🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950225102814.9414A-100000@teer10.acpub.duke.edu>,
Ramar Wright  <vamarw@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 1995, Thomas Gauldin wrote:
>> Shavar Dakel Jeffries  <sdj2@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>> >Mr. Gauldin:
>> >
>> >The Bible says that "the people are doomed for their lack of knowledge." 
>> >There are probably more White people here (at Duke) than Black.  There 

DELETED
>
>Are you really suggesting that need-blind admissions is wrong?  It's bad 
>enough that it may soon be impractical, and now we have people opposing it?


NEED BLIND ADMISSION IS FINE-  However if a student cannot then afford to
pay the tuition, there are other schools that can take him.  Wake Tech, East
Carolina and other schools also offer an educaton that most can afford.   If
you're too poor to go to East Carolina, then you should probably just get a
job.

What you are suggesting is that SOCIETY somehow owes you an education just
because you are "qualified."

If a person cannot afford something without being a burden on society, then
they should not get it. 


If your concept was followed, it would be called communism and enslavement
of the taxpayers.  I'd like a Cadillac, but can only afford a Chevy.  You'd
like a Duke education, but if you cannot afford more than Wake Tech, that
should be all that you get.



around in a sheet. > >> >Students that are unqualified to be on campus are
not admitted because of >affirmative action.  At worst, think of it as a
tiebreaker between >comparable applicants. > > >> > > >> >When people like
you get out of their head that Whites are entitled to >> >certain positions
in society, you would not have to impose your prejudice >> >on others by
saying that AA stigmatizes them.  No, it stigmatizes you >> >because your
worse nightmare is coming true: Education for All.  >> >> >> <SIGH> My
personal dream IS education for all to the limit of their ability >> and
without any other criteria.  > >But you just said that ability to pay should
be a... oh, never >mind.  I guess I shouldn't expect too much internal logic
from you, since >you seem unable to grasp the arguments of others. > >> >>
-- >> Thomas A. Gauldin Here's to the land of the longleaf pine, >> > >Ramar
Wright >


-- 
Thomas A. Gauldin       Here's to the land of the longleaf pine,
Raleigh, NC             The summerland where the sun doth shine,
BSRB45A on Prodigy      Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great,
FAX (919) 676-1404      Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:

> >Are you really suggesting that need-blind admissions is wrong?  It's bad 
> >enough that it may soon be impractical, and now we have people opposing it?
> 
> 
> NEED BLIND ADMISSION IS FINE-  However if a student cannot then afford to
> pay the tuition, there are other schools that can take him.  Wake Tech, East
> Carolina and other schools also offer an educaton that most can afford.   If
> you're too poor to go to East Carolina, then you should probably just get a
> job.
> 
> What you are suggesting is that SOCIETY somehow owes you an education just
> because you are "qualified."
> 
> If a person cannot afford something without being a burden on society, then
> they should not get it. 
> 
> If your concept was followed, it would be called communism and enslavement
> of the taxpayers.  I'd like a Cadillac, but can only afford a Chevy.  You'd
> like a Duke education, but if you cannot afford more than Wake Tech, that
> should be all that you get.

Tom, you lost me there.  I'll tell you, I've been pretty ashamed on
your behalf, but I've been silent.  As a white student at Duke, I might
get lumped in with you and your rediculous drivel.  I'm glad to have
the chance here to distinguish myself.

THIS rediculousness is unlike anything I've heard suggested before.
If I had a list of the brilliant people who have gone to great
institutions of higher learning through under the auspices of need-
based financial aid, I would like to think that list would make you
retract your statement.  Even from a strictly business standpoint
financial aid makes sense.  If some kid excels in high school and
can't pay for college in full and up front at the astronomical rate
of today's tuition, then admit him.  Give him loans.  When he discovers
the cure for AIDS, he'll think back to his Alma Mater and drop a
million or two.

But that's the least relevant argument for financial aid.  Why would
you NOT want to have the SMARTEST kids at your institution if they're
available?  Duke wouldn't BE Duke without talented students!  Not
all the TALENTED students happen to be rich!  If they just accepted
students who could afford Duke, the selection criteria would rapidly
deteriorate.

Give me one good reason why the University would be better of without
me.  I got in here.  I need a grant and some loans.  My family has
to contribute a lot too.  So how does it add up that I should have
been selected against?

And if I'm incredibly smart and "too poor to go to East Carolina" you
say I should probably just get a job.  Right.  And then my kids?

This really runs against everything you said earlier (with which
I had to agree) that admission to institutions of higher learning
should be based on academic ability.

The question of equity in getting prepared for secondary education
is separate from this.  I just don't see the merits in an argument
calling for the end of need-based aid to qualified students.

-Troy

In article <3irgol$3jn@news.duke.edu>,
Troy Volin  <tvolin@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:
>
>> >Are you really suggesting that need-blind admissions is wrong?  It's bad 
>> >enough that it may soon be impractical, and now we have people opposing it?
>> 
>> 
>> NEED BLIND ADMISSION IS FINE-  However if a student cannot then afford to
>> pay the tuition, there are other schools that can take him.  Wake Tech, East
>> Carolina and other schools also offer an educaton that most can afford.   If
>> you're too poor to go to East Carolina, then you should probably just get a
>> job.
>> 
>> What you are suggesting is that SOCIETY somehow owes you an education just
>> because you are "qualified."
>> 
>> If a person cannot afford something without being a burden on society, then
>> they should not get it. 
>> 
>> If your concept was followed, it would be called communism and enslavement
>> of the taxpayers.  I'd like a Cadillac, but can only afford a Chevy.  You'd
>> like a Duke education, but if you cannot afford more than Wake Tech, that
>> should be all that you get.
>

DELETED
The fundamental difference in our thoughts is that I feel there are enough
SMART and DEDICATED students from financially adquate families to fill DUKE
and the other top schools.  Why is it necessary to use public funds, then,
to admit other, merely EQUALLY qualified students to Duke?  There are other,
almost as good schools with lower tutitions that these poorer students can
afford more easily.

Your statement implies that there is some mysterious "mandate" that anyone
qualified should receive the finest education available- regardless of the
financial ability of their family.  What reward is there, then, for thrift
and hard work by the parents?

-- 
Thomas A. Gauldin       Here's to the land of the longleaf pine,
Raleigh, NC             The summerland where the sun doth shine,
BSRB45A on Prodigy      Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great,
FAX (919) 676-1404      Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

>>>>> Thomas Gauldin writes:

   Thomas> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950225102814.9414A-100000@teer10.acpub.duke.edu>,
   Thomas> Ramar Wright  <vamarw@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
   >> On 25 Feb 1995, Thomas Gauldin wrote:
   >>> Shavar Dakel Jeffries  <sdj2@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
   >>> >Mr. Gauldin:
   >>> >
   >>> >The Bible says that "the people are doomed for their lack of knowledge." 
   >>> >There are probably more White people here (at Duke) than Black.  There 

   Thomas> DELETED
   >> 
   >> Are you really suggesting that need-blind admissions is wrong?  It's bad 
   >> enough that it may soon be impractical, and now we have people opposing it?


   Thomas> NEED BLIND ADMISSION IS FINE-  However if a student cannot then afford to
   Thomas> pay the tuition, there are other schools that can take him.  Wake Tech, East
   Thomas> Carolina and other schools also offer an educaton that most can afford.   If
   Thomas> you're too poor to go to East Carolina, then you should probably just get a
   Thomas> job.

   Thomas> What you are suggesting is that SOCIETY somehow owes you an education just
   Thomas> because you are "qualified."

   Thomas> If a person cannot afford something without being a burden on society, then
   Thomas> they should not get it. 

You are being very shortsighted.  If a member of our society is
very smart, and has the choice between being a car mechanic and 
going to college and becoming an engineer, I say we get more in the long
run from educating that person.  It is a true investment for the future
of society.  We should educate all the smart people we can, not let
them languish in a menial job.

Think of the future.

ah

=======================================================================

He [Bush] is a borderline incompetent, if not incompetent.
                -- Head of the conservative Heritage Foundation, 1992.

>>>>> Thomas Gauldin writes:

   Thomas> DELETED
   >>> 
   >>> 
   >>> <SIGH> My personal dream IS education for all to the limit of their ability
   >>> and without any other criteria.  
   >> 
   >> But you just said that ability to pay should be a... oh, never 
   >> mind.  I guess I shouldn't expect too much internal logic from you, since 
   >> you seem unable to grasp the arguments of others.

   Thomas> DELETED

   Thomas> The word "ability" extends beyond academic ability.  It includes family
   Thomas> money that permits the student to attend a fine college rather than some
   Thomas> public institution.  Why should parents exhibit thrift, intelligence hard
   Thomas> work if not to see that their children get every opportunity that they are
   Thomas> capable and willing to take advantage of.  

   Thomas> An education is not an entitlement.  It is a privilege that should come
   Thomas> about to students who have the three things necessary:  Money, intelligence
   Thomas> and good grades.  Others, who fail to have all three, are impostors who are
   Thomas> taking away from the benefit of parents hard work.  Why should I have worked
   Thomas> and saved to get my own kids into college if some do-gooder welfare program
   Thomas> would pay their way?  

You are very shortsighted.

ah

=======================================================================

No, I had no problem communicating with Latin American heads of state -
though now I do wish I had paid more attention to Latin when I was in
high school.
		-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle

scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:
>
> In article <3irgol$3jn@news.duke.edu>,
> Troy Volin  <tvolin@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:

> >> NEED BLIND ADMISSION IS FINE-  However if a student cannot then afford to
> >> pay the tuition, there are other schools that can take him.  Wake Tech, East
> >> Carolina and other schools also offer an educaton that most can afford.   If
> >> you're too poor to go to East Carolina, then you should probably just get a
> >> job.
[etc.  We've all read it, everyone keeps quoting it.]

> Your statement implies that there is some mysterious "mandate" that anyone
> qualified should receive the finest education available- regardless of the
> financial ability of their family.  What reward is there, then, for thrift
> and hard work by the parents?

I'm surprised you remember my statements at all.  You quoted your own
diatribe again, and didn't quote my statements in the least.  Very
productive.

Anyway.  Graduates of these 'finest' institutions generally do better,
get more opportunities and breaks into careers.  So the same families
will constitute the populations at these institutions.  And the equally
qualified students who were unable to attend will perpetuate a less
productive existence.

And, as someone more eloquently terse than me put it, why would we
want an equally qualified but less financially endowed individual
to become a mechanic instead of an engineer?  What's better for our
society overall?  What justification is there for forcing them into
a less productive situation for themselves and all of us?  And how,
then, can their kids have the opportunity for the 'finest' education
of which they themselves were deprived?

Given your views, I would expect a meritocracy to be your ideal.
Why do you object to this?  If you admit that these 'finer' schools
will produce financial results for the attendees, and they will be
able to pay back their loans (this is aside from affirmative action.
We're talking about equally qualified except for financial resources.),
then why wouldn't you want to increase the base (next generation) of
qualified and financially capable people?

-Troy

---------------------------------------------------------------
   From:  tvolin@acpub.duke.edu  |  "Water?  Never drink it.
    Troy Volin                   |  Fish [copulate] in it."
    Box 97076 ~ Durham NC, 27708 |    - W.C. Fields
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       "A man can succeed at almost anything for which
        he has unlimited enthusiasm." - Charles M. Schwab
---------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3itkvd$qhc@news.duke.edu>,
Troy Volin  <tvolin@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:
>>

DELETED (insulting and irrelvent drivel challenging my views of the world)

Something that has not been discussed is exactly WHAT DEGREES are minority
"affirmative action" students going after- whether at Duke, NCSU, UNC or
ECU?  I suspect that your will find that most of the minorities are avoiding
the legitimate classes, such as math, science, biology, engineering, physics
etc and going after the worthless, bullshit degrees such as education,
counseling and sociology.
 
These are the degrees that reflect more on 1) the speed with which you can
talk without spit flying all over the place and 2) your ability to parrot
back what the teacher says without actually gaining knowledge and are the
"easy" classes.

While on the same subject, what fields are the "affitmative action-types"
filling upon graduation?  Are they going on to legitimate careers in
business or are they entering "social services" or "government employment,"
and perpetuating the welfare system by catering to the underachievers of
society?


-- 
Thomas A. Gauldin       Here's to the land of the longleaf pine,
Raleigh, NC             The summerland where the sun doth shine,
BSRB45A on Prodigy      Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great,
FAX (919) 676-1404      Here's to Downhome, the Old North State.

scoundrl@cybernetics.net (Thomas Gauldin) wrote:
> An education is not an entitlement.  It is a privilege that should come
> about to students who have the three things necessary:  Money, intelligence
> and good grades.  Others, who fail to have all three, are impostors who are
> taking away from the benefit of parents hard work.  Why should I have worked
> and saved to get my own kids into college if some do-gooder welfare program
> would pay their way?  

You should work and save to put your kids through college because you should 
be ashamed not to give them every chance you can. A safety net to ensure 
that everyone with talent, ambition, and drive gets an education is a 
good thing. Failing to educate those with ability robs our entire society 
of the contributions these talented but uneducated individuals might have 
made.  

The increased taxes the educated pay more than offset the costs of educating 
them.  Duke Univ. has a scholarship pool, NOT supported by our tax dollars, 
because diversity in a student body makes it a stronger student body.  
Furthermore, those who are helped are generally more generous toward 
alma mater in later life when success strikes. 

I paid off the last of my student loans fifteen years after graduation
from college.  A tiny part of those loans was forgiven me for
teaching seven years in Durham's public schools.  The interest was
subsidized by the govt.  Unlike Phil Gramm, I am not about to burn
the stepladder that gave me a leg up; I think it makes much, much
more sense to support education than to build more and bigger prisons.

Educational aid should go to those who CAN'T pay rather than those
who WON'T pay.  Thinking of education as a privilege for those with 
money, intelligence, and good grades won't change the fact that too 
often, money alone seems to suffice.  

Gregor