are so dogged by the cost of going they have to work full time which kills their grades. Three of one of my sons friends are having this problem now. Raising tuition every year for the last seven years is pushing a UC education (no matter which school) further and further away from the poor and middle class(which often do not qualify for grants)

There's a lot of rumormongering out there, and it's crazy what students believe to be true. Of course, the things that students believe is downright rational compared to what I hear from the parents!

Can't argue with this! LOL

Under the comprehensive review guidelines, ALL of the slots take these other factors into consideration. The weighting might not be what some advocates would like, but this is big change from how Cal and UCLA had been conducting the admissions reviews.

Unfortunately this big change is not enough IMO. When you see minority enrollment drop like you have seen at Cal, then there is a problem.

She's not quoting the exact figures then. I get an outreach orientation from the UCLA admissions office every year, and they go over the updated student stats. This is the latest enrollment breakdown straight from the Chancellor's office.

http://www.magazine.ucla.edu/exclusi...en-enrollment/

I think she is quoting campus wide all students, not just the freshman class. Parsing it down to just the incoming freshman can tilt the stat's in a direction that does not really reflect reality overall.

According to the linked article, half of the African American students offered admission by UCLA for the Fall 08 quarter enrolled at the university. That 50% take-rate among AA's is higher than the 40% take-rate among all students.

If this study is more than two years old, then it's way outdated, because that was when UCLA mobilized its current outreach program.

The linked article does not provide a number for African American students, so half is pretty meaningless without some context. What about overall AA or latino enrollment? That is what I am interested in.

It was compiled over the last 10 years, and completed last year. I do not think her study was just limit to new enrollment, that was part of the picture. She was looking at overall enrollment as part of a larger picture. I know that historically black colleges in the south have seen huge jumps in enrollment from african american students from California. I have seen news stories on CNN and BET about this. My brothers daughter could have gone to Cal, but chose Xavier College in New Oleans instead. I was really surprised she wanted to go to an all black college, she is latino! (I say good for her, and she loves the school!) I could give many more examples of this right in my own world. Jackie pointed this out in her survey. Black kids post 209 are heading towards traditionally black colleges in huge numbers, numbers far larger than pre 209. Another point she raised is that latinos are also becoming a significant presence on traditionally black college campuses as well, as these colleges are aggressively pursuing them. (I could almost recite her entire presentation, I used to be her audio/video guy during her many conferences and symposiums).

Actually, with UCLA at least, their outreach has produced results. The number of African Americans enrolling at UCLA is more than double the numbers from three years ago. It took a combination of outreach to increase the number of applicants, a lot of one-on-one involvement by African American alumni, and a mass mobilization to counter a lot of the misinformation getting passed around.

Once again, this is one campus of ten in the system. Overall enrollment provides a far better picture of success, than freshman enrollment which could peak or sink on any given year. Year to year data is even better.

In all honesty, I don't know what the UC President's office does with outreach. At the campus level, the outreach is done by a combination of admissions office staff, faculty, students, and alumni. I know that the admissions staff isn't going anywhere -- the comprehensive review needs more screeners than ever. Budget cuts are going to hit in a lot of bad places, but I doubt that it will impact the campus outreach, given that so much of it is done by volunteers rather than paid staff.

The last set of budget cuts did impact outreach at the campus level. I remember that because I had a part time job at UCLA in their audio/visual department back in the late nineties. The office of the president gives the campuses their marching orders basically, so there is going to be some impact at the campus level surely. They are the center of the universe in terms of policy, so when the regents decided to kill 80% of the jobs in that department, I have some serious doubts about their committment to outreach. There are some jobs that volunteers cannot do.

Social mobility accounts for the number of students receiving Pell Grants (which are income-based), and the students who are the first in their family to attend college. UCLA's underrepresented minority enrollment is around 27%. Maybe that's not where it needs to be given California's changing demographics, but I wouldn't call that insignificant either.

UCLA may be a beacon of the UC system, but when you combine all of the campuses together, the number is no where near 27%. That is according to the figures Jackie was quoting to me.

Ahhhhh, I see ya bum!! Defending your alma mater. USC still rules big dawg, but ya bruddah shows you some love anyway. LOLOL

We have just derailed the hell out of this post.......slips out the side door.

[Feanor]

...
Blacks and Hispanics have moved out of poverty and isolation under affirmative action, and into the middle class since it started. More Blacks and Hispanics have received access to higher education because of it Before that they were relegated to being poor uneducated servants, gardners, and maids to the powers that be. While it hasn't acheive equality for all, it is far better than nothing IMO. Nothing means back to the way it was in the 30's, 40's and 50's. No thanks.

Perhaps you give too little credit to the personal efforts of Blacks and Hispanics ( ... I thought they preferred 'Latino' these days). The case of Asians enjoying higher incomes, as you mention, is due to a culture that values education, initiative, and hard work. Perhaps the aforementioned groups are learning these habits too. In any case there is now no danger of sliding back to sort of racism of the '50s.

Personally as very ordinary white person of very modest means who has many more poor white relatives than wealthy one, I deeply resent the assertion that (all) whites are privileged. I have seen no sign of it my personal life. Throughout much of U.S. poor Whites still out number the poor of other races.

You are living in the past, Sir T. The enemy for the poor and middle classes of the U.S. and other western countries is globalization and classism, not racism. Sure, vestiges of racism remain; sure, it's still a bad thing. But the really bad thing is that it blinds Americans to more contemporary problems.

The company I work for, like most large companies today, not racist. They want skilled workers and want them cheap. Their solutions are (1) send work packages offshore, principally to Indian, and (2) bring foreign, temporary workers onshore, again principally from Indian. (Those lucky Indians speak English.) The big factor about these folks isn't that they aren't White, (who cares? certainly not the Company), but that they aren't North American and work for much less than NA wages.

These global workers are as deserving of a break as resident minorities; their beginning to get it and the trend will continue. As a person who still has a racially oriented attitude you ought to understand that this global competition will retard the further
advancement of Blacks and Latinos in the U.S. The bigger problem will be the affect the poor and middle class regardless of race while having little effect of on the very rich. However I'll grant that one coincidental outcome of the impoverishment of poor & middle classes might be a resurgence of racism, with all races resenting whatever advantage, real or imagined, that another race might have.

[Ajani]

Perhaps you give too little credit to the personal efforts of Blacks and Hispanics ( ... I thought they preferred 'Latino' these days). The case of Asians enjoying higher incomes, as you mention, is due to a culture that values education, initiative, and hard work. Perhaps the aforementioned groups are learning these habits too. In any case there is now no danger of sliding back to sort of racism of the '50s.

Personally as very ordinary white person of very modest means who has many more poor white relatives than wealthy one, I deeply resent the assertion that (all) whites are privileged. I have seen no sign of it my personal life. Throughout much of U.S. poor Whites still out number the poor of other races.

You are living in the past, Sir T. The enemy for the poor and middle classes of the U.S. and other western countries is globalization and classism, not racism. Sure, vestiges of racism remain; sure, it's still a bad thing. But the really bad thing is that it blinds Americans to more contemporary problems.

The company I work for, like most large companies today, not racist. They want skilled workers and want them cheap. Their solutions are (1) send work packages offshore, principally to Indian, and (2) bring foreign, temporary workers onshore, again principally from Indian. (Those lucky Indians speak English.) The big factor about these folks isn't that they aren't White, (who cares? certainly not the Company), but that they aren't North American and work for much less than NA wages.

These global workers are as deserving of a break as resident minorities; their beginning to get it and the trend will continue. As a person who still has a racially oriented attitude you ought to understand that this global competition will retard the further
advancement of Blacks and Latinos in the U.S. The bigger problem will be the affect the poor and middle class regardless of race while having little effect of on the very rich. However I'll grant that one coincidental outcome of the impoverishment of poor & middle classes might be a resurgence of racism, with all races resenting whatever advantage, real or imagined, that another race might have.

I Agree...

I think that while racism still does and probably always will exist to some extent, I don't believe it is the major source of problems for minorities in North America. Classism is a much bigger issue... and confusing class prejudice with Racism is a major problem in the African American and Latino communities... Crying racism when that is not the real problem creates a lack of sympathy to your plight. It means that people ignore you as being someone who wants a free handout or lives in the past, rather than someone who has legitimate concerns.

When Kanye West made his statement after Katrina that "The President doesn't care about black people" it was flat out wrong... As has been said before in this thread: The President doesn't show enough (any) concern for poor people... He likes rich people regardless of color...

The best thing about the US is the American dream... the idea that you can start off a poor immigrant, knowing no-one and with nothing to your name and with hard work and perseverance end up rich and powerful... The problem is that this is also one of the worst things about America... because it tends to lead to the belief that anyone who hasn't made it in America is either stupid or lazy and deserves to be poor.... this is where the Class prejudice comes in...

Some other small issues I want to address:

The wealth of the Asian population is mostly derived from a different culture and approach to work... Simple exampe: Go to an asian store/restaurant and note how many asian families live directly above or in the back of the store... they work and live as a family unit and combine their wealth... that ensures success and money for later generations... Look at how many Indian families live in a large 'family house'... where grandparents, parents and children all live together... When the sons get married, they bring their wives to live in the family house... They combine their income and create family wealth... Other races/cultures (even when they live in the same house) don't tend to create family wealth and do business together... usually the aim is to make enough money individually to move out on your own... start your own family... and consequently, split the money...

Also, while the Prisons are clearly over-populated with Blacks, the community in America needs to help itself... 1) Don't commit crime and then complain that the police target your crime the most... seriously, you are still a criminal... since you know that you are likely to get the worst sentence possible, then just avoid the damn crime... 2) Don't dress/act like a damn thug and then be pissed off that people are afraid of you and the police harass you... The thug/gangsta culture is not helping to elevate your status in the eyes of anyone... Note: I enjoy my gangsta rap as much as the next young black male, but I have no desire to be or look like a rapper...

So no, I don't believe in further affirmative action (based on race anyway)... I would prefer to see it based on income... Special emphasis put on increasing the opportunity for kids from poorer communities to get good education and into good colleges... I would rather the focus of these surveys be on the number of enrolled students with average houshold income of x dollars rather than based on Black, Latino, White, Asian etc...

[Woochifer]

You are right, fee waivers are out there, but the process is so frustrating many just give up and walk away. They already have enough problems as it is, and having to go through a process that makes them feel like less of a human doesn't help much. This is what they(the students) have told me.

Again, that's related to students not taking advantage of opportunities that already exist. You can say that the process is demeaning, but you can't make the argument that it's an insurmountable obstacle. With the scholarship program that I volunteer for, it's a source of neverending frustration that so many students don't bother to fill out the applications for awards that start at $4,000 and go all the way up to $15,000. For the students out in the suburban districts or at elite public magnet schools like Lowell HS in San Francisco, it's almost a given that the top students will apply for the scholies. It's just a different mindset, even though Lowell draws plenty of students from SF's poorer neighborhoods.

When Oakland Unified went bankrupt, all of the college prep courses were yanked in budget cuts. Skyline USED to be a pretty darn good school until Oakland unified allowed students to move to schools out of their living area but within the district. When that happen, Skyline went downhill fast. Tech has also gone down the tubes unfortunately. That state of Oaklands schools make even the most hardened skeptics cry. Hence why the crime rate here is so high.

I doubt that those schools dropped their college prep classes, since many of them are required for high school graduation. But, if the AP/honors programs got cut back that's very sad to hear. My former coworker went to Skyline during the early-90s, and went through a pretty solid curriculum. Her daughter now goes to a 6-12 charter school in Oakland that has an insanely demanding academic program. It's fairly new, so we'll see how it goes later, but the entire curriculum there is geared around college prep work beginning with 6th grade.

You are right brudda, and many have been pushed out of the system because there are so many applications, and not enough slots.

It's also the high cost of the privates that have pushed more applicants to the UC. Plus, it's the herd mentality that now drives students to apply to more than 10 schools at a time.

It was already in peril when they instituted it, and they have not been all that successful in having enough slots for everybody that fits in the 12.5%. Some are getting left behind. If the guarantee doesn't extend to their flagship schools, then what is the point? Is the message that UC wants to send "You minority and poor people are allowed in our system, but not at our best campuses?"

That master plan dates back to 1960 when Cali was planning for the future. It still guarantees a spot to any eligible student, but if you have upwards of 54,000 applicants to UCLA, there's just no way to accommodate everybody at that campus. People from all races and all backgrounds get turned down -- about 80% of all UCLA applicants don't get accepted. The challenge is with ensuring that the campus will have a diverse student body, and with the rumors getting passed around, a big challenge is simply ensuring that minority students apply to the UC in the first place.

Nice weather and nice beaches does tend to attract a large amount of students doesn't it? LOL

That explains why Santa Barbara is now the 4th most popular UC campus -- campus on the beach, coeds going to class in bikinis, parties in Isla Vista (okay, and a few Nobel laureates on faculty) ... yuh, that doesn't hurt recruiting!

There is not enough money in the need and merit based system to support all of the students even if they did apply for them. You hit the nail on the head with your comments on inner city schools, which unfortunately most minorities go, and that is part of the problem right there.

I'd like for the situation to get to a point where we're worrying about the programs running out of money. But, right now with some of the programs I'm familiar with, the issue is simply getting students, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular, to apply. A lot of seed money's just sitting there and rolling over to the next year.

Most all of the UC schools cost at least $15,000 a year to attend. It cost about the same to go to USC and the University of California at Irvine. It cost between $15-20,000 to go to all of the schools you named. It cost a little over $30,000 to go to USC(one of my boys goes there and I write the check) and upwards of $38,000 to go to a school like Stanford(my other son goes there).

If you're just factoring in the tuition/fees, the UC is NOT nearly the same as a private school. The annual fees at the UC range from about $7,000 to $9,000 ($15,000 only applies to certain graduate programs like Law, Business and Medicine/Dentistry). Two years ago, the fees alone for USC were already over $33,000 -- no way UCI costs that much. Even after including living expenses, the UC system still costs less than half of what a private school would require.

Another part of the problem is that once the poor kids get in, they cannot afford to stay in, or are so dogged by the cost of going they have to work full time which kills their grades. Three of one of my sons friends are having this problem now. Raising tuition every year for the last seven years is pushing a UC education (no matter which school) further and further away from the poor and middle class(which often do not qualify for grants)

Even with the cost increases though, the systemwide retention rate has gone up from about 60% to about 80% over the past 20 years. I know that at UCLA, close to 40% of the undergrads receive Pell grants.

Unfortunately this big change is not enough IMO. When you see minority enrollment drop like you have seen at Cal, then there is a problem.

Compared to where things were after 209 passed, the most recent enrollments are a huge improvement.

I think she is quoting campus wide all students, not just the freshman class. Parsing it down to just the incoming freshman can tilt the stat's in a direction that does not really reflect reality overall.

It's not parsing, since the freshman class data is tracked and consistently comparable from year to year. Add a four-year trend together, and you have a pretty close representation of the current enrollment picture. Latino enrollment at UCLA, no matter how you cut it, was never close to 3%. The students from LA Unified alone (more than half of whom are Latino) will far exceed 3% of the student body easily. The overall reality is actually closer to the freshman class data, because the post-209 dropoff in Latino enrollment was never as steep as it was with African Americans and it started trending upward not long thereafter. The current Latino enrollment trends closer to the pre-209 levels, while the African American enrollment still has a long way to go.

The linked article does not provide a number for African American students, so half is pretty meaningless without some context. What about overall AA or latino enrollment? That is what I am interested in.

Actually it does, the number enrolled is 233. Still a far cry from the 400-500 that would represent the entering classes when I was there, but a huge improvement from the ~100 that enrolled three years ago.

Your point was that admitted African American students are not choosing to attend the UC. That ~50% take-rate is just pointing out that African Americans who get into UCLA at least are choosing to enroll at a higher rate than the admitted students as a whole.

It was compiled over the last 10 years, and completed last year. I do not think her study was just limit to new enrollment, that was part of the picture. She was looking at overall enrollment as part of a larger picture. I know that historically black colleges in the south have seen huge jumps in enrollment from african american students from California. I have seen news stories on CNN and BET about this. My brothers daughter could have gone to Cal, but chose Xavier College in New Oleans instead. I was really surprised she wanted to go to an all black college, she is latino! (I say good for her, and she loves the school!) I could give many more examples of this right in my own world. Jackie pointed this out in her survey. Black kids post 209 are heading towards traditionally black colleges in huge numbers, numbers far larger than pre 209. Another point she raised is that latinos are also becoming a significant presence on traditionally black college campuses as well, as these colleges are aggressively pursuing them. (I could almost recite her entire presentation, I used to be her audio/video guy during her many conferences and symposiums).

Can't argue with that. And that's part of the reason why I said that African American enrollment won't ever recover to the pre-209 levels -- because other schools have stepped up their recruitment of the top African American students. Sad to see the campus that symbolized inclusion for African American pioneers like Ralph Bunche, Jackie Robinson, Tom Bradley, and Arthur Ashe now perceived as a symbol for exclusion.

Once again, this is one campus of ten in the system. Overall enrollment provides a far better picture of success, than freshman enrollment which could peak or sink on any given year. Year to year data is even better.

But, the biggest dropoffs in minority enrollment occurred at UCLA and Berkeley. The current review process has only been in place for three years at Berkeley. I don't know their enrollment stats, but UCLA would not have implemented Berkeley's review process if it was not having an impact. (And historically, UCLA has had a somewhat different admissions process from Berkeley's more technocratic and by-the-numbers approach) The year-to-year data is out there. I know that more than doubling the African American enrollment over three years at UCLA is an encouraging sign, but no one's saying that the job is done.

The last set of budget cuts did impact outreach at the campus level. I remember that because I had a part time job at UCLA in their audio/visual department back in the late nineties. The office of the president gives the campuses their marching orders basically, so there is going to be some impact at the campus level surely. They are the center of the universe in terms of policy, so when the regents decided to kill 80% of the jobs in that department, I have some serious doubts about their committment to outreach. There are some jobs that volunteers cannot do.

Like I said, I don't know the role of the President's office. The efforts that I participated in were coordinated at campus staff level, and included faculty, students, and alumni. Even if 80% of the positions get cut at the President's office, I doubt that will have a corresponding 80% dropoff in the outreach initiatives.

UCLA may be a beacon of the UC system, but when you combine all of the campuses together, the number is no where near 27%. That is according to the figures Jackie was quoting to me.

And I have my questions about those figures. I'm most familiar with the UCLA enrollment, because I get briefed on it every year. But, if the issue is with the difficulty of minority candidates getting into the two flagship campuses, then wouldn't the other less impacted campuses presumably see increases in minority enrollment?

Ahhhhh, I see ya bum!! Defending your alma mater. USC still rules big dawg, but ya bruddah shows you some love anyway. LOLOL

We have just derailed the hell out of this post.......slips out the side door.

[Rich-n-Texas]

So how much IS a gallon of gas in Albany Mr. T?

[Woochifer]

I Agree...

I think that while racism still does and probably always will exist to some extent, I don't believe it is the major source of problems for minorities in North America. Classism is a much bigger issue... and confusing class prejudice with Racism is a major problem in the African American and Latino communities... Crying racism when that is not the real problem creates a lack of sympathy to your plight. It means that people ignore you as being someone who wants a free handout or lives in the past, rather than someone who has legitimate concerns.

Sorry, but while I agree that race is declining in significance, it continues to be a significant factor. It's not all about class. People who "cry racism" might have a bit more first hand experience than you're giving them credit for. While I think there is an element of crying wolf here, I've also seen enough in my lifetime to know that telling people that racism is not a major problem won't convince them when their own experiences say otherwise.

When Kanye West made his statement after Katrina that "The President doesn't care about black people" it was flat out wrong... As has been said before in this thread: The President doesn't show enough (any) concern for poor people... He likes rich people regardless of color...

The post-Katrina recovery in New Orleans, if anything, has proven Kanye West correct.

The best thing about the US is the American dream... the idea that you can start off a poor immigrant, knowing no-one and with nothing to your name and with hard work and perseverance end up rich and powerful... The problem is that this is also one of the worst things about America... because it tends to lead to the belief that anyone who hasn't made it in America is either stupid or lazy and deserves to be poor.... this is where the Class prejudice comes in...

Some other small issues I want to address:

The wealth of the Asian population is mostly derived from a different culture and approach to work... Simple exampe: Go to an asian store/restaurant and note how many asian families live directly above or in the back of the store... they work and live as a family unit and combine their wealth... that ensures success and money for later generations... Look at how many Indian families live in a large 'family house'... where grandparents, parents and children all live together... When the sons get married, they bring their wives to live in the family house... They combine their income and create family wealth... Other races/cultures (even when they live in the same house) don't tend to create family wealth and do business together... usually the aim is to make enough money individually to move out on your own... start your own family... and consequently, split the money...

The Asian example is one of the more egregious wedges that have been used against African Americans and Latinos. The thing to keep in mind here is that Asians, as a group, are the single most educated race cohort in the U.S. All of those Asian families cramming into the backs of those businesses? Most of the parents are college educated, and came here with a college education. Same goes with many of the busboys and dishwashers that work in the kitchens.

This whole "model minority" myth emerged after the 1964 immigration reform, which drastically increased the immigration quotas from Asia. Those who got the green cards were the elites, the most educated citizens. They might have been engineers and nurses back in Asia, but once they landed in the U.S., they often wound up taking jobs at the post office or in retail stores or restaurants. Asians, as a group, might have a high average income. But, a lot of that was due to more workers per household. And if you consider the education level of Asians, their income is way under what a white household with comparable education earns.

Over the last 20+ years, this has now evolved into Asian immigrants coming into the U.S. not only with the higher education pedigree, but bringing boatloads of money with them as well. They are no longer chasing an American dream -- they view the U.S. as another investment opportunity to add to their portfolio.

In social research, the single most significant correlation in determining upward mobility is the education level of the parents. Asians have a component of upward mobility because their background already puts them a leg up.

Also consider that the Hmong, Laotians, and Cambodians have some of the highest poverty rates of any racial/ethnic group. No surprise that you find that the immigrant parents also came to the U.S. (many of them as refugees) with relatively low education levels.

Also, while the Prisons are clearly over-populated with Blacks, the community in America needs to help itself... 1) Don't commit crime and then complain that the police target your crime the most... seriously, you are still a criminal... since you know that you are likely to get the worst sentence possible, then just avoid the damn crime... 2) Don't dress/act like a damn thug and then be pissed off that people are afraid of you and the police harass you... The thug/gangsta culture is not helping to elevate your status in the eyes of anyone... Note: I enjoy my gangsta rap as much as the next young black male, but I have no desire to be or look like a rapper...

At the same time, you might want to also tell the authorities to stop racial profiling. I can tell you that every male African American student I knew in grad school at Berkeley, at some point, has gotten harassed by the cops. One of them grew up in Virginia, and got so tired of getting pulled aside and questioned by the police, that he began dressing ultra preppy. It looked almost ridiculous, but at least it reduced the frequency of harassment (though it didn't stop entirely).

On his way to class, another classmate got pinned against the wall with two guns pointed at his face, while getting strip searched. Of course, they found nothing and had to let him go. This guy was a Ph.D. candidate with a clean record, and one of the smartest and nicest people I knew. His only fault was being born with a mean looking face and a 6'6" frame, oh and a dark hued skin tone. And no, he did not dress like a gangsta, unless you think that Berkeley sweatshirts and blue jeans are the new gangbanger's gear.

So no, I don't believe in further affirmative action (based on race anyway)... I would prefer to see it based on income... Special emphasis put on increasing the opportunity for kids from poorer communities to get good education and into good colleges... I would rather the focus of these surveys be on the number of enrolled students with average houshold income of x dollars rather than based on Black, Latino, White, Asian etc...

The problem I have with the assault on affirmative action is that it dances around the direct point that race remains a major issue. By eliminating it altogether, it's nothing more than an acceptance and reinforcement of the status quo, and a belief that racism has absolutely no effect on social mobility. You don't see a rush by private industry or private universities to junk their affirmative action programs, because they understand you have to consider race among many many other factors.

One of my college professors was often hired by Fortune 500 companies to evaluate their hiring practices. For these companies, she and her research staff would fill out job applications with some applications including names or code language or organizational affiliations that would fit certain racial stereotypes. These were race blind applications, yet the "minority" candidate more often than not would get fewer call backs and interviews than a "white" candidate with equivalent or even inferior credentials. And this pattern repeated itself time after time. This just demonstrates that even if you make a process race blind, it does nothing more than reinforce the status quo.

And it points out why so many friends of mine used to write two versions of their resume -- the real one that has all of their affiliations, jobs, and interests; and the "whitewashed" one that eliminates any references that might reveal their racial/ethnic background.