|
First, this isn't about affirmative action--this isn't about establishing quotas. It's about funding programs that will help attract and retain minority students in stem majors. If you don't understand that key difference, let me know. And if you don't understand the value of such programs, then you fail to realize what it will take for any company or country to compete globally. Second, there are too many factors at play to just dismiss a student's abilities to start the next google, for example, by just assessing standardized test scores--especially, to assess his/her potential by how well on average his group/ethnicity performs. parse_tree, go back to my first point. Such programs, I don't think, are intended to have immediate results. The goal is to retain as many people who are interested in stem majors as possible. Yes, but I think the biggest impact will come as a result of their kids having much more exposure and such people understanding the value of such programs that they reach out to others. Finally, I think a lot would be best spent at an early age--early in a child's development. If you think a person's abilities are tied solely to genetics, you're wrong. Nurture plays an important role, and I've seen enough evidence to support that. Funding programs that compensate for parents not having an adequate education (and thus have to work multiple jobs, don't read enough to kids, etc) to offer their kids a good start. Quick poll: of all you hackers here, how many had parents in stem majors? How many had parents who went to secondary school? These are much better indicators as to how well a person will do in life than race or gender. Think about it. Many of you played with legos. Did you ask your parents to buy you legos? Or did they buy them for you? |