While I disagree with the SC decision, I also agree with Biden that a new standard is needed. Race alone could never cover all the possibilities and struggles students faced growing up, and while it was a "good enough" yardstick, I hope we come up with something better.
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
66 points (97.1% liked)
News
23440 readers
3241 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Economic conditions are by far the best measure of one's opportunity in life and should be the standard we use to give the downtrodden a boost.
That seems like a disaster with the student loan situation. You're letting in people who will not only need loans, but BECAUSE they need loans.
The answer is public funding for college.
Just make it free or extremely cheap.
I agree that college should be publicly funded, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Even CA, where college tution-free is in the state constitution, has found ways to get tens of thousand of dollars out of even residents in "fees."
Because fees aren't tuition, apparently.
I've been involved in higher ed for a long time, and I don't know anyplace where government funding for college or university is increasing. Even the free CC idea seems to be a non-starter.
I think it's because there are a couple of problems with higher education.
One, it really doesn't have any rules or regulations outside of FERPA laws. Everything else is the wild, wild west in terms of how colleges treat students, so that leaves a lot of room for colleges to mistreat or take advantage of students until they're motivated enough to litigate, if that's even possible for all but the wealthiest of students.
Two, there's no standards of higher education. There are standards for primary education, but little checks on the quality of your education beyond that. Only other way to "check if the product is good" is to take personal time showing up to lectures but that's not really a feasible solution.
Three, all colleges are for profit companies. Public or Private, it doesn't matter, the only difference is the scale of greed. The real goal here should be to rip the money and profits out of the hands of executives and committee members. Personally, I'm in favor of eminent domaining all colleges.
Four, why is a national good (the education of it's citizens) being held by individual colleges? Seriously, the Department of Education has about two to three decades worth of work trying to catch up on all this BS.
1, 2, and 4 are mistaken, I'm afraid. I've spent a long time in universities. Almost two decades. For points 1 and 2, there's the accreditation process. Accreditation is a huge deal. It takes a couple years to get accredited, and that accreditation has to be renewed every so often. That means people ARE coming to watch individual classes, inspect outcomes, etc. and so forth. Generally, students have to attend an accredited school in order to get federal funding. It's those boards that grand accredit schools that set rules and standards. That's why DeSantis is trying to set up his own accreditation system: he doesn't want Florida schools to have to meet the nation-wide standards those accreditation boards provide. And we saw some of those for-profit schools that took federal money shut down permanently not too long ago for bad outcomes.
For 4, the LAST FUCKING THING YOU WANT is government dictating what's taught, especially in higher ed. Can you imagine what would happen if some political party got its claws into whatever federal mechanism set curriculum? You want independent scholars teaching their expertise regardless of the political implications of those teachings. Yes, that scholar needs to be qualified by the opinions of their peers, and no, academic freedom shouldn't allow a historian to present an exegesis of the Book of Mormon or whatever, unless they are specifically a historian of Mormonism. But consider the current political environment. Do you really want the government to step into a polisci course on civil rights and say there shall be no discussion of race or sexual orientation in these classes? Surely being aware of those movements is fucking key to understanding the Civil Rights movement. Or perhaps it might say an IR class shall only teach Social Darwinism and Manifest Destiny.
I generally think government is worth the cost and the trouble it causes, and is generally better for society than lack of one. But once you let it start telling you what to teach, you've stepped into 1984.
As a European, the apparent fixation on race much of the US seems to still have (judging by media I See) is weird and extremely anachronistic. Why would you not look at socioeconomic status instead?
Its good if you guys use new metrics now. I'm not sure it really was good enough-I wouldn't know, but I can't imagine
Because a culture of shared suffering is the only coherent cultural divide left in America. Every other culture has mixed and blended such that it isn't completely obvious you are with one group or another unless you are suffering as part of that group. Even some rich people look poor and poor people can look rich.
But looking rich/poor does not equate to opportunity and perspective.
yeah this is hopefully a chance to come up with something better than what was in place before.
great, they can get rid of Clarance Thomas now.
It's the hypocrisy for me. One of the judges that voted to overturn it, benefited from it. Give you one guess which one.
I think schools should use something like the zip code a student lives in. That would allow them to look at the demographic makeup and median income of the area, which are much more equitable factors to consider than race alone. It would enable them to increase academic opportunities for those who are underserved by the current system regardless of the student's race. And as we know, here in the US, the poorer zip codes also have more minorities, generally speaking.
I generally agree, but to play devil's advocate: what's to stop well-off parents from purchasing property in a poor area and marking that down as their residence to give their kids an edge?
List by taxable primary residence? Seems easy enough.
It should be based on primary residence.
view more: next ›