don't want to go college because of too many asians

[1exotic]

this thread.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Lomac

The problem is that no matter how many books you read, nor how many binders you fill with notes, you still can't advance in certain jobs without that piece of paper stating you actually know that information. It's not that people necessarily want their degree in such-and-such, it's because it's so often a requirement.

That doesn't change the fact that there are too many people chasing too few jobs and too few people chasing trade jobs. The few white-collar jobs are going to go to the few best candidates anyway (and companies are not focussing on people who have the best grades). This pushes down wages for white-collar work and leaves the rest of the degree holders to work at Starbucks.

Okay, so how and what would you base this screening on? Social peers? Who their parents are? Their grades in school? An IQ test? Or perhaps a simple written and oral test designed to tax their knowledge on certain subjects?

Grades, Standardized tests, community work, essays for first stage applicants and a personal interview to pick the final candidates. The school should also consider whether a parent or sibling went to the school. That's how you create a small, selective and diverse class. You get to know the students as much as possible before. You don't just send an acceptance letter based on a person's grades.

...yet disagree with this. Again, how do you screen students in order for them to become said elite students? As stated, thousands of students who hold GPA's of 3.8+ apply to universities throughout Canada every year. You can't base a screening standard on grades alone,

See above

yet going into areas like who you know creates an unfair advantage for those students who have family members already well connected in various places.

If there are a few marginal people who get in due to connections, so what?

Do you believe in affirmative action? If you do, there is no difference between the two.

I don't think the majority of people feel that they're entitled to an expensive degree for the lowest price possible. It's simply that if tuition was jacked up to the price that it really is, most people wouldn't be able to afford it.

Boo-effing-hoo. I think people would work a lot harder in school, and they would pick degrees which have a high future financial return. If company's have to fight for good job candidates, wages will increase and signing bonuses often cover the cost of school. This was what the job market was like for IT graduates during the early phases of the dot-com boom. This is about the alignment between the skill set of the work force and the skills required by society.

It doesn't matter how smart you are, there are only a very limited amount of scholarships available to the market. Someone who could be the next Einstein, Tesla, or whomever else may not be able to afford an education at a high calibre school (read: not an Ivy League school, but at least a high ranking one), and is instead relegated to a community college or a mid-range University like UBC at best. In fact, if he was subjected to a screening process like you proposed earlier, he may not even be able to get into a career path that he wanted.

I don't really agree with this. Scholarships are always available for top candidates and most innovation is still coming out of expensive American schools, not Canadian degree mills.

That tangent aside, many people who may be capable of changing the face of the earth for the better may be left behind and instead relegated to blue collar jobs or working as an accountant instead of behind a lab desk, experimenting.

The people who are capable of getting into grad school would certainly be selected for undergraduate degree programs. My concern is for the thousands of other graduates with expensive tax-payer funded degrees that are working low end jobs and have driven down the wage to the point that it is pretty much impossible for them to even afford housing in Vancouver.

[m!chael]

LOL this thread is awesome

[MindBomber]

This thread is going nowhere.

Is like trying to convince Steven Harper to vote Liberal.

[slammer111]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Being stuck in a group for projects with somone that cannot speak english is beyond frustrating

when i first attended BCIT i remember we had a pretty large project with a week to do it, and one guy in our group could not speak english even to convey an idea on what should be done or how to do it

His contribution? he came to class the next day and handed out pirated copies of microsoft Excel to our group lol

Shoot, I spit out my lunch.

[darkfroggy]

Affirmative action is fucking retarded.

Bright kids with futures don't get in because some dumbass was a certain skin colour.

[t_sack]

its alllll gooodd. makes it easier for china to take over the world with no resistance

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

This thread is going nowhere.

Is like trying to convince Steven Harper to vote Liberal.

It's going nowhere because you haven't been able to come up with any worthy arguments showing why taxpayers should fund expensive degrees for many thousands of mediocre candidates who struggle to earn a living post-graduation and end up leaving the country to work in countries like PRC and Hong Kong where the job prospects are much better and the skill set required, lower.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

Affirmative action is fucking retarded.

Bright kids with futures don't get in because some dumbass was a certain skin colour.

It's not really about skin color. It's about bringing diverse view points and people from different socio-economic backgrounds into the class profile. If you came from a certain background, it's probably fairer for you to compete against your own peer group, than to be a marginal candidate with a profile similar to the rest of the class who scored better than you did.

[darkfroggy]

Originally Posted by Marco911

It's not really about skin color. It's about bringing diverse view points and people from different socio-economic backgrounds into the class profile. If you came from a certain background, it's probably fairer for you to compete against your own peer group, than to be a marginal candidate with a profile similar to the rest of the class who scored better than you did.

So if I'm X, that means I have to work twice as hard as Y to get in?

AA screws people over. Spots are supposed to be earned, not given.

Canadians students can practically go into any domestic University they wish, government will loan you until you can repay.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

So if I'm X, that means I have to work twice as hard as Y to get in?

No, you have to meet the standard of other Xs. A Y from an underpriviledged background who is at the top of other Ys might make up about 5% of the class.

AA screws people over. Spots are supposed to be earned, not given.

People are not competing on a level playing field, so there has to be a few spots reserved to ensure that the class represents people from diverse backgrounds.

Canadians students can practically go into any domestic University they wish, government will loan you until you can repay.

That is why there is almost no value to a Canadian undergraduate degree other than Engineering.

[darkfroggy]

Originally Posted by Marco911

No, you have to meet the standard of other Xs. A Y from an underpriviledged background who is at the top of other Ys might make up about 5% of the class.




People are not competing on a level playing field, so there has to be a few spots reserved to ensure that the class represents people from diverse backgrounds.




That is why there is almost no value to a Canadian undergraduate degree other than Engineering.

What do you mean by "underprivileged"? In Canada, high school education is free and mandatory.

If you mean by material wealth, then I would argue that my family was underprivileged in that regard. Yet, I received no special entrance admissions.

Affirmative action is essentially reverse discrimination in place. Applications should be based on merit, not on your appearance.

Undergraduate degrees are not that special anywhere, regardless if they're American or Canadian.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Marco911

It's going nowhere because you haven't been able to come up with any worthy arguments showing why taxpayers should fund expensive degrees for many thousands of mediocre candidates who struggle to earn a living post-graduation and end up leaving the country to work in countries like PRC and Hong Kong where the job prospects are much better and the skill set required, lower.

Honestly, I'm just to busy to commit more than a couples minutes to a post in between homework. If I devoted more time to my arguments they would have better structure and content.

I'll admit my arguments weren't great, but they're a product of the effort I put into them. Just curious, whats your degree in, Business?

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by Marco911

That is why there is almost no value to a Canadian undergraduate degree other than Engineering.

Good; Glad to see that the degree I'm pursuing gets your approval for a valid, Canadian degree.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by darkfroggy

Affirmative action is essentially reverse discrimination in place. Applications should be based on merit, not on your appearance.

A talented musician, ice skater or football player who need to spend 30+ hrs a week practicing and has their grades suffer as a result, should they be denied a spot at university compared to a mediocre person who has almost no talents but has a lot of time to spend studying in the library and has better grades?

Should the Hispanic community be denied access to sufficient Hispanic doctors/lawyers who speak their language and understand the culture because not enough Hispanic people can meet the standard of an arguably culturally-biased admissions process?

If you have good answers to these questions, perhaps you would have a stronger argument against affirmative action.

[Death2Theft]

Just to throw a curveball into the mix....

How do you feel about more than 50% of post secondary population being female, when they spend all this time and money getting degrees..... only for the majority of them to plan on having kids within 5-10 years of graduation?

That means they blocked out a bunch of guys from getting into the class, who would have made real careers out of their chosen field only to have these chicks come in fart around in the field and decide ok time to pop out kids. Alot of the big $ corprate ladder jobs dont really hit their stride till 15-20+ years.

[rslater]

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

Just to throw a curveball into the mix....

How do you feel about more than 50% of post secondary population being female, when they spend all this time and money getting degrees..... only for the majority of them to plan on having kids within 5-10 years of graduation?

That means they blocked out a bunch of guys from getting into the class, who would have made real careers out of their chosen field only to have these chicks come in fart around in the field and decide ok time to pop out kids. Alot of the big $ corprate ladder jobs dont really hit their stride till 15-20+ years.

You bring up an interesting point as I have a freind who has a masters already in internation diplomacy, and is persuing her law degree, and has even admited that all she wants to really do in the future is have a family and kids and be a house wife. I questioned the same thing, why she would persue this avenue now, when she has already chosen her near future.

[Death2Theft]

So the real intresting question is..... where are all these over educated women going to find suitable husbands? Since less than 50% of post secondary is female.... Surely they wouldn't settle for a blue collar....

Funny part is all that education but these women wont be able to handle the simple cooking/cleaning etc stuff that guys want in a wife.

So a blue collar guy marrying these chicks isn't going to do it for money because she's going to stop working.... so what kind of guy would want to marry these chicks and for what reason? To have "educated stimulating" conversation? I think not.

Originally Posted by rslater

You bring up an interesting point as I have a freind who has a masters already in internation diplomacy, and is persuing her law degree, and has even admited that all she wants to really do in the future is have a family and kids and be a house wife. I questioned the same thing, why she would persue this avenue now, when she has already chosen her near future.

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

Just to throw a curveball into the mix....

How do you feel about more than 50% of post secondary population being female, when they spend all this time and money getting degrees..... only for the majority of them to plan on having kids within 5-10 years of graduation?

That means they blocked out a bunch of guys from getting into the class, who would have made real careers out of their chosen field only to have these chicks come in fart around in the field and decide ok time to pop out kids. Alot of the big $ corprate ladder jobs dont really hit their stride till 15-20+ years.

Ever think that not everyone is obsessed with just money and stuff? People that get masters degrees (or higher education in general) do so for the intrinsic rewards as much (if not more so) than the expected material rewards.

The women (and men) who obtain these degrees are not only getting a great educational experience, they're also expanding the range of their options. Who are you to judge whether someone is more or less deserving of university spot? If the student in question meets the qualifications of a certain academic institution then that person is deserving. People that are afraid of a little competition and then blame others who are more successful are pathetic. [i.e. blaming others because you weren't good enough to get accepted into X school] It is the said student's business what she chooses to do or not to do with her degree, not yours. She worked for it, you didn't. It's self-evident that women who pursue advanced degrees want more fulfilling lives. Maybe they want to be good mothers AND have a successful career. Having advanced degrees/skills gives them the option to not only pursue a fulfilling career after the formidable years of child-rearing but makes them more "attractive" as well. To many men (obviously you are not among this group), intelligence is a critical factor when choosing a partner.

[snowball]

I cant tell if Death2Theft is being sarcastic or not

[Death2Theft]

Say what you want but sooner or later you'll have to realize that you can't have both a full time career and raise kids properly. Look at how many young punks we have out there causing trouble that wouldn't have happened with more devoted parents. Look at all the singlemoms cranking out these future drug dealer/thieves, do you think more of these kids are going to be post secondary grads vs kids with a fully family?

I like intelligent women as much as the next guy, but there comes a point where you have to be "intelligent" enough to realize that if you want succesful full time career dont have kids. Or do have kids and leave them for society to deal with.

This leads into another tangent, about women demanding equal pay for work as men. Since we know how the majority of female grads arn't going to be busting their ass for the rest of their life in the field in which they have gotten/taken grant money from. (out of a pool of $ that could have been invested in guys that would have gotten more use out of it)
So why should women get equal pay to men if they arn't going to devote their entire lives to their career? How "right" is that?

So I'm sure you going to say hey women are equal to men! Your just too stupid to realize it!
Well we all know there are plenty of businesses run by men with pretty much only male employees. So if women are equal to men why arn't there companies that are 100% female and can crank out the same profits and earning reports as the male companies? Simple answer? Refer to the above paragraph.

Originally Posted by RollingStone

Ever think that not everyone is obsessed with just money and stuff? People that get masters degrees (or higher education in general) do so for the intrinsic rewards as much (if not more so) than the expected material rewards.

The women (and men) who obtain these degrees are not only getting a great educational experience, they're also expanding the range of their options. Who are you to judge whether someone is more or less deserving of university spot? If the student in question meets the qualifications of a certain academic institution then that person is deserving. People that are afraid of a little competition and then blame others who are more successful are pathetic. [i.e. blaming others because you weren't good enough to get accepted into X school] It is the said student's business what she chooses to do or not to do with her degree, not yours. She worked for it, you didn't. It's self-evident that women who pursue advanced degrees want more fulfilling lives. Maybe they want to be good mothers AND have a successful career. Having advanced degrees/skills gives them the option to not only pursue a fulfilling career after the formidable years of child-rearing but makes them more "attractive" as well. To many men (obviously you are not among this group), intelligence is a critical factor when choosing a partner.

[Vinny G]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

Who are you to judge whether someone is more or less deserving of university spot?

So you think the government should be subsidizing education for someone pursuing an essentially useless degree that the government has no hope in hell of recovering through taxes or societal/economic contribution?

Marco's right. If you want personal fulfillment, go to the library and read books. When you're spending $10,000+ in education knowing you want to be a housewife, you're past the point of "intrinsic rewards" and just going to school for your own enjoyment. How is it different from me spending $10,000 watching art-house flicks? Oh right, I don't get that piece of paper at the end.

For what it's worth, I don't equate intelligence with a person spending huge amounts of money and years of time on useless degrees.

[GabAlmighty]

FUCK

[snowball]

I think you're over generalizing to say that people with women with careers aren't capable of raising children properly. You assume that women are the only ones responsible for raising of children, what is the role of the fathers in raising these "young punks?" What about single mothers? You won't let them have equal pay, and with no child support you're implying they should somehow raise their kids without any money.

What about rich families with two career driven parents living in the west side, do you see them raising young punks as well? It is a socioeconomic phenomenon that often causes the situation where children aren't raised to "your" standards. It takes (arguably) two parents to raise children, why are you assuming that fathers should take no role in raising their children? That only men are capable of devoting 100% to their careers? Are we living in a society that has no compassion for the ones we love?

You've fallen into the hole of using neo-liberalist efficiency driven examples where men are still the breadwinner and women take care of the home and children. Your examples are a result of historical stigma and are only true because that's the way it's always been. It has always been men taking the role of CEOs and upper level positions and only recently has this been changing, which is why you don't have examples of companies composed of 100% women... yet.

The declining birth-rate in Canada, and much of the developed world has much to do with this too. Families (not just women) are choosing to have less children than before often because everyone is choosing career over family. Most of the population in growth in Canada is from immigrant populations that have come here not for careers but just for jobs so they can raise their kids. And just like many of our parents who sacrificed a lot to allow their kids to have an education, pave the way for their children to have a better education, which will allow them to have careers, and they too will have less kids too.

It may be true that CEOs and high level positions are held by men. But a you cannot define an entire economy by the highest level positions. Girls at a young age are beginning to dominate in many areas of early education even in areas of math and science because many parents have assumed that boys will naturally be better than girls at school: look up "Boys are being failed by our schools" on google or any academic journal for more information.

Also, the argument that women should be paid the same as men is a valid argument because the jobs that are being compared are equal-level, equal-seniority positions. What justifies the gender wage gap for the exact same work? This has yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by Death2Theft

Say what you want but sooner or later you'll have to realize that you can't have both a full time career and raise kids properly. Look at how many young punks we have out there causing trouble that wouldn't have happened with more devoted parents. Look at all the singlemoms cranking out these future drug dealer/thieves, do you think more of these kids are going to be post secondary grads vs kids with a fully family?

I like intelligent women as much as the next guy, but there comes a point where you have to be "intelligent" enough to realize that if you want succesful full time career dont have kids. Or do have kids and leave them for society to deal with.

This leads into another tangent, about women demanding equal pay for work as men. Since we know how the majority of female grads arn't going to be busting their ass for the rest of their life in the field in which they have gotten/taken grant money from. (out of a pool of $ that could have been invested in guys that would have gotten more use out of it)
So why should women get equal pay to men if they arn't going to devote their entire lives to their career? How "right" is that?

So I'm sure you going to say hey women are equal to men! Your just too stupid to realize it!
Well we all know there are plenty of businesses run by men with pretty much only male employees. So if women are equal to men why arn't there companies that are 100% female and can crank out the same profits and earning reports as the male companies? Simple answer? Refer to the above paragraph.

[Death2Theft]

The role of the fathers is to bring home the bacon, and support the mom in discplining the kids. Two career driven parents = latch key kids. Of course dads forced into having kids because the mom refused to get an abortion... well yeah lets just say I dont blame the dad if he isn't a 100% committed to raising the kids properly. Before you even try to say "dont have sex "to the dad, the end decision to go thru with the kid is up to the mom.
So to all the single moms out there i'd like to say thank you for raising the next batch of criminals/strippers etc.
I'm saying single mothers should either think twice before they spread their legs or consider abortions when they are not in the right enviroment to raise kids.

Money isn't all it takes to raise kids hence only one parent should be the bread winner, certainly I think there are plenty of capable house husbands around. However do you think thats what CEO career driven women is going to be looking for? I think not. She wants someone who can "meet her" same level of education preferable more earning power etc etc.
All money gives you are more OPTIONS. You have the option of sending your kids to better schools, tutoring, camps. Which in turn gives kids more chances to meet other people that do well.

So your saying in 50 years (roughly one working generation) there hasn't been one company that caters to women.... and have only women working for them, yet can crank out earnings?
Truth is women at work more often then not are just moonlighting till they find mr.right. They sit around and plan birthday parties, show pictures of kids, gossip and generally arn't as focused as men are about getting work done. If there was a group of women that wern't like this then.... there would be a company like I've described.

Good so you wind up with a highly educated country with imported blue collar workers to order around. Just make sure you dont complain about "those damned minorities" when they become the majority because you chose career over family.

Again you've missed the point here, the reason there are more male CEO's is because they are working from the day they graduate till the day they die with no real excuse for any "sabbaticals" in between. Especially if they are supporting a family as the bread winner. So you have educational genius females blowing guys out of the water, what does that accomplish? Know it all wives that are going to order their husbands around or have kids by themselves because they dont need a man?

Hey i'm all for equal work equal pay. Problem is women are feminists when it suits them. They want equal pay yet they arn't willing to embrace the other aspects of being equal. Simply put how many attractive girls have taken you out on dates compared to how many times you've paid for them? If women are equal then buck up and STFU.

In the end I think women are just as capable as men in anything but physical labour. I'm just pissed off at women wasting resources. Having education is certainly better than not but at the cost of taking someone elses chance away simply because of affirmative action? If you make the grade i'm all for it, but if you got in because they needed x females to get a 50/50 gender split then I dont support that.


So if there are any attractive non bulldykes that would like to discuss this further and stand up for your gender feel free to pm me

Originally Posted by Gatorade

I think you're over generalizing to say that people with women with careers aren't capable of raising children properly. You assume that women are the only ones responsible for raising of children, what is the role of the fathers in raising these "young punks?" What about single mothers? You won't let them have equal pay, and with no child support you're implying they should somehow raise their kids without any money.

What about rich families with two career driven parents living in the west side, do you see them raising young punks as well? It is a socioeconomic phenomenon that often causes the situation where children aren't raised to "your" standards. It takes (arguably) two parents to raise children, why are you assuming that fathers should take no role in raising their children? That only men are capable of devoting 100% to their careers? Are we living in a society that has no compassion for the ones we love?

You've fallen into the hole of using neo-liberalist efficiency driven examples where men are still the breadwinner and women take care of the home and children. Your examples are a result of historical stigma and are only true because that's the way it's always been. It has always been men taking the role of CEOs and upper level positions and only recently has this been changing, which is why you don't have examples of companies composed of 100% women... yet.

The declining birth-rate in Canada, and much of the developed world has much to do with this too. Families (not just women) are choosing to have less children than before often because everyone is choosing career over family. Most of the population in growth in Canada is from immigrant populations that have come here not for careers but just for jobs so they can raise their kids. And just like many of our parents who sacrificed a lot to allow their kids to have an education, pave the way for their children to have a better education, which will allow them to have careers, and they too will have less kids too.

It may be true that CEOs and high level positions are held by men. But a you cannot define an entire economy by the highest level positions. Girls at a young age are beginning to dominate in many areas of early education even in areas of math and science because many parents have assumed that boys will naturally be better than girls at school: look up "Boys are being failed by our schools" on google or any academic journal for more information.

Also, the argument that women should be paid the same as men is a valid argument because the jobs that are being compared are equal-level, equal-seniority positions. What justifies the gender wage gap for the exact same work? This has yet to be determined.