You are confusing being academically gifted with being willing to work harder. Show me a white dude who spends 17 hours a day studying for exams (like a typical Chinese student).
OK, "academically successful".
believing this myth is a good reason on why I didn’t try at school. In reality, smart people put in more hours regardless of gifted or work harder mentality.
The Bureau of Labor data shows those with high school diplomas had a 4% unemployment rate. College grads 2% unemployment rate. The government data from 2003-2023 doesn't show a time with too many college graduates, although we don't know what 2023-2024 will bring.
A lot of college graduates might be employed but not working jobs that need a bachelor's degree. There's a reason for the stereotype of the college educated Starbucks barista.The Bureau of Labor data shows those with high school diplomas had a 4% unemployment rate. College grads 2% unemployment rate. The government data from 2003-2023 doesn't show a time with too many college graduates, although we don't know what 2023-2024 will bring.
Idk I feel like it’s a little over exaggerated, but statistics show you are always better off with a degree vs just a diploma. I know plenty of people that had a decent paying job without a degree, but once they lost it couldn’t replace the income previously.
The United States economy has changed in the last 50-60 years. For those who graduated high school prior to 1970-1975, it was possible to have a high school diploma and support yourself/a family. You didn't even need a trade certificate either. Plenty of high school graduates finished high school and went to work in manufacturing/factory jobs or other lesser skilled blue collar jobs.
Sports are probably the best meritocracies, although there is probably discrimination on coaching staff hires. The NFL implemented the "Rooney Rule" which stipulated a minimum # of minority interviews for head coaching vacancies. And guess how minority candidates felt being interviewed and passed over? Just more tokenism dressed up as progressivism. The NBA has long been friendly to blacks and other minorities and now has female assistant coaches - but not because of the Supreme Court or whatever.
those are two different things. With good intent, affirmative action had a purpose, but it got dragged in other directions to the point of no return. Plus, I think it has been a cop out for some people making excuses.
yeah but not for everyone, why should one group of people get crapped on while others do not?
Who specifically are you referring to. The purpose of the Supreme court is to uphold the Constitution, irregardless or who it ends up benefiting. When the court rules like this, society ultimately is the winner.
Agree with your first paragraph, this is an important function of the court, to review past decisions and correct potential misguided rulings.
I do not see how legacy status can be considered in agreement with personal responsibility/accountability, fairness, and freedom like you said, but affirmative action is not. We can go and find a far-fetched example of affirmative action and punish the majority, but we are going to just pretend the legacy system is 100% perfect and ignore that?
I feel like this is an entirely different topic that is not that relatable to the Supreme Court decision.
Asians have been specifically selected for their skillsets and education from their countries to come here and work vs African Americans have historically been in this country for centuries and have grandparents alive today that are alive today that have been barred civil rights and education. You cannot simply compare the two or expect centuries of institutionalized discrimination to just go away that quickly. I do not know much about Latinos, so I am going to refrain from speaking for them. Last, I am not sure if you have not met any second or third generation Asians, but they tend to lose that efficient study culture and become more lax.
