| General > General Technical Chat |
| Retracting my prior statements on "CTY", that CTY is gone |
| << < (8/10) > >> |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: tooki on July 28, 2020, 08:06:56 pm --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 10:56:50 am --- Unless you are a while male, right? Come on, you know what what they mean here. If you want do that and it's not public money, fine, do that. But don't pretend it's equally of opportunity because it is not. Example: Two kids in the same poor street, with the same income levels, went to the same school. got the same grades, both want it the same etc. But one is black, the other is white. By the sounds of it the white kid can't even apply for this scholarship. Heck, the two kids in this example could even be from the same home. Whatever this is, it's not equally of opportunity by definition, it is deliberately excluding "overrepresented groups". --- Quote from: EEVblog on July 28, 2020, 08:00:14 am --- --- Quote --- --- Quote ---I think you would find that you would get more under-represented groups if you did this - so there'd be more minorities and yes, poor white families too. --- End quote --- I'm pretty sure that if you are a poor white male, you don't meet the requirements of this scholarship. You don't even have a chance. --- End quote --- It could be. But since it seems there’s other financial aid types too (and that poor whites nonetheless do not share all the disadvantages that blacks and Native Americans have), I don’t think this is necessarily bad. --- End quote --- Yep, that's the way it sounds, white kids not eligible. Still think it's equality of opportunity?. --- End quote --- Dave, with all due respect, when it comes to issues like this, you have a privileged, myopic view. You don’t know anywhere near enough about how systemic racism in USA plays out to be able to defend the strong positions you hold. --- End quote --- Your refusal to answer the question is duly noted. It was rhetorical anyway, I know your answer. And I will not be baited. And you don't have a clue about my upbringing, and you are wrong that I don't understand. Don't bother replying, I'll ignore you, I know what you are like on this topic. Back to the topic at hand, for another school. I used to recommend UTS here in Sydney, now I do not since they lowered their entry requirements to engineering for women. Even women didn't want it: https://www.change.org/p/university-of-technology-sydney-female-equality-for-entry-into-engineering But I do not wish to start the women in engineering discussion again, just wanted to point that out. Anyone else have schools that they used to recommend but now do not? |
| maginnovision:
I used to recommend the school of hard knocks before it became a lifestyle. :-// |
| SerieZ:
To me the believe that someones suffering is more deserving of attention based on their skin tone is appalling. It becomes even worse when you then start to gaslight people in attempt to weasel out of confrontation. How many Sociology classes does it take to become an actual racist? --- Quote from: ebastler on July 28, 2020, 07:30:20 pm --- --- Quote from: Rick Law on July 28, 2020, 07:11:55 pm ---My reason to post was to retract my recommendations to fellow parents. My basis of recommendation was: Since CTY was pure merit base, it was an alternatives to those tons of other "academic honor/awards" that focused on everything else but merit. So, in that context, change or not wasn't even in my mind. Either way, the recommendation needs to be retracted. I was either wrong from the beginning (not a change), or it no longer apply for present-day (a change). --- End quote --- I still don't get what problem you see with this. Yes, one can debate about CTY's criteria for scholarships (i.e. giving financial aid to students): Should they purely be based on finanical need, or is it justifiable to also favor "under-represented" groups? But as far as admission to their programs is concerned, that seems to still be based purely on merit/SAT scores/whatever your measure is in the US. Your claim that admision is based on "everything else but merit" is patently untrue; it is based only on merit. So what is your concern? Those "other parents" to whom you have recommended CTY in the past can rest assured that their brilliant kids will only meet equally brilliant kids there. --- End quote --- You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination. As Dave pointed out it makes it exponentially worse if Government funding is involved because then you do not even get the choice in funding or not such a discriminatory Organization. |
| ebastler:
--- Quote from: SerieZ on July 29, 2020, 07:09:17 am ---You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination. --- End quote --- I don't think I jumped over the point. I acknowledged that the scholarship conditions can be cause for debate, but argue that this does not affect the quality of the CTY programs in any way: You still get the same bright kids, selected on merit only. And hence there is no reason to assume that the quality of the program has been watered down, or that the interaction between the kids might be less stimulating. The only reason not to recommend CTY's programs anymore seems to be: "I hate their guts, since they give money to the wrong people." Which is a political view you are free to hold, of course, but has nothing to do with the quality or goals of their programs. |
| SerieZ:
--- Quote from: ebastler on July 29, 2020, 08:59:19 am --- --- Quote from: SerieZ on July 29, 2020, 07:09:17 am ---You pointed the problem out yourself but jumped over the point that gives validation in not wanting to support them - they actively discriminate against a group of people. It does not make it Ok when you use obfuscate that fact and also impossible to Ignore if it happens your child got left out by such discrimination. --- End quote --- I don't think I jumped over the point. I acknowledged that the scholarship conditions can be cause for debate, but argue that this does not affect the quality of the CTY programs in any way: You still get the same bright kids, selected on merit only. And hence there is no reason to assume that the quality of the program has been watered down, or that the interaction between the kids might be less stimulating. The only reason not to recommend CTY's programs anymore seems to be: "I hate their guts, since they give money to the wrong people." Which is a political view you are free to hold, of course, but has nothing to do with the quality or goals of their programs. --- End quote --- I think the lack of Integrity an Organization displays is definitely a hint on the Quality of the Program they offer. If they thought about it to discriminate in such a way in the selection of scholarship, where else do they discriminate? And if they did not think about it, where else do they lack effort? That is as I think the whole point of his Objection to that Organization and as I see it a 100% Valid one. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |