Something like a 10% goal is lofty but a large numbers state like CA makes implementing it hard. No idea what the answer is there. For education generally I think we should end compulsory education sooner and plow those resources into the our JC and CSU systems to continue to maintain access to low cost and high quality voluntary education.

I'm far less concerned about a systematic 10% program as a method of sending the brightest to the highest, than to provide a solid educational background to the many. Raise the overall baseline and the rising tide floats all ships.

I'm personally against something like a 10% rule. The only way we're going to compete with private schools for top tier back applicants is offering comparable financial aid packages. We need to find that money.

dajo9;842814406 said:

---

In our society some people are always so quick to object to any perceived advantage given to a minority. Imagine living in our society and being like that.

---

How are you defining minority? By socioeconomics or race? Should Malia and Sasha Obama be given preference because of their race?

To have a real discussion, its imperative to have an honest description of what groups will be preferenced and why. I think a good argument can be made that young people from low socioeconomic groups deserve preference, because they face obstacles that other students don't - obstacles that have a direct bearing on their grades, test scores, etc. I can't make that same argument for Sasha and Malia, who have had every advantage in life or, for that matter, other similarly situated "minorities". What is your argument for providing upper middle class or wealthy minority applicants preferences?

BearGoggles;842814652 said:

---

How are you defining minority? By socioeconomics or race? Should Malia and Sasha Obama be given preference because of their race?

To have a real discussion, its imperative to have an honest description of what groups will be preferenced and why. I think a good argument can be made that young people from low socioeconomic groups deserve preference, because they face obstacles that other students don't - obstacles that have a direct bearing on their grades, test scores, etc. I can't make that same argument for Sasha and Malia, who have had every advantage in life or, for that matter, other similarly situated "minorities". What is your argument for providing upper middle class or wealthy minority applicants preferences?

---

Right, race was previously an easy way to roughly estimate a socioeconomic disadvantage due to institutional racism to satisfy the mission, the 10% from each HS is a similar rough measurement tool. What is the current mission and what problem are we trying to solve for? What % of admissions gain a preference based on athletics, race, or socioeconomic conditions (or whatever other factors our mission identifies)? Financial aid-should it be tied to those missions or have its own separate criteria and assignment and be blind to the special admissions criteria and be solely economic?

What's next, water fountains?