Obama as president will be the hope to make changes in the educational system

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Democrat minimize the unfair advantages in educational system facing minority communities so that we as a citizen can participate in equal educational opportunities and be treated like not a second class citizens. When Obama becomes president, he should lead the party to make sure that he does not forget the poor people by doing the following wishful thinking:</p>

<li><p>Democrat tax elite resources rich universities on their endowments and use these funds to better resources community colleges with that money and spread the wealth of the education. If not then use tax payers money in this credit crunch time to help poor students.</p></li>
<li><p>Demand that UCLA, USC and other elite public universities funded by tax payers money make efforts to turn down the number of disproportional admitted Asian students and admit more Latino and AA kids based on current Ivy institutions system based on diversity.</p></li>
<li><p>Democrat taxes the rich to fund the educational system in rural and urban areas.</p></li>
<li><p>Make sure that each poor school districts have teachers and resources like prep schools and fund it with taxpayers money.</p></li>
<li><p>Increase the tax on top 10% population to a higher level so that money can be used to fund disadvantageous students in poor non-performing school districts.</p></li>
</ol>

2

<p>^^ Socialism, sounds fun :)</p>

3

<p>This post, sorry to say, is a great operative example of why the education system needs improving.</p>

<p>I’ll respond to your points separately:</p>

<p>1) Why tax endowments? Private elite universities are non-profits just like any others; the only difference is that they are rich. Are you suggesting taxation based on foundation wealth in non-profits? Where is the cutoff line? And who, exactly, determines that the money gained from such taxation will ultimately be better used elsewhere?</p>

<p>2) First, USC is a private university, so I really wonder if you know what you’re talking about. Second, what exactly do you mean by “disproportional” Asian students? Please provide the evidence and reasoning upon which that claim is based. From where I’m sitting (though I love the fact that Princeton is focused on diversity), the fact that a lot of Asians go to public California schools does not make them “disproportionate”. Furthermore, since public universities in CA are bound by Proposition 209 not to give preferential treatment based on race, your suggestion is in fact in contravention of California law.</p>

<p>Again, I must ask: do you have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about?</p>

<p>3) Tax people to fund education… cool… specifics, please? Some cost/benefit analysis, maybe? Unfortunately, “tax the rich” isn’t a miracle cure for every ill.</p>

<p>4) This is a completely and totally ridiculous suggestion. There’s not enough money in America to fund school districts to prep school levels. Unless you want to pay tens of thousands of dollars per student more on it. Not even remotely possible.</p>

<p>5) Again, same problem as #3. Who taught you that simply taxing rich people and giving the money to the poor solves all of society’s ills?</p>

<p>LaxAttack09: Though I agree his post is ridiculous, yours is also pretty bad. I hate to say it, but calling something “socialism” and expecting that to be a telling point is a pretty sub par argumentative standard.</p>

4

<p>1of42 I suggest you read up on how socialism and wealth redistribution relate to one another then come back and explain how 1, 3, 4, and 5 don’t relate to socialist ideology. I’d love to hear your explanation. Since I’m incredibly stupid I suggest you break it down “real simple fo us non ivy folk.”</p>

5

<p>1) Let’s start taxing all non-profits (churches, Bill Gates foundation, etc.) Yeah, that’d boost the popularity of the Democratic party!
And the funds to accomplish 4) will presumably come from 3)? And 5)… Aren’t 3) and 5) the same?</p>

6

<p>LaxAttack09: Obviously this is socialism. That’s not what I was responding to. I was responding to the sarcastic undertone in your voice, suggestive of the utter dismissal I see many Americans direct at socialism based on their ingrained assumption that it must be horrible, rather than necessarily actual thinking and analysis. Maybe you’ve done that analysis. Maybe not. But “haha, that’s socialism” is a worthless response.</p>

7

<p>In my opinion, Obama’s proposed changes to the federal education system show his naivety. But I admit, I haven’t read much about the details.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Socialism doesn’t benefit those of us who plan to go on to do big things. It benefits the lower class by making a more unified middle class. Explain how socialism benefits the corporate lawyer, investment banker, or surgeon??</p>

9

<p>Laura, I’m sure the proposal is not Obama’s. It is purely OP’s ideas on what Obama <em>should</em> do.</p>

10

<p>BunsenBurner: I was actually basing my opinion on the education plan on his campaign’s website. But you’re right, he may not have created it.</p>

<p>Edit: Interesting, the forum software posted my response to you before your post. I wonder how that happened.</p>

11

<p>Hope Hope Hope</p>

12

<p>The ultimate irony:</p>

<p>Obama nomination =
McCain Presidency =
One more Supreme Court justice =
The end of Affirmative Action</p>

13

<p>I suspect this is a ■■■■■ account.</p>

14

<p>no offense interestedad but you’re nuts if you think AA in this country will end (as it rightly should). It will, like it’s been, be left up to the states. Same with abortion.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, I don’t know. I saw the immediate impact of the Michigan cases even on private colleges that weren’t directly covered by the rulings. Their lawyers were scrambling to bring them into compliance with what was essentially a pro affirmative action decision. </p>

<p>One more Republican Justice tilts the balance. A test case will be constructed and filed almost immediately. Affirmative action will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think it will happen very quickly.</p>

<p>Of course, the only group that really benefits from affirmative action are African Americans. Whites and Asians statistically lose. Latinos benefit mildly, but their numbers are increasing so fast nationally that they won’t even be minority groups in many states and are quickly outgrowing any need for preferential treatment. I expect affirmative action to be used as a weapon by the Republicans in the Presidential election. It was virtually no support among voters in a general election beyond the core constituencies of the New Democratic Party and makes a great wedge issue.</p>

<p>Basically, the primary constituency of the New Democratic Party (African Americans ) will be the group most negatively impacted by the demise of affirmative action.</p>

<p>They will also bear the brunt of the repeal of Rowe v. Wade as African American women are three times more likely to get abortions than other women. The large African American populations in the southern states will be immediately impacted as their Republican controlled legislatures follow a Supreme Court decision with anti-abortion laws.</p>

<p>I’m sure that the racial bloc voters who nominated the New Democratic Party’s candidate have carefully considered these issues.</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Since when was “does this policy benefit professionals and businesspeople” the primary litmus test of a political system, exactly?</p>

17

<p>“One more Supreme Court justice =
The end of Affirmative Action”</p>

<p>It’s possible. But did you read the majority opinion in Cracker Barrel v. Humphries? Apparently Alito and Roberts are closer to the late Justice Rehnquist than I realized when it comes to stare decisis (remember that Rehnquist, in Dickerson v. US, upheld Miranda on stare decisis grounds even though he disagreed with it). Alito and Roberts might be reluctant to overturn decisions as recent as Grutter/Gratz and as well-established as Bakke.</p>

18

<p>They don’t have to overturn Grutter/Gratz. </p>

<p>Grutter/Gratz has a roadmap for challenging racial preference/quota based systems on the details. That’s what has all the colleges scrambling. Grutter/Gratz even provides guidance on the next legal challenge that should be brought to chip away at the racial preferences enjoyed by African Americans under affirmative action.</p>

<p>All it takes is one more Justice.</p>

19

<p>I think AA based on race should be abolished. AA should be based on socio-economic standing; poor people of all races should be given a boost. </p>

<p>AA should not start after high school, it should start from grade school by the implementation of a voucher system. We can learn something from Belgium, where parents do not have to send their kids to the schools in their district, but can send them anywhere with a better school. One of the best schools in Brussels operates on a first come first serve basis, and some parents were queueing a day before registration to get their kids into that school.</p>

<p>AA after high school doest not help that much, it is difficult to build on a shaky foundation. We should equip students with the fundamentals first.</p>

20

<p>“They don’t have to overturn Grutter/Gratz.”</p>

<p>It’s a pretty significant part of the holding that the holistic AA system was OK. Private colleges outside the 5th Circuit are not scrambling – they’re doing exactly what they’ve been doing since before Bakke. O’Connor certainly predicted the death of public AA 25 years down the road, but that’s dicta, and anyway it’s 25 years down the road. I don’t think you can be so certain about Alito and Roberts in light of Humphries.</p>