Do people complain about foreign players
- Thread starter J011yroger
- Start date
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
except funds come from alumni donations and other students paying tuition. at a big school the actual cost of attendance for a student is less than 5k for the year when you divide all the operating costs by number of students
Schools do not owe americans anything, simply because they are tax payers. Schools are not nationalist and should not be, they should be there to empower future generations regardless of if 4 people on the tennis team are from slovokia because our american tennis players are underachieving
Because the point is that it isn't always about education. John Isner, Stevie Johnson, and Benjamin Becker (who is German) just to name a few because they are prominent examples, there are many more, played 4 years and none of them have earned their degrees. Many, if not most, scholarship athletes in all sports only take the minimum course load needed to stay eligible, which is not enough to graduate. There are a lot of tennis players, and tons of 4 year scholarship athletes in other sports, who never got a degree--because it was the sport that mattered.
Last edited:
gplracer
Hall of Fame
It is more complex than that. Lots of players come from countries where their government pays for their training. Here we all pay for our training. Very few have unlimited resources to fully develop players to their best potential. My son works his butt off. I do not have the money to fly him all over the country, have a full time coach who travels with him, have a fitness coach to work with him, and a private tutor so he does not have to go to public school. If you think his "underachieving" is do to his lack of effort you are wrong. Let me know where I can get all those resources the foreign players have. We do it on our own and he has a sectional and national standing from his hard work. He has a coach and I take him to all of his tournaments. We do the best we can.
Slightly D1
Professional
Except when you consider the money that must be spent on coaching, facilities, room and board, travel (this is a HUGE cost), gear, technology, stipends and insurance that must be paid for. It isn't a simple 5k per year, education and the cost is not that cheap anywhere, if it is I would like to see your data because I would love to move to your state and go to a state school with low costs like that. On top of that most schools are not "big" schools in terms of the numbers in this country to begin with, outside of SEC, Big 10, ACC, Pac 12 and Big XII schools, when you look all the way down to smaller D1, D2, D3, Juco and NAIA schools.
At the division 1 level, the NCAA only permits 4.5 scholarships per team with the average scholarship covering about 15k in tuition alone. There is not much money at all in college tennis and to have such a complete financial loss (add up variables I mentioned above) it makes no sense to give that money to an all Eastern European team when there are Americans who have paid for every bit of training in the states and are slightly behind because they didn't have government support essentially. On top of that, these guys are not going pro, they are going to school to learn a skill and become marketable adults upon graduation. The scholarships public universities give both in athletics and academics come from a large pot that Americans have been pitching into, it does not seem right to not allow Americans to reap some of the reward. I am not seeing the point in a small public D2 school having an entire team of internationals. I mean unless you are a top 1% guy at the highest college level you're just never going to compete and that can be seen with some of the greatest college players ever hardly being able to replicate that success on tour.
Slightly D1
Professional
To be completely honest I don't really know how I feel about it. I think there are a lot more things that could be done with the money that gets pumped into athletics but at the same time, scholarships are an investment into our society to allow people to receive a life changing higher education. Also, it isn't the scholarships that make a non revenue sport a loss, its the cost of insurance, facilities, supplies, gear, coaches, trainers, travel, room and board etc. You could probably ask why do most schools even have athletics in the first place.
Because it's a proven fact that the school who's team wins the NCAA Basketball or Football championship sees a marked increase in the number of applicants the following year. Colleges are run as a business, and businesses know you often have to spend money to make money. UCLA heavily promotes the fact that their various sports teams have won 113 National titles. Why? It brings in applicants. I think many incoming students would rather go to a school that has good sports teams over one that doesn't even if they do not participate in sports themselves--it's part of the overall college experience. It's not all about the classroom.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
I commend you, I do. However I grew up with a 5 star who's only coach was his dad who was never even a college player. He lived in the back of a van when he went to kalamazoo and clay courts, they had at most 70k a year while paying for a kid in college and the younger ones tennis. His senior year of hs he had offers from a ton of d1 programs and he was using 10 year old radicals that his dad gave him 4 years prior.
I am not saying you don't do enough, but if there is hunger and will, anyone can make it.
He was 5'9 and went to an sec school that won the sec title in his first year on full ride.
So yes, you do the best you can, but I don't see many players doing the best they can regardless of opportunity.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Gear is 5k max per person,
and look at how many people are in each entry level class. I don't go to a public school because i dont want to be one of the 300 kids in a bio class, thats roughly 600,000 in tuition being paid in a classroom. Beside the fact most state schools don't have full on campus dorming, many students live off campus.
Slightly D1
Professional
I mean it adds up fast especially for a sport that does not bring back any sort of real money.
-$2,500 in gear for each player for a roster of 15 give or take players.
-4.5 scholarships with a range from $20k-60k per scholarship
-Travel- chartered flights, chartered busses, hotels, food etc. I don't even really know how to estimate the cost for one single away trip which happens a lot during the season
-Facilities such as daily cost of equipment, lights, court maintenance, gyms, maybe indoor courts
-Hiring a full time coaching staff and full time trainers
Honestly it is a tremendous amount of money that goes into a sport in which 90% of most schools don't even draw more than 100 people on a match day.
Its also worth noting that US Title IX requires that anything that men get, the women must get the equivalent. So you can really multiply the total for mens college tennis by 2. And these costs are all about the same at a basic level whether its UCLA or Sonoma State University. Not every single public university has a primary flag ship state school number of students.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Well my school managed a team of 16 guys on a 25k budget with travel for spring break for all of us. It's not impossible and it's not that much when you consider an endowment is in the hundreds of millions.
TennisFan478
New User
I think people forget how some schools use athletics to boost enrollment. For example roster sizes of 12 or more could be given a scholarship or two, which leads to revenue for smaller schools. It doesn't matter if that player is from Germany or Georgia when they are paying $15,000 or more in tuition, room and fees.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
I appreciate your comments. My son turned 15 this summer and he is just over 6'2". He has played over 500 USTA matches and been invited to USTA Regional Training Centers. We do the best we can with what we have. Granted being tall is an asset but being 6'2" at 14 going on 15 is tough. The body is trying to play catch up.
Yes, but they go to the best students. Athletic scholarships don't. Yet you said it was all about education, and I asked you to explain how tennis scholarships can be all about education given those facts. Why should we give any athlete, American or foreign, a scholarship to come play a sport that does not even sell tickets, when there were better students who just missed gaining admission to the school?
Slightly D1
Professional
Thats the type of questioning that is similar to the argument against having certain quotas and scholarships for races of students. There are serious differences in academic performance (test scores, overall grades) when comparing the credits of those accepted but it still happens and sometimes causes technically better students to miss admission. But thats just the way things are done.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Aren't scholarships giving to 1) help students who need assistance in going to college, and then relative to sports 2) help attract Athletes to play for the school in the same way educational scholarships attract good performing students, which also 3) shows appreciation for their "service" in representing the school and is essentially an investment by the community in that students development. Furthermore, these are 4) created out of funding through special grant or philanthropy which gives a wide range of arguable support and sources of funding. Finally, 5) the scholarships are based on academics, you can't carry a scholarship if you are academically ineligible. So it infers you must be a good performing student as after all, you are using the money to pay for your education.
So really all kinds of cases can be made....Regardless, a low amount of foreign students get US collegiate scholarships overall, so it really is not a discussion whether American scholarships disproportionately go to International students; its just a tennis thing and its hard to tell who gets what. However, I, and many on here, would like to see American JR's actually compete at the same level and its not going to happen until the Jr. System improves in the US to the level of international countries......which is where I encourage people who care about American players making it in college (and pros) should focus their attention. The scholarships are a rabbit hole
Nacho
Hall of Fame
I think that is a misunderstanding: according to stats 30% go to minorities which sounds about right relative to the population
http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf
Slightly D1
Professional
Acceptance standards in general are lowered for specific groups that a university wants or are 'required' to target. I believe many kids are simply penalized or given additional credit in the eyes of universities based on standardized test scores simply for their race.
For example- http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html
Nacho
Hall of Fame
I've seen that article before, and certainly it raises some question about the "point tiering" based on the Princeton study. I think there are a number of ways to look at it, but giving a broad statement that all colleges employ some sort of tiering doesn't give enough credit to the students and doesn't explain the mission of Universities to give as many equal opportunities as they can to a wide range of students.
It really doesn't matter relative to college tennis or athletic scholarships except to argue that there is a tier for athletes when it comes to their education standards. If we were talking football, maybe that would make sense to discuss.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
I have to respectfully disagree . While minorities may make up 30% of the population a lower percentage of their group goes to college as compared to the larger group. To make up for it and to encourage more minorities to go to college many universities give merit scholarship but them limit how many in each ethnic group they take. This helps the school to have a more diverse population. As a result there are minorities who get scholarships who have lower grades and qualifications than others in some cases. Personally I think they should pick the best candidate based on whatever criteria they deem important. They should not pick one student over another because of race.
In the article you referenced it said: "The next table shows the distribution of college GPA for all students, not just private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students are much more likely to have higher grades than African-American, Latino and other minority students except for Asian students." - I would argue this is probably true in high school as well. Consider in addition to scholarships there are minority quotas for entrance into lots of colleges. That means that a minority who has lower grades than another person might have a better chance of getting accepted into the school because of race and the school trying to have a diverse population. Proponents of this practice say that minorities have much greater challenges and should be given this opportunity. I think the most qualified person should be accepted first.
Last edited:
gplracer
Hall of Fame
It sounds like you are saying the students with the highest grade point averages should not all be considered because the school would then not give as enough minorities a chance. Unfortunately when you give special consideration to one group you not treating another group fairly. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Everyone has their own opinion on this topic. I have two boys who both have good grades. I am obviously wanting them to be rewarded for their hard work and effort they have put in school.
I started thinking this one year when my son was at a USTA RTC. I witnessed a dad being told that since his wife was not from the USA his son would probably qualify for a diversity scholarship to help pay for tennis costs. I thought gosh we are tennis poor and doing all we can to develop our son and we qualify for nothing.
Last edited:
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Glad you took the time to look through that. While this is an interesting debate, and one I would love to dissect as I think there are many sides to it, really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of the predominance of Internationals in College tennis, and the ability of American Jr's to currently compete and make college rosters. So I would hate to tie up the thread any more with this
Nacho
Hall of Fame
Again, going down a rabbit hole here. Many universities strives to educate an inclusive group of people from various backgrounds, thus taking in the best students they can. Call it what you want; you could argue many ways how those backgrounds are affected, and thus, impact GPA's and test scores. Not advocating for anything here, or trying to get into one thing or another. But, I think it is unfair to make blanket or broad statements, or assume that apples are always compared oranges. Its a highly debatable subject, and one that is really off topic from the state of college tennis and the amount of Internationals in the game currently.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
It certainly is a topic that people have different opinions on. Most of the time their opinion is based on how it affects them.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
I'm just going to use med school admissions as an example of why affirmative action is a thing. there are something like 70,000 white applicants into med school, there are about 20,000 that have a 4.0 gpa. there are 8,000 hispanic and about 18,000 total minority applicants, so when you look at the number of white and minority applicants then we end up with more white 4.0 students than total minority applicants. Some think that they should get spots, others think it should still be even or so with minorities. My personal view and opinion is, how can we effectively treat people and minorities if we only have doctors from backgrounds that do not share the same inequalities? There is and was a large health care disparity in the way african american and minority patients were treated and diagnosed with mental health issues. For the same symptoms a minority patient was more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, hysteria, and other illnesses associated with negative connotations whereas a white patient was more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety and depression, more socially accepted illnesses.
Same thing in public universities, how can you expect to have a more equal society when you are promoting an unequal playing field?
Now to get back on the topic of college tennis beacuse I do not want to drag this out anymore, how can we expect schools to pay coaches to lose with americans as opposed to be competative with foreigners?
Americans would rather go to state schools and either leave college tennis behind and play club or go to d3 than to poor d2s. Foreigners are okay with going to subpar schools.
So, how can we expect these lesser schools to compete? or should they hold their head up high knowing that their team of american 1 star recruits went 0-28 but they proved a point that they could have all americans.
Lastly, your tax payer dollars probably dont even touch the money that goes to schools tennis teams, you should be more concerned about the record breaking costs of our presidents vacations because that is by far exceeding anything that any tennis team in this country is costing our government.
So everyone should take things into consideration and into perspective about whats really going on.
Also i know i quoted you, but this goes for everyone talking about "race quotas" and such. not you.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
You have some validity in your argument but you are promoting a system where the person with lower qualifications gets in medical school and then only the most qualified tennis players get scholarships or make the team. If you pick the best people for tennis how can you be ok with people who have subpar qualifications of medical school? You cannot have it both ways. Either you embrace diversity and do not always take the most qualified or you take the most qualified.
I would argue that many minorities who do not have a 4.0 are working as hard as they know how to work.it is the system that has let them down. The same can be said about American tennis. American players do not live in a country where the government pays to train them like so many of the foreigners.
I would argue that many minorities who do not have a 4.0 are working as hard as they know how to work.it is the system that has let them down. The same can be said about American tennis. American players do not live in a country where the government pays to train them like so many of the foreigners.
Last edited:
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
My point is not that the best tennis players and that the least represented minorities are the same category. We help out minority applicants because they are the only path forward with change, and we allow foreign players to help programs win.
Previous qualifications aside, it is the same end with different means. My point is the end result, previous qualifications don't matter, effort does. And regardless of opportunity, if an american doesnt make it to d1 level then its either an extreme lack of athleticism or a lack of drive. Nothing is stopping kids from looking on youtube how to train and how to condition. If you want to go d1, then put the time and effort in without having to be babysat to do so.
If you get up at 5:30 every day since you're 10 to do your own conditioning until 7 before school, then when you get out of school you can save up for a ball machine or ask your parents to(1k in the long run is not much) you can drill on your own or with a parent and get yourself in the best possible position to win. You take 100 serves 3 times a day, and have your dad hit serves at you from the service line. Thats enough to get to a point where you can compete and get scholariship help to an academy. Play against local college players, pay them $15 an hour to hit.
Its harder without money, but not as hard as the work you have to put in.
10,000 rule, if you work at something for 10,000 hours you will be at a very high level.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
It is highly unlikely to have a high success as a pro or D1 college without a lot of money. Not impossible but unlikely. I do not think it ias as easy as you point out. If that was the case then there is no reason minorities could not make a 4.0 to get into medical school. Also when you help a person who is less deserving you treat another person unfairly.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
Some talented athletic kids may not even be exposed to tennis until they are 12 or older. How are most kids exposed to tennis? There are courts in their neighborhoods or at their country clubs. Some parks have courts too, but it is a lot harder for a kid to get to a court early to practice or after school if there is not a court in their neighborhood. Also players do not get better unless they play better players-also hard if a player lives in a neighborhood or even a state where there are few tennis players. Most parents enroll kids in multiple sports that are near to home, and then the kids stick with the ones they like. There are some kids who might have been great at tennis, but didnt have a chance to try it until high school and by then they were doing other sports. Many students who play tennis were introduced to the sport by parents who played tennis. My son who is a 5 star probably never would have tried tennis if there had not been courts in our neighborhood because at the time neither my husband or I played. My husband took up tennis so my son would have someone to hit with-now 8 years later my husband is still a 3.0
What bothers me is the limited money that USTA spends on PD is spread over a handful of junior and college players. There was a rising senior player from son's section who did extremely well at Kzoo-beat several players ranked considerably higher than himself plus one of the top seeded PD guys who is ranked in the top 40 ITF in the world. The player is ranked in the thousands for jr ITF because he probably only played 1-2 lower ITFs yet he was competitive with some of the top US PD guys. The only USTA tourneys the PD guys play are Kzoo national hardcourts, US Open juniors, and some US pro circuits. Kzoo is the really the only chance for players like that guy to hit against PD guys-USTA wont even let jr 4 and 5 stars tour the PD facility where national tournaments are held at Lake Nona. I wonder how many US juniors could play at a high level if the money was spread further instead of being focused on a handful who play jr slams and ITFs around the world. Now the non PD guy's matches were probably watched by a lot of college coaches and based on his performance, he could probably attend a Power school if he wants. While US PD focuses on only a few players, talented players do get some support in their section. However, the fact that US PD kids usually only play one USTA jr national a year (because it offers a US Open main draw WC) and no sectionals shows the US PD does not believe in the USTA path but takes $ other pay into USTA to send their guys to ITF and around the world-ironic. Even funnier is that the US PD 16 and 17 year olds who have benefited from USTA now have set up a business to "mentor" other UsTA jr players who have not received the coaching and benefits they have. Of course this mentoring comes with a hefty fee before and they have the audacity to say they are "giving back." Whatever happened to noblesse oblige? Since these kids are above playing in their own section, now parents with more money than sense can pay these guys to hit with their kids-they could probably find cheaper hits with older guys who are ATP top 1000.
If you want to be amused by hubris, look at these 16-18 y/o guys who call themselves the "next generation of coaching." https://www.tennismentors.net/ So the few juniors USTA PD does support are entitled young men who charge a monthly subscription to read their blogs. There are plenty of young pros on tour who provide narrative and video blogs for free that are probably more realistic than the experience of these privileged few. There are polite, humble international young pro players in the States with ATP points who will play with talented juniors and share advice for free; sometimes the internationals are a lot more likable than fellow Americans
Last edited:
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
To be fair, there are some people who have an eye for coaching more so than to play even though these guys are obviously the best players in their high school classes.
I personally coach young kids while I am a college student and i for the most part can pass on the stuff my former atp coach taught me. I am a person who can see more about the game and the technical side of it, but because ive obsessed over tennis and watching tennis since i was 8. given a kids undivided attention and 8 years to work with him from 8-16 im positive i would be able to produce at the very least a 3 star level player just strokes wise.
However I can see how in the future a parent would want to book one of these kids to be coaches or hitting partners in the next 5-10 years.
jcgatennismom
Hall of Fame
I dont have a problem with players coaching younger kids, but these 16 and 17 year olds are charging $60 for 30 min phone call or $100 for an hour hit. We know guys ATP 700, former top college tennis players that would hit for $25/hr. For what they are charging, parents could get a great adult coach with years of experience at least where we live. Now their price might not seem unreasonable compared to what parents spend for a week at IMG Academy. However, there are a lot of great coaches outside those big academies that care about kids and tennis, and those are the men who are truly giving back-some are US coaches and some are from other countries but live in US now. Son has had several coaches where we said we can afford x $ or x hours a week and after they saw son's heart and work ethic, they came back and said he can attend how many hours he wants for the same price. Now son has also attended local academies where we were nickeled and dimed for everything, and in one case we understood why as the coach was just starting out. For these 16-17 years olds to imply they can coach better than coaches who have been on the tour or coached players on the tour is ridiculous to me. If parents are paying a lot and their students are not getting personalized attention from their coaches, then they would be better off finding a new adult coach than seeking a phone consultation with a 16 year old who played in a Grand Slam. Young pros in their 20s who came up through USTA/ITF juniors, then college, and then Futures would give better advice because a lot more junior players will take that route; only a small percentage will play in a junior Grand Slam and get wild cards into Future main draws. While these "mentors" are the best in their US class, there are probably 8-10 players with similar UTRs in the Qualifying of each Future-one of the "mentors" lost in the first round of a Qualifying last fall. They may be BMOC now, but once the WCs are gone, they will have to grind like the rest.
Glad you love tennis and want to pass it on to younger kids. It sounds like you are willing to make an investment of time in kids you coach-maybe you will work with the same kids each summer. However, with these tennis "mentors" they will probably be calling players on the phone while waiting in airports. Time on court hitting or sitting on a bench reviewing a video with a kids is a lot different than trying to do that over the phone or Skype. Kudos to the young "mentors" for coming up with a business plan but they should not call it "giving back." They are capitalizing on what US PD has given them on their members' dime, the US is a free market, and they will get some takers. I hope more parents will seek out the mid 20s guys grinding it out on the Futures tour and pay them for hitting with their kids on their off weeks. Some of those Futures guys get some work at academies to build up a reserve to go out on the circuit again.
Last edited:
Deacon Drive
Rookie
Private school or public school? There are plenty of foreign non-athlete students at many private schools.
Good grief. This is very simple. I was responding to a post that said "the whole point of scholarships is education" or something equivalent. I responded by saying that if that were true, then we would not have athletic scholarships for student-athletes in non-revenue sports, because they are not the best possible students we can get.
Slightly D1
Professional
Maybe its a nationalistic belief but American tax dollars should benefit American kids first. A tiny division 2 or 3 public school shouldn't have a team full of ____ovs and _____owski 's on the team when literally not a single person outside of the tennis program knows the result of their match a week ago. I'm all for foreign players coming but I don't think scholarships should be given strictly to them over an American kid whose family has been indirectly paying into the schools themselves through taxes and various other things. What is the point of having an international team that is slightly better than having a mostly American team that may be slightly behind in talent and development at that level? There is none, these guys aren't going pro and the international student-athlete is likely leaving the country at the end of their education/eligibility.
This is the problem for my local d2 school. They don't have any Americans on the roster and I'm not quite sure what they get out of it. They don't get many donations from the local community nor do they make much in donations from the kids who eventually move back to Sweden or Bolivia.
newpball
Legend
Let me fix that for you:
"Maybe its a nationalistic belief but American tax dollars should benefit American kids
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
Minority applicants typically do not have the same level of pre college education. They don't go to schools that have organic chem, ap calc c or physics kinetics ap.
The difference is the money spent in the education and the prior knowledge. That's why minority applicants don't have as many 4.0's besides the fact that there are 4 times more white med school applicants than minorities combined.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
All of the schools in my county have those classes and minority students can sign up for them like everyone else. I think the thought that minority students go to inferior schools is not correct. They go to the same schools as everyone else. I just do not agree with race quotas. It is unfair to majority students who have worked very hard. What about basketball? It is minority dominated. Many majority kids do not have access to the kind of training competition that minority students have. Maybe we should set up some race quotas in basketball. Granted I do not think that is the right thing to do. You cannot have it one way. Simply pick the best applicant. Race should not even be on the application. Also, try tivexplain that to the kid who sacrificed and busted his but to have the best grades only to not get picked because of a race quota. You do realize too here are plenty of poor white students who have overcome great life obstacles to make it. What help do they get? It certainly would not be a race quota.
Last edited:
Slightly D1
Professional
Thats bad thinking, you just have to look at the numbers by majors in college before med school. Minorities do not tend to major in STEM fields, so what is your point that there are more white med school applicants? Its a game of numbers and 4.0's are not bought, they are earned.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
It's about school districts. It's more class based than demographic based in my opinion but minorities tend to go to subpar school districts and school relative to non minority students. Think about the innercity of chicago that has some of the worst public schools, its an african american majority area.
Things like that, opportunity is not equal in that regard.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
4.0s are not bought you're correct, but again think about how class differences affect students. Sat tutoring costs $1,000 from kaplan, students from backgrounds that I mentioned typically can't afford that, and they typically are minority students. There is a bigger issue than just earning a 4.0, and that's why acceptance is not all merit based. It's wholistic in approach.
Slightly D1
Professional
So you're saying, if you had to have a life saving or ending brain surgery that hinges on the need for the greatest doctor in the world, you will take a sub par minority doctor with mediocre statistics instead of a white doctor with a perfect record because that would be the more wholistic and accepting approach? SAT tutoring, while beneficial isn't a deal breaker unless you're really aiming for an elite school such as an Ivey League school. There are ways to work hard and make good grades and get accepted based off of merit instead of taking another person's spot because the school wants to pat itself on the back for the sake of diversity. Again though, even with the non merit based forced diversity acceptance expectations, minorities are not going into STEM majors or fields.
Ihatetennis
Hall of Fame
i don't think you understand what i'm saying, im not being hostile(as you obviously sound like you are) but when I say wholistic, it takes into account of your entire application. Challenges presented to minorities on a large scale are very different than those of whites. These challenges can be from class or societal norms.
When stanford looks at applicants they accept the person, not just the grades http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...tanford-admission_us_5790c7ade4b0fc06ec5bcc7a
https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...c-school-funding-and-the-role-of-race/408085/
See, schools allow minorities the opportunity to "level" the playing field by assessing them by standards that are unique to them, minority students are not fighting for spots over white students, but for spots over other minority students.
There just happen to be more white students doing better. That's why minorities don't go to stem, that's why they have lower grades in stem, it doesn't mean they're less able, because at the end of the day you wouldn't be a doctor if you didn't score well on the mcat or on your medical school tests.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
Ihatetennis you have a noble thought process. You want there to be diversity and for everyone to have a fair chance. I applaud you for that. I too want everyone to have a fair shake in life. Although, I do not think quotas based solely on race are the right way to go because in trying to be fair to one group you are treating another group unfairly. We probably would both agree that in the past there have been racial injustices that have caused minority groups to suffer. This has contributed to our current situation where minorities frequently do not achieve as high as the majority.
If we decide to hold a certain number of spots open for minorities then what do you say to the following groups.
1. White inner city kids
2. White rural kids
You are pretty much guaranteeing that they have absolutely no shot whatsoever. You cannot tell those kids, “Sorry we need more diversity and there are already more than enough whites in medical school”. That is unacceptable. If you did you would be doing the same thing that was done to minorities in the 1950’s and before. These kids had nothing to do with that and were not even born then. There should never be anything that is done to give an unfair advantage to any group. Instead we probably need another way that is fair to pick students who really want to get in and did not quite make the grades. Maybe there should be merit system in place where people do a coop program with a doctor’s office or medical lab.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
Race should never be part of the process. If race is on the application then the organization picking applicants has another motive other than accepting the best applicants. The same thing goes for men and women. Even with a holistic approach race should not be considered.
What is the purpose of putting race on the application? If you are picking the best applicant based on more than grades you do not need to know race. Race has nothing to do with picking the best applicant unless you bias and want to give an advantage or disadvantage to one race group.
What is the purpose of putting race on the application? If you are picking the best applicant based on more than grades you do not need to know race. Race has nothing to do with picking the best applicant unless you bias and want to give an advantage or disadvantage to one race group.
Nacho
Hall of Fame
We have dived far away from the issue of Internationals in tennis..... @gplracer @Ihatetennis but I can't help but chime in one last time....
The only thing I think everyone should consider is that Minority groups, whether you agree with this line of thinking or not, want to see minority Doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc; especially those minority groups disenfranchised or who feel as if they need help from someone who understands them. They won't care that the Dr. may have gotten a little help to get in med school because they had a 3.5 GPA, versus a white candidate with a 3.8 GPA. Having a group of students that don't represent the population, doesn't help provide opportunities for patients/clients in the population and doesn't address the gamut of people we live with.
While I am all for being fair, and certainly want the best candidates to have the opportunities, I also realize that the best candidates are ones who are willing to go back out and serve their communities, and this may not be the ones with the highest GPA's. I applaud schools that would provide this opportunity, call it a quota, or call it unfair. If they didn't, there might be no one to serve a segment of the population and that would be a bigger failure of the system. A 4.0 white Medical school candidate is less likely to go out and set up practice in a minority neighborhood as a 3.5 minority candidate would.
@gplracer @Ihatetennis but I can't help but chime in one last time....The only thing I think everyone should consider is that Minority groups, whether you agree with this line of thinking or not, want to see minority Doctors, lawyers, businessmen etc; especially those minority groups disenfranchised or who feel as if they need help from someone who understands them. They won't care that the Dr. may have gotten a little help to get in med school because they had a 3.5 GPA, versus a white candidate with a 3.8 GPA. Having a group of students that don't represent the population, doesn't help provide opportunities for patients/clients in the population and doesn't address the gamut of people we live with.
While I am all for being fair, and certainly want the best candidates to have the opportunities, I also realize that the best candidates are ones who are willing to go back out and serve their communities, and this may not be the ones with the highest GPA's. I applaud schools that would provide this opportunity, call it a quota, or call it unfair. If they didn't, there might be no one to serve a segment of the population and that would be a bigger failure of the system. A 4.0 white Medical school candidate is less likely to go out and set up practice in a minority neighborhood as a 3.5 minority candidate would.
Similar threads
