A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
This explains much about you, Spanky.

Yes, that choice is consistent with the fact that he has more strategic intelligence and is more open-minded and practical than the dimwitted heads up the arses sheeple who populate your profession.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, that choice is consistent with the fact that he has more strategic intelligence and is more open-minded and practical than the dimwitted heads up the arses sheeple who populate your profession.

You clearly never went to business school.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
You clearly never went to business school.

You remain consistently wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

In November the people of Michigan voted to ban Affirmative action from any State decision. The vote passed by 58% I think. It effectively ended the U of Michigan plan (and others) approved by the Supreme Court. I voted against the ban, and think it a knee jerk and short sighted action, but it passed even w/o my vote (I don't vote for any winners in Mi. Statewide elections.)

Today I was reading a reprinted editorial from the Boston Globe (or some Boston paper), that criticized the vote. The editorial mentioned how some Mi. schools are trying to get around the ban- as an example Detroit is 82% black- Wayne State's law school is elevating "geographic diversity"- which wasn't banned- in an attempt to admit more black kids.

Again, I wish the old plans were still in place, but isn't it the height of gall and misplaced duty to the public for admission offices to try to avoid the will of the people like that?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Again, I wish the old plans were still in place, but isn't it the height of gall and misplaced duty to the public for admission offices to try to avoid the will of the people like that?

Doesn't it depend on the purpose? For example, Texas created a program that admitted the top 10% from every high school class into UT-Austin. It's created some problems, but has also helped ensure that diversity remains. And it's not race-explicit.

Now, I suppose that calling for "geographic diversity" is pretty much a bogus way around the intent of the vote, rather than a good-faith effort to comply with a mandate of race-neutral admissions while still ensuring diversity.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You remain consistently wrong.

I rarely encounter business-types (either in the real world or in academia) who are capable of the type of rigorous analysis, attention to detail, and ability to look beyond the obvious that is required even in some of the most menial big firm tasks. They simply aren't trained to think that way (and that's what they have lawyers for).

Outside of the "hard science" of finance, I find much of business acedemics to be the rough equivalent of "self-help" literature.

That said, please pass me another box of documents...

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
In November the people of Michigan voted to ban Affirmative action from any State decision. The vote passed by 58% I think. It effectively ended the U of Michigan plan (and others) approved by the Supreme Court. I voted against the ban, and think it a knee jerk and short sighted action, but it passed even w/o my vote (I don't vote for any winners in Mi. Statewide elections.)

Today I was reading a reprinted editorial from the Boston Globe (or some Boston paper), that criticized the vote. The editorial mentioned how some Mi. schools are trying to get around the ban- as an example Detroit is 82% black- Wayne State's law school is elevating "geographic diversity"- which wasn't banned- in an attempt to admit more black kids.

Again, I wish the old plans were still in place, but isn't it the height of gall and misplaced duty to the public for admission offices to try to avoid the will of the people like that?

Texas has a similar ban thanks to Hopwood, and the fix was for the legislature to put into place a top ten percent rule that ensured some diversity in the schools. Essentially, you can't get into UT or A&M if you're not in the top ten percent of your graduating class.

There has been a lot of complaining about it from all corners of the state. Alumni are pissed that their kids can't get into schools. People with kids in "good" schools are pissed that their kids are being punished for going to "good" schools. People from not so good schools get pissed off because of the sudden transfers in the senior year to the not so good schools. And I'm not sure that there's much evidence that the plan actually increases minority enrollment. The rule only guarantees admission; there's no financial aid associated with it.

ETA: Here's an amicus brief by some Texans for the Michigan cases sort of outlining the good and the bad of the Texas rule (they're in favor of keeping AA, so obviously, they're going to be skewed against the alternative plans.) http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissio...ercent-gra.pdf

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
I rarely encounter business-types (either in the real world or in academia) who are capable of the type of rigorous analysis, attention to detail, and ability to look beyond the obvious that is required even in some of the most menial big firm tasks.

I think you could probably say that about most of your law profs, too.

In the actual business world, as opposed to consulting business world, I've found plenty of detail oriented people. Perhaps even too much so, but it's a business and often those details mean the difference between massive profits and bankruptcy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Doesn't it depend on the purpose? For example, Texas created a program that admitted the top 10% from every high school class into UT-Austin. It's created some problems, but has also helped ensure that diversity remains. And it's not race-explicit.

Now, I suppose that calling for "geographic diversity" is pretty much a bogus way around the intent of the vote, rather than a good-faith effort to comply with a mandate of race-neutral admissions while still ensuring diversity.

I believe that San Francisco public schools do something similar with zip codes. UT's policy seems less bogus than SF's.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And I'm not sure that there's much evidence that the plan actually increases minority enrollment. The rule only guarantees admission; there's no financial aid associated with it.

How is financial aid handled? I would have thought it had to be similarly neutral--you can't give it to the "best" students, because that will hurt minorities. And you can't give it away on teh basis of race obviously.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you could probably say that about most of your law profs, too.

In the actual business world, as opposed to consulting business world, I've found plenty of detail oriented people. Perhaps even too much so, but it's a business and often those details mean the difference between massive profits and bankruptcy.

Perhaps my problem is that, as a litigator, I tend only to get contact with businesses with problems.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
Perhaps my problem is that, as a litigator, I tend only to get contact with businesses with problems.

I'm sure they're the ones who don't pay attention to details. When in the course of litigation I've learned how the business works, which is usually necessary to defend a case, I've been quite impressed with the detail and resources devoted to determining the best business approach. It amazes me that these companies would be willing to pay a bunch of recent B-school grads big money to tell them how to do it better, when they seem already to be looking quite carefully at their decisions.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You lost me here. What were you trying to say.

That I think both your most recent statement, and the past statement I paraphrased, were completely wrong.

Originally posted by Spanky
If I implied that I had formal training in philosophy or logic then I am sorry. That was misleading. I have formal training in economics and business management but not in philosophy or logic.

Ah. OK. I was wondering if your long career in politics had just pounded it out of you.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How is financial aid handled? I would have thought it had to be similarly neutral--you can't give it to the "best" students, because that will hurt minorities. And you can't give it away on teh basis of race obviously.

I think there are a few scholarships avilable to kids who are from schools that historically send very few or no kids to the state schools. That helps.

The other issue that comes up is that kids are admitted regardless of SAT/ACT scores. I have no idea how the kids from schools with low scores perform, but I can't imagine that it's very well. I also have no idea how much higher or lower those kids' scores are than the kids who were admitted under other programs.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You remain consistently wrong.

Oh yeah? If you're so f-ing smart, what are you doing HERE?

So there!:anon:

S_A_M