Who is the most overrated leader from your country?
This motherfucker was an idealistic Romanboo with no understanding of how to run a country. He resisted every attempt to modernize and industrialize the young United States, and thought that a professional army was a bad idea. He was also legitimately autistic and probably a racist as well. Praise Hamilton.
They didn't have the test scores of the other students, but were significantly lower. And people wonder why affirmative action students have such high dropout rates.
Continue to be mad you have shitty opinions
Obvious answer, he was a fascist and I blame him for everything that happened from 1945 to 2015
>Mother of """""democracy"""""
>got elected because of "muh ded husband".
>incompetent woman who relies on her advisers to get shit done.
>Raided Social Security
>Supported Islamic extremists
>Supplied arms to Iran and Iraq during Iran-Iraq war
>Supported Saddam Hussein
>Raided Social Security
SS was a doomed pyramid scheme from birth; even FDR admitted to that much.
You wanna see how great SA is since we let the nigs have it?
>Supported Saddam Hussein
Made strategic sense at the time.
>They didn't have the test scores of the other students, but were significantly lower
That's not true.
>affirmative action students have such high dropout rates
You got stats there or are you making this up too?
None of that actually matters, though. These institutions would be a lot worse off if they were dominated by two racial groups, therefore it is the duty of administrators to ensure that that doesn't happen. If people who shouldn't be admitted slip through the cracks, that's just one side of the cost/benefit analysis.
What are you trying to say?
>That's not true
How do you think affirmative action works son? They lower test score requirements
>You got stats there or are you making this up too?
Look up black dropout rates at ivy league schools
>None of that actually matters, though. These institutions would be a lot worse off if they were dominated by two racial groups
In recent history?
Fucking Bill Clinton
He pulled so much shady shit and almost all of it has been forgotten except for the one sex scandal
He had glorious moments such as:
Creating the housing bubble
Waco and Ruby Ridge
Signing into the law the precursor to the patriot act
Jimmy actually seems like a nice guy 2bh
And don't forget about NAFTA which fucked the working class across the continent and is a big reason for the massive influx of poor Mexicans who used to farm until NAFTA allowed US companies to destroy Mexican agriculture.
People liked Clinton because there happened to be an internet boom going on while he was in office and his fake balancing the budget stunt.
John A. Macdonald is overrated in the sense that he's the only Canadian historical figure that most Canadians have ever heard of, and he's not really noteworthy enough to warrant that.
>Look up black dropout rates at ivy league schools
lmaoing @ u
Although I btfo your other points, this is the one that you're really missing.
He signed into law what allowed a mortgage law for banks
It's directly tied to the housing bubble
It wasn't necessarily him but the way his administration handled Waco and Ruby Ridge was fucking ridiculous
Pierre was relatively recent (at least compared to Macdonald). Despite being highly politically divisive nowadays he also patriated the constitution, heavily reoriented Canada's international standing and had a strong impact on Canadian culture, so I'd call his government noteworthy if not unambiguously good.
It's late and I don't want to go that much into detail but
>Got elected because his opponent was Ford (basically a reminder of Nixon)
>Fucked up Panama Canal Treaty
>Iran hostage crisis handled poorly (not to mention didn't support the Shah when he was deposed by Islamic revolutionaries)
>Period of recessions/inflation (not entirely his fault)
The nly decent thing he did was the Egypt-Israeli treaty.
>These institutions would be a lot worse off if they were dominated by two racial groups
Surely you have some sources?
>(not to mention didn't support the Shah when he was deposed by Islamic revolutionaries)
That a surprise for a president who's a stealth anti-Semite and lover of all things Islamic? This was the guy who said it was a beautiful election when they elected Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
>The nly decent thing he did was the Egypt-Israeli treaty
And then Carter wasted so much time on that that he ignored more pressing domestic issues during his first two years when he had a Democrat Congress.
Agreed. So overrated and the people that love him suffer from a special kind of selective memory, are stupid, willfully ignorant, or weren't even alive, let alone politically aware, during his presidency.
The article you got that pic from very specifically states that they are lower in all of them. And, 7 fucking points at Darthmouth and columbia while also not admitting as many black students.
I don't know if you are retarded when it comes to stats but that is significant. It is especially more chilling when you realize that schools are by law required to count any mixed children as black and not mixed.
Also, notice how the average college graduation rate was 59% total while black was 45% according to your article.
You have two schools. One is entirely made up of wealthy Chads, Stacys and Asian nerds. The other is a vast conglomerate of people from varying cultures, social backgrounds and interests. Which school is going to produce more well-rounded individuals?
This has been the rationalization of Harvard's admission policy since they put a cap on Jew admittance in the '30s. I guess if someone could defeat this they would take down my entire argument as well as Harvard/the rest of the Ivy League.
You can post the stats in there, but I'm not weeding through the conjecture.
>Surely you have some sources?
I meant cost/benefit analysis in a rhetorical sense.
Driving cars is permitted by the gov't. The cost is 3000 innocent lives annually. The benefit is that commerce is able to continue.
Letting black kids into Harvard is done by allowing them to have lower scores. The cost is kids who shouldn't be in Harvard end up in Harvard. The benefit is a richer learning environment.
I agree that this is very bad, especially when you consider the people that were rejected so that those black kids could attend. People that were much more likely to have graduated. That's very tough to dismiss, however it is necessary.
>Any possible benefits are not worth an affront to equality of opportunity
This is very wrong. An inequality in opportunity is that some people are born poor and some are born rich. This disparity is a clear affront to equality of opportunity. You'd have to be some kind of gommie to think that taxing people out the ass in order to correct for this is the right thing to do.
You know I wasn't going to reply, but I did just because you said this. I spent a good 10 minutes reasoning and writing out a 1500 character post. I was planning on getting comfy and listening to some tunes, but I didn't just because of you. All of that lost comfort and for what? That time, that energy and where am I now. Why did even do it? To spite you? For the (you)s? And what then? You won't read it. You won't know I replied at all. You fucking forgot that you even said that I wouldn't reply. I won't even get a single meaningful (you). What's the God damn point? What's the point of any of this shit? Not only are my actions meaningless once I die, they're meaningless as I do them. There is no point. I'm so tired. I can't bear posting any more thought-out posts. Fuck this, I'm done.
I don't know if you wanted to appear like a martyr or gain some sympathy but all your doing is arguing on 4chan, stop being so fucking melodramatic.
People stopped arguing properly a long time ago on all of the boards. I don't know why, use to have a lot of somewhat decent arguments even on /pol/ but now it is 100% meme speak.
If you have something intelligent to say, don't reply to any specific person, just make a general statement. That way, people won't feel the need to reply back to you to get the last say but if someone wants to argue with you they will.
It also helps to stop being a huge liberal faggot as for whatever reason you guys get buttblasted too easy.
In Euroland it's still quite early in the morning at a Saturday. What do you expect?
Kohl. He was lucky that the reunification was in his term of office, because otherwise nobody would remember his fat face today. He ruled this country for 16 years and did nothing really significant accept for not stopping the Ossis to join us.
A little sympathy is always good even if it's just me imagining it. But yeah, that's absolutely why I posted that shit. Thanks for the advice, however my butt is 100% not blasted.
>Letting black kids into Harvard is done by allowing them to have lower scores. The cost is kids who shouldn't be in Harvard end up in Harvard. The benefit is a richer learning environment.
No learning environment is made richer just because some kid with dark skin shows up. It's made richer by having bright, inquisitive minds dedicated to academics. Diversity is not strength, and when promoted ahead of real concerns it becomes weakness.
It's not as simple as black people have more melanin in their skin therefore they promote diversity. Black people carry with them an interesting cultural perspective, a perspective that non-black students attending Harvard benefit from engaging with.
The pic is for membership into the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale. It's very old and very exclusive. What's so great about it? It's the interesting variety of people who are both brilliant and diverse.
In the end, it doesn't matter if you're unconvinced that diversity is beneficial, because among academics there is consensus that it is critical for top-tier schools to be diverse. From there, it is their duty to do what they see as best for their institution, thus giving just grounds to affirmative action.
The consensus amongst humanities academics means nothing, the tenure system has turned it into an ideological echo chamber where any opinions that don't come from a neo-Marxist point of view are rejected with extreme hostility. Diversity of thought, which is something that actually matters, is functionally dead. Universities have reached a point of being almost unworthy of their designation as such.
>do what they see as best for their institution, thus giving just grounds to affirmative action.
This isn't entirely up to them thankfully.
Universities, which eat up taxpayer money like a sinkhole, are fair game for the state and federal legislature. Like for example, in the atlantic article they took a measure of it away from California public universities.
It is within the voters right both morally and legislatively to make colleges adhere to equality of opportunity and not necessarily affirmative action.
I believe a few other states have done this as well. It is also being tackled on a national level.
These talks aren't just saying that schools shouldn't use affirmative action, but they want to pass laws that will force the schools NOT to spend public money on affirmative action.
NO. These systems have been around since the '30s when Harvard realized they needed to cap the number of Jews they admitted. The quote I pulled is from the 1968 Yale yearbook. You are wrong.
Yeah and what they're doing is wrong. How do state and federal legislatures know what's best for these institutions? They don't, they have no place in saying what universities should be. This is just like the SCOTUS telling the PGA that walking isn't an essential part of golf. It's morally bankrupt bullshit.
Where do you think the Marxism came from? Jews brought it here when they fled the Third Reich and quickly took over academia because they're extremely tribalistic and have never cared about their host culture further than their desire to reshape it to suit themselves. That they were allowed any level of influence on American society at all is a shame and a mistake from which we will never recover. Hitler may have been an idiot about many things but he was right about the damage that communist Jews were doing to society and continue to do today.
You say that but they have no reason not to want affirmative action in universities.
The schools get payed more money, they get better coverage because of diversity and they get more students admitted overall while still maintaining whatever standards they hold for whites and asians.
The tax payers on the otherhand lose money have their children rejected at schools and have more to lose. There is no reason to trust the judgement of academia because not only are they a lot more left wing then the country, they also are pandering to the younger generation who is deeply indebted to these ideals which differ from the average american.
Lets take your argument to the next step. Degree creep is spreading across the country as employers are devaluing the degrees and complaining that young adults are coming out of colleges without the necessary skills for jobs.
Why are you convinced universities should be in charge when in fact the employers are consumers of graduated students?
>Sorry that I think a university with a diverse student body provides a much better education than a non-diverse university.
Well, you're wrong.
The best and most reputable universities are not very diverse in general.
reminder that it's the United States of America, not the United Provinces of Greater Washington DC
for any Americans that don't have the extra flags extension, this is coming from Oregon.
That's absolutely not true. Harvard, the most prestigious university on the planet, is the founder of diversity in higher education.
for any posters that don't have the extra flags extension, this is coming from cuckville.
>mfw a learning environment was homogenous near me
>arrive for first day of class at my progressive, tolerant Oregon university
>room is full of beautiful different coloured faces, already feeling enlightened and more educated
>notice that only 9% of the room are African-Americans even though they make up 12% of the population
That's not the case actually. Universities have always set out to include at least a certain degree of education in the humanities, going way back to when they were first founded. It's important for students to know a bit about things like philosophy and anthropology even if they're there to learn about chemistry or physics. The problem is that now the humanities are bloated with all kinds of useless shit like African-American studies and you can actually get degrees in them.
>make valid points about affirmative action
>can't address any of my points
>defaults to shitposting
>namefag comes along
>doesn't understand what's going on
>tells me I'm in the wrong
You've literally done nothing in this thread but say that being around diverse cultures makes you more well rounded and better in your education without facts or studies.
The only thing you were correct on is responding to faggot about ivy league schools.
Meanwhile, someone hands you an atlantic article which shows that blacks and hispanics struggle when placed into higher tier colleges because of AA and therefore are actually better served in more remedial colleges but you ignore it.
You are completely and selfishly only looking at this from a white person's perspective. Blacks who go to colleges where they can't compete fail
Blacks who fail participate less in the community and clubs
they also are less likely to pass qualifying certification exams despite receiving a degree and leading them to believe they could.
The best thing to do is to just set up more programs to help poor students overall as that is why many blacks struggle because they have to work.
Again, that goes into a completely different argument though.