High-School Senior Controversial WSJ Article

[Irish Houstonian]

AA was never about fairness in admissions, it was about propping up minorities and women so that they could compete in the long run. The idea was that if more college opportunity was given, it would lead to generational improvements. We can argue whether or not generational improvements have/will happen. But, she is obviosuly a poster child for why AA is good. She was able to overcome her disadvantaged background.

I don't think anyone would argue that AA was/is fair to white males and Asians. Since, any preferential treatment given to one group will have an equal and opposite treatmeant for those not getting the benefits.

Yup. Which is why admission offices are constantly seeking the Holy Grail of candidates: the rich minorities.

 

[GoIrish41]

AA was never about fairness in admissions, it was about propping up minorities and women so that they could compete in the long run. The idea was that if more college opportunity was given, it would lead to generational improvements. We can argue whether or not generational improvements have/will happen. But, she is obviosuly a poster child for why AA is good. She was able to overcome her disadvantaged background.

I don't think anyone would argue that AA was/is fair to white males and Asians. Since, any preferential treatment given to one group will have an equal and opposite treatmeant for those not getting the benefits.

agree with everything in this post.

 

[irishroo]

Its incredible that someone doesn't see all that going on around them in the media and on TV and how it's changed. I'm 31 years old and even I have noticed the change in what TV gets away with these days.

Reality shows are, quite possibly, one of the worst things to happen to our youth. Is it any wonder that kids behave like little a$$holes these days? It's FAR worse than it was when I was growing up.

It sounds like you're either ignorning this, or making an excuse and labeling it as "progress". Which is absurd.

The destruction of family and values is not progress. Even if it seems to be "the norm" these days.

Every generation in the history of America has said this. Kids nowadays aren't that different from kids 20 years ago, it's just nearly impossible to recognize how big a jackass you're being when you're a kid.

 

[IrishinSyria]

AA was never about fairness in admissions, it was about propping up minorities and women so that they could compete in the long run. The idea was that if more college opportunity was given, it would lead to generational improvements. We can argue whether or not generational improvements have/will happen. But, she is obviosuly a poster child for why AA is good. She was able to overcome her disadvantaged background.

I don't think anyone would argue that AA was/is fair to white males and Asians. Since, any preferential treatment given to one group will have an equal and opposite treatmeant for those not getting the benefits.

I would add to this that AA is also about improving the college experience for all students at a college under the theory that you learn just as much out of the classroom as you learn in a classroom and that there are great benefits to being exposed to people from different backgrounds.

 

[irishpat183]

Every generation in the history of America has said this. Kids nowadays aren't that different from kids 20 years ago, it's just nearly impossible to recognize how big a jackass you're being when you're a kid.

While i do realize that kids are "different" from generation to generation....All while growing up, I NEVER heard kids that spoke to their parents the way that I hear them today.

Ever. Nor did I ever read about kids beating up their mothers.....


Now, that stuff may have happend and social media and the internet has made it more accessable, but I think that access and exposure to that behavior has made it "ok" in the eyes of some.

After all, if the kid on MTV treats his mom like ****...why can't I?


And programing was no where near as bad as it is today. There is no argument there.

 

[Ndaccountant]

While i do realize that kids are "different" from generation to generation....All while growing up, I NEVER heard kids that spoke to their parents the way that I hear them today.

Ever. Nor did I ever read about kids beating up their mothers.....


Now, that stuff may have happend and social media and the internet has made it more accessable, but I think that access and exposure to that behavior has made it "ok" in the eyes of some.

After all, if the kid on MTV treats his mom like ****...why can't I?


And programing was no where near as bad as it is today. There is no argument there.

I won't even mention what I did to my best friends mother.....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Its incredible that someone doesn't see all that going on around them in the media and on TV and how it's changed. I'm 31 years old and even I have noticed the change in what TV gets away with these days.

Reality shows are, quite possibly, one of the worst things to happen to our youth. Is it any wonder that kids behave like little a$$holes these days? It's FAR worse than it was when I was growing up.

This strikes me as serious exaggeration. Producers are still churning out the same garbage programming; the last major writer's strike just made them realize they can do it at a fraction of the production cost.

That's all "reality" TV is; get some people together, feed them alcohol, manipulate the situation to generate confrontation, tape the drama, and then do some creative editing to maximize the entertainment value. Before they had to pay writers and professional actors to create that drama. Now they don't. Same crap, higher profit margin.

It sounds like you're either ignorning this, or making an excuse and labeling it as "progress". Which is absurd.

I said nothing about progress. Just change. I was fortunate enough to be born into a traditional family structure, and I'm striving to give my kids the same advantages I had growing up.

The destruction of family and values is not progress. Even if it seems to be "the norm" these days.

Most people would call women's rights and the invention of birth control "progress", but their effects haven't been uniformly positive, to which the decline of traditional family structures can attest.

Regardless of your normative views, though, those underlying changes aren't going away. There's no going back. Railing about reality TV and the destruction of family and values is unproductive, and it makes you easy to ignore for those on the center and left as an angry social conservative.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

 

[irishroo]

Slightly off topic, but considering we're on the topic of kids nowadays:

Fifth Graders Charged With Murder Conspiracy Are 'Danger to Others'

What in the name of hell?

 

[GoIrish41]

Every generation in the history of America has said this. Kids nowadays aren't that different from kids 20 years ago, it's just nearly impossible to recognize how big a jackass you're being when you're a kid.

In some ways they are better than we ever were. They are more open minded and accepting of others. Because of them, 30 years from now kids will look back in disbelief that homesexuals didn't have the same rights as everyone else or that African Americans were not treated the same as white Americans. Theirs is the generation that I think will all but wipe bigotry away from our consciousness. Sure, there will be a few left over, but they will be so far out of the mainstream of American thought that they will become the castoffs. Kids will always have their issues ... it is part of growing up, but this generation is something that all the generations that came before them should have aspired to be, from a basic humanity standpoint.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Slightly off topic, but considering we're on the topic of kids nowadays...

Wangers on the glass? We never put no wangers on the glass at the Alano club...

 

[GoIrish41]

This strikes me as serious exaggeration. Producers are still churning out the same garbage programming; the last major writer's strike just made them realize they can do it at a fraction of the production cost.

That's all "reality" TV is; get some people together, feed them alcohol, manipulate the situation to generate confrontation, tape the drama, and then do some creative editing to maximize the entertainment value. Before they had to pay writers and professional actors to create that drama. Now they don't. Same crap, higher profit margin.



I said nothing about progress. Just change. I was fortunate enough to be born into a traditional family structure, and I'm striving to give my kids the same advantages I had growing up.



Most people would call women's rights and the invention of birth control "progress", but their effects haven't been uniformly positive, to which the decline of traditional family structures can attest.

Regardless of your normative views, though, those underlying changes aren't going away. There's no going back. Railing about reality TV and the destruction of family and values is unproductive, and it makes you easy to ignore for those on the center and left as an angry social conservative.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

I don't disagree with you often Whiskey, but I wholeheartedly reject the above bolded statement. If the traditional family structures were hanging on whether or not we treated women as our equals or giving them the right to make medical decisions on their own, then traditional family structures were not worth keeping. I believe that there are many, many factors that have gone into the decline of family values, but treating women as equal IS a family value that should be cherished.

I agree with virtually everything else in your post, but that one line kicked me in the gut.

 

[irishpat183]

In some ways they are better than we ever were. They are more open minded and accepting of others. Because of them, 30 years from now kids will look back in disbelief that homesexuals didn't have the same rights as everyone else or that African Americans were not treated the same as white Americans. Theirs is the generation that I think will all but wipe bigotry away from our consciousness. Sure, there will be a few left over, but they will be so far out of the mainstream of American thought that they will become the castoffs. Kids will always have their issues ... it is part of growing up, but this generation is something that all the generations that came before them should have aspired to be, from a basic humanity standpoint.

Good lord......cut the hippie crap. LOL

And although you make some good points....that comes with the "PC" era where there is no punishment as everything is about "Fairness" and having an "open mind". Which isn't a good thing all the time.

For example:
Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill | rethink societyrethink society



This is "better than ever"??

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't disagree with you often Whiskey, but I wholeheartedly reject the above bolded statement. If the traditional family structures were hanging on whether or not we treated women as our equals or giving them the right to make medical decisions on their own, then traditional family structures were not worth keeping. I believe that there are many, many factors that have gone into the decline of family values, but treating women as equal IS a family value that should be cherished.

I'm not sure why that line elicited such a strong reaction, as it was simply a descriptive statement. I made no argument as to whether the trade-off was a net positive for society.

In any case, this strikes me as a false dichotomy. Women's rights and traditional family structures aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Good lord......cut the hippie crap. LOL

And although you make some good points....that comes with the "PC" era where there is no punishment as everything is about "Fairness" and having an "open mind". Which isn't a good thing all the time.

For example:
Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation Under CA Bill | rethink societyrethink society



This is "better than ever"??

That article draws biased conclusions like a boss.

This is the key line in the article... "The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”"

Statutory rape will remain illegal in California. Period. Nothing follows.

What was blocked was getting around the bill by defining two gay teen lovers as pedophiles. That BS about liberals pointing to ancient societies that raped boys as an example was pure sensationalist garbage.

Conservatives (and here I'm generalizing greatly) love to cry about the fall of the new generation. I call bullshit. The newest generation is the most talented generation to ever walk the planet. Athletes have never been bigger, faster or stronger. Universities have never had such a rich choice of accomplished applicants. The Peace Corps and Teach for America are overwhelmed by quality candidates. The military has been able to widely expand its special operations and intelligence capabilities without losing any quality due to the large numbers of qualified volunteers.

Which brings me back to the original topic of the thread, the whiney girl. What she really learned is that if you want to excel in today's world, you have to be awesome. Really, extraordinarily awesome. The type of awesome that only comes with dedication and sacrifice. Without a doubt, some of her peers were able to bullshit there way through the admissions process, however most of them simply outworked her. They (or their parents) set a goal, and they did whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The ones who didn't will either learn to dedicate themselves or they will fail like Suzy, just at a later point. If Suzy learns her lesson, she will do just fine despite not getting into her school of choice.

 

[Redbar]

thank you.

Inequality has always been organized by categories, mainly b/c it's easier to organize coalitions and distribute resources when individuals are clearly marked into groups. the relevant categories shift, but the pattern has always been the same.

Race has become less relevant as a category than it was in the 1950s, but it is still enormously important in America. This categorical inequality works in favor of whites relative to nonwhites in almost every way, from childhood to adulthood. It is not perfect - meaning there are some black and hispanic kids who are extremely advantaged, and lots of poor disadvantaged whites. But it works at a system-level - systems like the schools, the criminal justice system, and the labor market consistently act to put whites in advantaged positions relative to blacks thru networks, resources, opportunities, and sanctions.

In recognition of this, we have implemented small-scale, often superficial policies that attempt to mitigate the pattern of systematic disadvantage experienced by nonwhites (I'm being general here, as the circumstance of different groups and their histories in the US are entirely different). Aff action is an example of such an attempt. It is not perfectly efficient, and there are lots of examples of people getting an edge who don't need it, and people who deserve an edge but don't get it. But categorical inequality or policy is never perfectly efficient.

There are two bases for opposing it. One is to deny that blacks or hispanics are at a disadvantage relative to whites in a wide range of systems in our society. To those making this argument I would just suggest that you read more. I didn't fully get how this works until I started reading a tremendous amount of rigorous research on it. Approach the research with an open mind.
The second basis for opposing it is that it is not a great system to counteract persistent categorical inequalities. I have more sympathy for this argument. It is not efficient at all, it leads to cases of individuals who haven't been disadvantaged getting a boost in the admissions or hiring process, and it leads to some very deserving people getting skipped over for reasons that, on a surface level, seem seriously unfair.

For those who oppose this particular mechanism of mitigating categorical inequality, a serious question: What should replace it? i.e. if we acknowledge that inequality is typically organized along categories, and we acknowledge that race remains an independent and important category, then what system-level changes would you make to mitigate race-based inequality?

I wanted to take a shot at thinking about some of the points autry, made.

The first basis for opposing AA as Autry said is ludicrous and those people who posit this are not being honest with themselves. The second basis I also have more sympathy with, but, for those who like to point out the individual case where someone got screwed or someone got an advantage due to AA, and then point out that it is inefficient or not "fair". My response is, what is efficient or fair about the systemic inequality that AA is trying to counterbalance? How many extremely talented minority individuals have been denied an opportunity to express their talents, how many inferior or average people have achieved the highest societal accomplishments simply because of the system that was put into place, a system of "categories" that Autry described. He says these "categories" and the "policies" dealing with them are not efficient, there are some advantaged minorities and there are some disadvantaged whites, but they work overall, on a macro-level. Therefore, the answer or counterbalance has to be one aimed at the macro-level also, not to the absolute exclusion of individual cases but certainly not focusing on them. If the problem or the disease is not perfectly efficient and there is some coloring outside of the lines, how can anyone expect a solution that is 100% efficient with no seepage? I do believe the race "Category" has become less important than it was in the 1950's, largely due to AA, and admission policies at our universities, so AA should not be a demonized policy it is one that is generally effective. Moving forward there will come a time when AA may not have any racial component at all, it may become as a few posters have said based entirely on economic opportunity, when that day comes it will be a good day. But as long as there is a "system of inequality", AA can be an effective tool for society in general, for the individual: life is often not fair. Some people have known that for a long time, some people like the girl that started this debate seem like they are learning it for the first time. (Good thing she had a distinguished sibling)

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not sure why that line elicited such a strong reaction, as it was simply a descriptive statement. I made no argument as to whether the trade-off was a net positive for society.

In any case, this strikes me as a false dichotomy. Women's rights and traditional family structures aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUO
I read your statement as cause and effect. If that is not how you meant it i appologize.

 

[autry_denson]

I wanted to take a shot at thinking about some of the points autry, made.

The first basis for opposing AA as Autry said is ludicrous and those people who posit this are not being honest with themselves. The second basis I also have more sympathy with, but, for those who like to point out the individual case where someone got screwed or someone got an advantage due to AA, and then point out that it is inefficient or not "fair". My response is, what is efficient or fair about the systemic inequality that AA is trying to counterbalance? How many extremely talented minority individuals have been denied an opportunity to express their talents, how many inferior or average people have achieved the highest societal accomplishments simply because of the system that was put into place, a system of "categories" that Autry described. He says these "categories" and the "policies" dealing with them are not efficient, there are some advantaged minorities and there are some disadvantaged whites, but they work overall, on a macro-level. Therefore, the answer or counterbalance has to be one aimed at the macro-level also, not to the absolute exclusion of individual cases but certainly not focusing on them. If the problem or the disease is not perfectly efficient and there is some coloring outside of the lines, how can anyone expect a solution that is 100% efficient with no seepage? I do believe the race "Category" has become less important than it was in the 1950's, largely due to AA, and admission policies at our universities, so AA should not be a demonized policy it is one that is generally effective. Moving forward there will come a time when AA may not have any racial component at all, it may become as a few posters have said based entirely on economic opportunity, when that day comes it will be a good day. But as long as there is a "system of inequality", AA can be an effective tool for society in general, for the individual: life is often not fair. Some people have known that for a long time, some people like the girl that started this debate seem like they are learning it for the first time. (Good thing she had a distinguished sibling)

nice thoughtful post.

my own take is that AA, in any form, is a problematic response in general b/c it is inefficient. the act of making up for structural inequalities with some policy designed to generate a point-in-time reversal of those inequalities will never work perfectly, and as a consequence it will lead to resentment and misunderstanding.

the best approach would be to implement policies and alter systems so that individual life chances are not altered to a large degree by where a child is born or the child's race or the quality of the institutions with which the child comes into contact. equalizing opportunity is a more efficient approach than trying to adjust for unequal opportunities with superficial policies like affirmative action.

but obviously equalizing opportunities has never truly been a goal of public policy and is much more difficult to achieve, which is why AA has been used as a quicker fix for a larger structural problem. so if AA is going to be used, what would be the appropriate criteria that would allow for the most efficient and effective way to adjust for structural disadvantages?

race is not perfect, as it ignores the fact that there are highly disadvantaged whites and highly advantaged blacks. income or wealth won't work b/c it ignores the unique and independent force of race. i'd vote for neighborhood poverty. kids growing up in poor n'hoods are exposed, on average, to lower quality schools, greater levels of violence, harsher policing,more environmental pollutants, and fewer economic opportunities. their parents have lower income and they are more likely to be black or hispanic relative to white, even after controlling for parental income.

 

[IrishLax]

In some ways they are better than we ever were. They are more open minded and accepting of others. Because of them, 30 years from now kids will look back in disbelief that homesexuals didn't have the same rights as everyone else or that African Americans were not treated the same as white Americans. Theirs is the generation that I think will all but wipe bigotry away from our consciousness. Sure, there will be a few left over, but they will be so far out of the mainstream of American thought that they will become the castoffs. Kids will always have their issues ... it is part of growing up, but this generation is something that all the generations that came before them should have aspired to be, from a basic humanity standpoint.

This is a highly questionable conclusion to draw. Where in the country do you live?

In my humble opinion, this generation of kids is nowhere close to being as "enlightened" post-racial/tolerant as you describe. A big chunk of them are... but a VERY large chunk are just as racist/intolerant/homophobic as ever.

Example: Georgia Teens Raise Money to Hold High School's First Integrated Prom Ever: 'Yeah It's Kind of Embarrassing'

On the surface, the article seems to support what you're saying... look at the kids raising money for an integrated prom! Progress! But as you keep reading, you realize that while a few outspoken students have the courage to take a stand, the vast majority are completely apathetic or straight up against the integration... to the point of ripping down posters, etc.

We're still a lonnnnnnnng way away from the rosy future you described for certain parts of the country.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I read your statement as cause and effect. If that is not how you meant it i appologize.

Well, I sort of did mean it that way. You can trace the decline to traditional marriage to the advancement of women's rights and the invention of birth control. Those two things robbed traditional marriage of its most compelling advantages.

The vast majority of Americans would describe those both as very positive developments, and virtually no one seriously argues they should be reversed. But they've brought about some titanic shifts in the social order, not all of which have been positive. For instance, kids born outside of traditional family structures are less likely to succeed than those who are.

Recognizing that isn't an indictment of women's rights or birth control. It's simply a recognition that the irreversible decline of traditional marriage has some negative implications for society, and we haven't yet figured out how to adequately replace it.

the best approach would be to implement policies and alter systems so that individual life chances are not altered to a large degree by where a child is born or the child's race or the quality of the institutions with which the child comes into contact. equalizing opportunity is a more efficient approach than trying to adjust for unequal opportunities with superficial policies like affirmative action.

but obviously equalizing opportunities has never truly been a goal of public policy and is much more difficult to achieve, which is why AA has been used as a quicker fix for a larger structural problem. so if AA is going to be used, what would be the appropriate criteria that would allow for the most efficient and effective way to adjust for structural disadvantages?

Rawls? Is that you?

race is not perfect, as it ignores the fact that there are highly disadvantaged whites and highly advantaged blacks. income or wealth won't work b/c it ignores the unique and independent force of race. i'd vote for neighborhood poverty. kids growing up in poor n'hoods are exposed, on average, to lower quality schools, greater levels of violence, harsher policing,more environmental pollutants, and fewer economic opportunities. their parents have lower income and they are more likely to be black or hispanic relative to white, even after controlling for parental income.

Not sure I agree with that. Most of the research I've seen shows a much stronger correlation between opportunity and class than race. Though I could get on board with some mix of class and race.

In any case, this is largely academic since elite universities don't actually use AA to further social justice. They get away with unconstitutional racial quotas (obscured through a "totality of the applicant" standard) to maintain whatever racial mix they think will most benefit their institution.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We're still a lonnnnnnnng way away from the rosy future you described for certain parts of the country.

Glad you mentioned this Lax.

In some ways they are better than we ever were. They are more open minded and accepting of others. Because of them, 30 years from now kids will look back in disbelief that homesexuals didn't have the same rights as everyone else or that African Americans were not treated the same as white Americans. Theirs is the generation that I think will all but wipe bigotry away from our consciousness. Sure, there will be a few left over, but they will be so far out of the mainstream of American thought that they will become the castoffs. Kids will always have their issues ... it is part of growing up, but this generation is something that all the generations that came before them should have aspired to be, from a basic humanity standpoint.

Conservatives (and here I'm generalizing greatly) love to cry about the fall of the new generation. I call bullshit. The newest generation is the most talented generation to ever walk the planet. Athletes have never been bigger, faster or stronger. Universities have never had such a rich choice of accomplished applicants. The Peace Corps and Teach for America are overwhelmed by quality candidates. The military has been able to widely expand its special operations and intelligence capabilities without losing any quality due to the large numbers of qualified volunteers.

The two posts directly above strike me as typically naive liberal optimism. Conservatives are guilty of worshipping an idealized past that never really existed, whereas liberals worship a utopian future that will never come to be. To think that humanity can be perfected through Progressive politics shows a profound lack of humility and understanding of historical context.

Which brings me back to the original topic of the thread, the whiney girl. What she really learned is that if you want to excel in today's world, you have to be awesome. Really, extraordinarily awesome. The type of awesome that only comes with dedication and sacrifice. Without a doubt, some of her peers were able to bullshit there way through the admissions process, however most of them simply outworked her. They (or their parents) set a goal, and they did whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The ones who didn't will either learn to dedicate themselves or they will fail like Suzy, just at a later point. If Suzy learns her lesson, she will do just fine despite not getting into her school of choice.

Your post is an interesting mix of social Darwinism (usually propounded by Conservatives) and liberal optimism, Syria. You think it's a good thing that opportunity only exists for the elite? What happens to the great, the very good, and the merely above average? What about the 50% of the country that qualifies as below average?

 

[autry_denson]

Rawls? Is that you?

...

In any case, this is largely academic since elite universities don't actually use AA to further social justice. They get away with unconstitutional racial quotas (obscured through a "totality of the applicant" standard) to maintain whatever racial mix they think will most benefit their institution.

Rawls wanted to minimize the consequences of inequality by equalizing outcomes after the fact. That's not what I'm arguing - I'm arguing for coming closer to equalizing life chances so that individuals with talent and drive are not constrained by their schools or the stressors in their community or the lack of economic opportunities when they reach adulthood.

On the last point: while I agree with your take on how AA has been used (at least by colleges and univ's), I also think the public discourse and public policies relating to AA have been driven almost entirely by abstract principles of fairness and justice and equality (as is the case in this thread). So you're right that it is an abstract and academic discussion, but public policy and public opinion on the issue is based on abstract principles - even if judicial decisions and university policies are typically not.

 

[GoIrish41]

Well, I sort of did mean it that way. You can trace the decline to traditional marriage to the advancement of women's rights and the invention of birth control. Those two things robbed traditional marriage of its most compelling advantages.

The vast majority of Americans would describe those both as very positive developments, and virtually no one seriously argues they should be reversed. But they've brought about some titanic shifts in the social order, not all of which have been positive. For instance, kids born outside of traditional family structures are less likely to succeed than those who are.

Recognizing that isn't an indictment of women's rights or birth control. It's simply a recognition that the irreversible decline of traditional marriage has some negative implications for society, and we haven't yet figured out how to adequately replace it.

I didn't take your comments as an indictment of women's rights or birth control. Initially, I took your comments to be a shout out to the good old days when women didn't have equality and had babies when they were told to. That was the reason for the inital strong reaction. But I would like to comment on the post above too.

Many social changes happened in the 1960s and 1970s -- the Vietnam War, the draft the Hippie Movenment, Beatlemania, race riots, increased drug use, increased business travel, the rise of mass media advertising, rock music and disco, peace protests, a political convention that ended in violence ... the list could go on and on. The entire world was turned upside down in this period. I don't understand how we can isolate the women's movement and birth control in a world of change and say these were the reasons traditional marrage began to decline. I'm not saying they didn't contribute to the evolution of families, but surely they weren't soley responsible for anything.

Perhaps as much as anything, we should look to the greatest generation who grew up during the Depression years and fought in The Big One. Those struggles must certainly have had an impact on the way they parented their children. I would think if I had to go through those two major events, I'd have made a promise to myself that I'd never let my children suffer the same fate. Maybe that made the pamper their children a bit more than parents did just a generation before. Maybe that pampering created a more selfish breed of American -- one that ended up caring more about themselves than they did about something as old fashioned as traditional marriage. Generation X (I'm one of them) had its good qualities too -- great taste in music among them. But they came of age in perhaps the most volitile age in American social history, with numerous chaotic, world altering events going on all around them. They had parents who didn't want their children to live the constrained Depression era lifestyle they endured so they gave them unprecidented freedom to explore. I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say that any one thing led to changes in family structures. I think it is far more complex than that.

 

[pkt77242]

This is an interesting article. Talks about the real issue we face with marriage.

Opinion: Straight marriage is the real issue - CNN.com

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That article draws biased conclusions like a boss.

This is the key line in the article... "The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”"

Statutory rape will remain illegal in California. Period. Nothing follows.

What was blocked was getting around the bill by defining two gay teen lovers as pedophiles. That BS about liberals pointing to ancient societies that raped boys as an example was pure sensationalist garbage.

Conservatives (and here I'm generalizing greatly) love to cry about the fall of the new generation. I call bullshit. The newest generation is the most talented generation to ever walk the planet. Athletes have never been bigger, faster or stronger. Universities have never had such a rich choice of accomplished applicants. The Peace Corps and Teach for America are overwhelmed by quality candidates. The military has been able to widely expand its special operations and intelligence capabilities without losing any quality due to the large numbers of qualified volunteers.

Which brings me back to the original topic of the thread, the whiney girl. What she really learned is that if you want to excel in today's world, you have to be awesome. Really, extraordinarily awesome. The type of awesome that only comes with dedication and sacrifice. Without a doubt, some of her peers were able to bullshit there way through the admissions process, however most of them simply outworked her. They (or their parents) set a goal, and they did whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The ones who didn't will either learn to dedicate themselves or they will fail like Suzy, just at a later point. If Suzy learns her lesson, she will do just fine despite not getting into her school of choice.

I often agree with you, but when it comes to these two points I'll raise my hand.

1) Kids these days are more talented than ever, but 50% of college grads are unemployed or underemployed??

2) Universities might have more applicants than ever, but let's not pretend the generation behind us is brilliant and getting smarter. Colleges are lowering standards. Everyone goes to college. Globally the US ranks in the 20's and 30's in math and science vs the rest of the world.

So given the combination of "everyone should go to college" and the extremely low numbers of students capable or above average in math and science, what exactly are they studying in college?

I'm not saying evvvvvveryone in college has to be math or science or get out, but the reality is that industries with highest demand for labor are centered around those two.

 

[Cackalacky]

How about the necessity of a multiple income family unit for 90% of the country? I think that affects whatever "traditional marriage" is supposed be. If you grew up in a middle class family, 10-20 years ago, you probably had both mom and dad working and you were a latch-key kid.

I think what a lot of people are missing, is that as humans, we and our culture are very adaptable, but WE select what we choose to adapt to, and of course not everyone agrees, hence these....types of culture wars materialize.

For example, one could look at the below pictures and say on one hand, hey look at how the women's rights have been taken away and they are forced to where a hijab. Someone else may look at that and say hey, good for them, they are going back to a more traditional way of living. Adaptation is not a zero sum game which is what I think Whiskey is trying to get at. The summation of Iran's political, religious, and cultural policies have led to the visible changes below. Who won? Who lost? What was preserved? What was gained? Well for my part, I look at that and read the news about how Islamic women have little rights at all any more and I say, good for Amina Tyler.

1970s

2010s

 

[irishpat183]

That article draws biased conclusions like a boss.

This is the key line in the article... "The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”"

Statutory rape will remain illegal in California. Period. Nothing follows.

What was blocked was getting around the bill by defining two gay teen lovers as pedophiles. That BS about liberals pointing to ancient societies that raped boys as an example was pure sensationalist garbage.

Conservatives (and here I'm generalizing greatly) love to cry about the fall of the new generation. I call bullshit. The newest generation is the most talented generation to ever walk the planet. Athletes have never been bigger, faster or stronger. Universities have never had such a rich choice of accomplished applicants. The Peace Corps and Teach for America are overwhelmed by quality candidates. The military has been able to widely expand its special operations and intelligence capabilities without losing any quality due to the large numbers of qualified volunteers.

Which brings me back to the original topic of the thread, the whiney girl. What she really learned is that if you want to excel in today's world, you have to be awesome. Really, extraordinarily awesome. The type of awesome that only comes with dedication and sacrifice. Without a doubt, some of her peers were able to bullshit there way through the admissions process, however most of them simply outworked her. They (or their parents) set a goal, and they did whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The ones who didn't will either learn to dedicate themselves or they will fail like Suzy, just at a later point. If Suzy learns her lesson, she will do just fine despite not getting into her school of choice.

I call bullshit. You're talking about such a small minority within the generation. In reality, it's the most disrespectful, lazy, and entitled generation (Occupy Wall Street is a PERFECT example). ME ME ME...."I can't get a job", "I can't get into college" Full of this kind of girl. SHE is the norm these days, sadly. And sadly, we like to prop them up. Yeah, there are great things to talk about when it comes to ANY generation...but that can't polish the turd.

For all the "advancements" we've made....socially we're headed down the tube.

 

[irishpat183]

I often agree with you, but when it comes to these two points I'll raise my hand.

1) Kids these days are more talented than ever, but 50% of college grads are unemployed or underemployed??

2) Universities might have more applicants than ever, but let's not pretend the generation behind us is brilliant and getting smarter. Colleges are lowering standards. Everyone goes to college. Globally the US ranks in the 20's and 30's in math and science vs the rest of the world.

So given the combination of "everyone should go to college" and the extremely low numbers of students capable or above average in math and science, what exactly are they studying in college?

I'm not saying evvvvvveryone in college has to be math or science or get out, but the reality is that industries with highest demand for labor are centered around those two.

Exactly. College doesn't equal "educated".

Ask any starving artist or english major who can't find a job.


Kids are majoring in more worthless degrees now more than ever.

 

[Cackalacky]

Exactly. College doesn't equal "educated".

Ask any starving artist or english major who can't find a job.


Kids are majoring in more worthless degrees now more than ever.

What exactly is worthless? I think your statement is a prime example of how ****ed up our priorities are. Art and literature are key components to any society. Some of the best thinkers and contributors to society are artists and literary people. I find great intellectual worth in art and literature. Financial worth is a whole other nebulous meaning which I think is what you are hitting at. Just because not everyone can be Rowling or Koontz does not mean what they learned or how they express themselves means they are worthless.

If you are trying to crowbar a price tag on their contribution to society, well that goes back to my point above.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What exactly is worthless? I think your statement is a prime example of how ****ed up our priorities are. Art and literature are key components to any society. Some of the best thinkers and contributors to society are artists and literary people. I find great intellectual worth in art and literature. Financial worth is a whole other nebulous meaning which I think is what you are hitting at. Just because not everyone can be Rowling or Koontz does not mean what they learned or how they express themselves means they are worthless.

If you are trying to crowbar a price tag on their contribution to society, well that goes back to my point above.

What's worthless? Four years or more spent at an institution where a young person (or family) spends tens of thousands of dollars, goes into debt, comes out jobless, living at home, deep in debt because they chose to invest in areas of study with little to no demand. So they end up working in the food service industry, bartending, whatever...just to bring in cash until they realize they screwed themselves. That is not only worthless, but a ripoff.

 

[Cackalacky]

What's worthless? Four years or more spent at an institution where a young person (or family) spends tens of thousands of dollars, goes into debt, comes out jobless, living at home, deep in debt because they chose to invest in areas of study with little to no demand. So they end up working in the food service industry, bartending, whatever...just to bring in cash until they realize they screwed themselves. That is not only worthless, but a ripoff.

in your opinion and from a very narrow point of view too...... I wish I could understand the the level of intellect it takes to take a huge portion of the population and generalize their value to society into one vacuous thought such as this.