Is this a problem, giving scholarships to the smartest kids ?

[.... callchet ....]

I think that is just another way of rewarding the lucky and punishing the unlucky. The smart kids are going to do good anyways. Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ? This is discrimination, maybe not illegal, but discrimination.

[Taverner]

1. Why reward the stupid ones?

They just end up becoming Republicans anyway

[Kitty Herder]

155. Perhaps educating them would prevent that outcome.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Even "stupid" people can learn. Lack of education leads to an inability to evaluate the ridiculous claims of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and that leads people to adopt conservative values against their own interests.

Another thing. A lot of kids who are judged too stupid for college are not stupid at all. They're just bored to death with school. Once they mature, they can do well in college. My little brother was that way. He probably had a touch of ADHD, which just means he was an active little boy who didn't want to sit still and was too bored to pay attention. So his teachers all the way through school treated him like he was dumb. Now, as an adult, he has decided to take schooling seriously. He's a nurse, an LPN, working on his RN. He got the award for academic achievement in the nursing school when he received his LPN. He's the smart one in his class who the other students resent a bit. Now that he knows how smart he is, I don't think anything can stop him. He has decided that he wants to go on to medical school and I don't doubt that he will do so and be successful. Although his high school grades sucked, his college grades are great.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Um, whut?

[KitchenWitch]

160. ...

:applause:

[sniffa]

3. We need more stupid kids in college

We should also wave the requirement that they do well in college to keep their scholarships.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

19. Moral hazard. Look it up. nt

[sniffa]

20. Ok

[Bluebear]

35. Did you?

:)

[sniffa]

38. I don't know how

:shrug:

:cry:

[Bluebear]

42. Idiot.

You need a scholarship.

[sniffa]

43. I only want Ivy League though

[ProdigalJunkMail]

137. can i come too?

[ProfessorGAC]

197. My! Aren't We Particular?!?!?

Ivy League. Well, la di da! Stanford or Vanderbilt not good enough for you, huh?
:evilgrin:
GAC

[cobalt1999]

22. My wife is a professor at a University.

Trust me, there are plenty of stupid kids already there.

[Horse with no Name]

103. no doubt they are the trust fund kids. n/t

[GaYellowDawg]

33. However...

They should know the difference between "wave" and "waive." :evilgrin:

[sniffa]

41. Gah!

It's true, I got one of the stupid scholarships. :(

[GaYellowDawg]

48. I'm just yanking your chain.

I do agree with your sentiment.

[ferrous wheel]

83. Our colleges are full of stupid kids. They think 'wave' is something to do at a football game.

...

[sniffa]

85. I know. They're fucking idiots.

[Jackpine Radical]

97. It would be easiest to wave the requirement if you print it on cloth, I suppose.

[sniffa]

99. I suggest a terrible towel

[SeattleGirl]

4. Scholarships are not always for the smartest kids.

Think of athletic scholarships.

Music scholarships.

Etc.

They are given to people who are outstanding in a particular field, be it academics, athletics, music, or whatever.

I don't think it's discrimination at all.

[rockymountaindem]

5. Schools want smart kids to pick them

Furthermore, just because someone is smart certainly doesn't mean they are going to be able to afford school. If we want to allow them the ability to capitalize on their intelligence, then scholarships for some of them are going to be necessary. Lastly, they are a motivating factor for kids with lots of brainpower to also apply themselves and work hard instead of just becoming bored and detached (which is easy to do if you're way ahead of the subject material). Don't assume that brains are all you need to get ahead. You also need means and an incentive to succeed.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Just because they're smart, doesn't mean their parents are rich. n/t

[sniffa]

10. Stop discriminating

[ColbertWatcher]

13. ? n/t

[CTyankee]

162. Yep, look where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama rose from!

No money in those families...

[jody]

7. There are perhaps 2%+ students with various learning difficulties and the same amount of gifted

students.

I don't want to take away a single penny from special education but IMO it's time to fund education for gifted students at the same amount.

[Bluebear]

8. You can be smart and pisspoor. nt

[ferrous wheel]

87. And the inverse is painfully and obviously extant: GWB

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

93. You said a mouthful!

[XemaSab]

Here's my take on it:

Universities benefit from having smart kids in the class. It's worth it for universities to pay to attract smarter kids, and give the smarter students an opportunity to contribute to the university.

That being said, smart kids and kids who get good grades are not necessarily the same group of kids. Everything I said above about smart kids also goes for kids who study hard and get good grades.

[Bluebear]

9. dupe

[eyesroll]

11. Many schools see scholarships as a business investment.

I'm on scholarship at my law school, because based on some metric I'm expected to do well in my profession and eventually give more back to the school (through direct donation, influence, good publicity, even increased LSAT scores among entering 1Ls leading to better USNews rankings). As with any investment, sometimes, the investment works out (Joseph Zilber, I think, went here on scholarship and he donated $30 million) and sometimes it doesn't (someone on a full ride decides to move to Europe and stay at home with their kids and not practice and not make any money). But it probably more than pays off in the long run.

[Posteritatis]

12. "The smart kids are going to do good anyway" LOL

Call me when you get back to Earth, although I'm interested in your alternate dimension where things work out fairly by default that way.

[stray cat]

14. What guarantees a smart kid in poverty with no advantages will do well anyway?

How do you do it equally to all if not on merit - give everyone a $5 voucher?

[JuniperLea]

15. Oh please

WE NEED the brightest kids going to college! We are so far behind other countries in this regard. This isn't about smart kids doing good anyway! This is about making sure our brightest minds get the best education so they can help the rest of the country! How are we going to solve the world's problems? How are we going to learn how to feed the hungry? Shelter the poor? Cure disease? A not-so-smart kid isn't going to do near as well as a bright kid, regardless of the education. For years we've been limiting higher education to those who can afford it, instead of those who will get the most out of it. Your idea is damn near as stupid.

I'm sorry, but your OP sickens me! What the fuck have we become that someone can actually think in these terms??!??!?!

[notesdev]

16. The ones who pay full price

need someone to cheat off of or they'll never get that degree that mommy and daddy are paying for

[rwheeler31]

17. The smartest kids may find solutions.

Are you really referring to th well off kids?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

18. Luck?

So I worked my ass off all during my public school experience so I could get ahead in life and get into a good college and you call it luck? The only reason I could go to college was because of scholarships. I'm the first person in my family that hasn't had to use the military to get into college because I got merit scholarships.

Let me tell you something. I clawed and scratched for everything I have. I have EARNED my keep. And you're telling me what I earned though my blood, sweat, and tears (sometimes literally on all three) should have been given to someone less talented than I simply out of pity, and that I shouldn't have been rewarded for my merit?

I SAY GOOD DAY, SIR! :grr:

[.... callchet ....]

21. If you got a scholarship because you were smart,

then you were lucky to be smart. The whole thing about being a Democrat is to look out for everybody. The whole thing about being a Republican is to reward the smartest and get them to work for you. I think the essence of being a democrat is being lost. The republicans are in favor of rewarding the smartest and brightest, the democrats want promotions to be given on an equitable basis.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

26. Luck nothing.

It's absolute fallacy to believe that one's intelligence is subject simply to luck. You might as well just subscribe to fatalism - we're stuck with what we're born with and there's not a thing we can do about it.

Work goes into it, and frankly I'm offended by your statement. The belief that a person should be rewarded on the basis of merit is not Republican or Democrat. It's one based in the Western tradition dating all the way back to Aristotle.

Should we make schools more available to the less fortunate and the less talented? Absolutely, but not at the cost of pushing away and suppressing the most intelligent and hardest working among us. Otherwise you're going to be turning away a lot of intelligent kids from the working and lower middle classes, which doesn't particularly strike me as "Democratic" either.

[Cid_B]

154. Sweet lord help me through this....

"If you got a scholarship because you were smart, then you were lucky to be smart."

Yeah it had nothing to do with engaging my basic talent and working to make it grow into something that benefits me now. Christ all mighty

"The republicans are in favor of rewarding the smartest and brightest, the democrats want promotions to be given on an equitable basis."

WHY THE HELL SHOULDNT THE SMARTEST AND BRIGHTEST PEOPLE SUCCEED!?!?!

Are you really suggesting that Frank the guy in the mail room who saw all the glaring errors in the system and implemented sweeping changes to the companies benefit should be promoting equally with coworker Tom the guy who is best known for his pick and flick range?

_________________________________________

[ProfessorGAC]

199. Conveniently Circular Discussion

It's luck if one is born rich and doesn't need a scholarship. It's luck if you work hard to get one, get through school, because it is luck to be born smart.

It's awfully convenient to have an argument that applies the same terms to every possible outcome.
GAC

[SeattleGirl]

29. Hear, hear!

I got a full scholarship for my junior and senior years in college, and it wasn't because I was schlepping my way through class. I was working full time, going to school full time, was president of an honor society, and always had high grades. I had to work for it. And the scholarship I got? I got it because a number of my professors recommended me for it, because they knew how hard I worked.

[.... callchet ....]

23. Lucky to be smart, not smart be prepared to suffer because of it.

If you got a scholarship because you were smart,
then you were lucky to be smart. The whole thing about being a Democrat is to look out for everybody. The whole thing about being a Republican is to reward the smartest and get them to work for you. I think the essence of being a democrat is being lost. The republicans are in favor of rewarding the smartest and brightest, the democrats want promotions to be given on an equitable basis.
This is the DU member formerly known as callchet.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. just pure horseshit...

I know plenty of extremely smart people who didn't give a rip in highschool and thus never had a prayer of scholarships in college...so what about the people who got those scholarships for good grades because they worked their ass off? fuck them, right? let's give scholarships to everyone...hell, let's just let 'em sit on their ass and not even go to college and give them a hell of a good job...or better yet, just let 'em sit on their ass and do nothing their entire life and get everything they ever wanted...

that is a dumbfuck idea if i ever heard one.

and yes, i am being harsh...ideas this stupid deserve harsh responses.

sP

Did you not get a scholarship because YOU got shitty grades?

[Horse with no Name]

110. Yeah I am sure that teachers will love parents telling their kids to be stupid

and not do their homework SO they can get a scholarship.
What a ridiculous fucking statement.
Perhaps the OP should look up the meaning of the word scholar.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

117. well, that is how I got into school

i was under-smart so i slacked off so that i could make sure and take advantage of the 'dumbass scholarship'... :-)

sP

[GaYellowDawg]

46. I think you've got some things wrong here...

If you got a scholarship because you were smart, then you were lucky to be smart.

To a certain extent, this is true; you have to be lucky to be intelligent. However, there are plenty of very smart people who slack off and don't get good grades. You have to be smart and work hard to get scholarships.

The whole thing about being a Democrat is to look out for everybody. The whole thing about being a Republican is to reward the smartest and get them to work for you. I think the essence of being a democrat is being lost.

I think being a Democrat means that we try to give everyone a level playing field to start with - but it doesn't mean that everyone gets rewarded in exactly the same fashion, no matter what.

The republicans are in favor of rewarding the smartest and brightest, the democrats want promotions to be given on an equitable basis.

I don't think anyone can look at George W. Bush and think that they're in favor of rewarding the smartest and brightest. Republicans are about rewarding people who already begin from a position of privilege, and that is most definitely not always the smartest and brightest. And I'm curious to know how you define "equitable basis." That's not sarcasm, it's genuine curiosity.

[KittyWampus]

53. talent is cheap, discipline is hard

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. As a former professor, I find your statement to be a perfect example of

the American fondness for mediocrity. If unintelligent people go to college, the result is not smarter people. The result is a dumbed-down college and students who spend all their spare time partying and complaining that school is "boring."

It's odd, but Americans LOVE people who are athletically gifted. They treat them like young gods and give them special privileges. Anyone who suggested that we ought to let anyone and everyone onto the varsity and pro teams (the equivalent of letting everyone into college) would be laughed out of the country, and deservedly so.

However, we have a downright NASTY streak toward people who are intellectually gifted. When I was in graduate school, every single one of my classmates talked about being bullied in high school, either by physically aggressive boy bullies or by emotionally damaging girl bullies.

The athletes had an awards day that was held during school hours, and which everyone was required to attend. That was in addition to the HOUR each week we spent in pep rallies, again during school hours. The honor students had a cake and punch reception on a spring evening, with only their parents invited.

I'm for students getting the education that is right for THEM. In an ideal world, everyone would get a basic education in reading, writing, grammar (a neglected subject), math, science, history, geography, music, art, and a few years of foreign language till the age of sixteen. Then there would be several possible options: academic studies (separated into math/science and humanities/social science tracks), business, skilled trades, whatever. One of the best things that could happen to colleges is fewer people attending and more people getting training that was actually appropriate for them. I'd be delighted to see a brilliant kid from the ghetto or barrio getting a free ride to Harvard. I'd be equally delighted to see the George W. Bush types learning how to run a cash register at a convenience store.

By the way, callchet, either you're an advocate of mediocrity or you've adopted the Republicanite tactic of taking a Democratic principle (equal opportunity), stretching it to absurd lengths (people should go to college even if they won't get anything out of it), and then accusing Democrats of being hypocrites.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

136. god i love you...

thanks for taking the time to write this out...i don't have the patience to deal with this and you have showed the patience of a saint...

sP

[Zhade]

149. I smell jealousy...

It's okay. Not everyone is smart enough to know that you have to work even harder when you're smart.

[Stevenmarc]

24. This is the same thinking

that gives every kid an award at the end of whatever sport they are involved in. Awards are supposed to be a symbol of merit and you dilute the whole meaning of an award by just handing them out to keep kids and more likely their parents placated.

It's completely logical to spend money on kids who are a better investment and merit the scholarship instead of tossing cash at a kid that is as dumb as a box of rocks. I also take offense to calling a scholarship winner "lucky" a lot of kids work damn hard for their scholarship because they know it's their only shot at a good education.

[JHB]

25. What makes you think being smart is just luck?

If a student does well because they work hard at their studies, are they "lucky"?

For plenty of "the smartest kids", the luck was in being exposed to something or someone who inspired a desire to learn.

And do you really want to reward those who aren't particularly interested in learning with higher education scholarships? After eight years of The Frat Boy in Chief?

[.... callchet ....]

28. What is a Democrat ? Hit a nerve here

Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In foreign policy, internationalism (including interventionism) was a dominant theme from 1913 to the mid-1960s. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The party had a pro-business wing, typified by Al Smith, and a Southern conservative wing that shrank after President Lyndon B. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The major influences for liberalism were labor unions (which peaked in the 1936–1952 era), and the African American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component.

In recent decades, the party has adopted a centrist economic and more socially progressive agenda, with the voter base having shifted considerably. Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base currently consists of a large number of well-educated and relatively affluent liberals as well as those in the socially more conservative working class.<12> Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy). The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the "Third Way".<13> The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if such requires a larger role for government and progressive taxation.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

[cobalt1999]

30. No more of a problem than giving football scholarships to the ones who play it best

Or Track & Field scholarships to the kids who run the fastest, or Music scholarships to the kids who play the best, or Swimming scholarships to the kids who swim the best, or...

Academic Scholarships to the kids who are the smartest or work the hardest.

[SeattleGirl]

31. I said nearly the same thing upthread.

And it's true. I would have qualified for neither a sports or music scholarship, nor did I ever think I deserved one. Those were for the kids who were really good in those areas. Well, I was really good at academics, and was rewarded with a scholarship my junior and senior years.

[.... callchet ....]

32. So what about all college education being free?

Why was that not even mentioned one time? As a democrat .

[SeattleGirl]

34. Now you're playing apples and oranges.

Right now, all schools cost money, be they public or private. So, people need money to go to school.

The free schooling is a whole different discussion.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

37. Because you've been attacking merit scholarships, not proposing solutions.

I'm all in favor of free post-secondary education (which would include more than traditional 4 year colleges. Some students just don't want to go to college, but would rather learn a trade. Why shut them out?)

[cobalt1999]

39. Maybe because that wasn't the topic of your OP

Instead of questioning "Why give Academic Scholarships to only the smart?", you should have started a thread about "Why isn't college free?" if that is what you wanted to discuss.

Two different topics and YOU started this. Ask yourself why you didn't start with the Free Education topic.

[.... callchet ....]

51. I thought that would be the natural progression form my OP.

Why would that not be the natural discussion on a democrat forum. Did I underestimate the social conscience ? I really don't know.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

57. Because Democrats and other progressives aren't exempt from logical discourse. nt

[tekisui]

60. "Why would that not be the natural discussion on a democrat forum"

:think:

I get it.

[blondeatlast]

168. Glaring, isn't it? nt

[Bluebear]

66. "Did I underestimate the social conscience?" - why don't you just come out with your agenda

If you want to lead a discussion, fine. Don't start something unrelated and then feign surprise when somebody doesn't bring up something that you think you're fishing for.

[sniffa]

91. "Did I underestimate..."

His own?

[Cid_B]

156. Right, the laws of statistics should change for you...

... because you feel bad. There is a bell curve to everyone and everything in every skill and ability. That will never ever ever change.

You remind me of a Heinlein novel...

_______________________________________

The California Confederacy - Includes the former American states of California, Oregon, and Washington. Its form of government is a democracy taken to its illogical extreme. Instead of having a fixed constitution, all law in California seems to be subject to change by a majority plebiscite vote. The tendency of voters is to pass laws that encourage "democracy" and "equality" on a superficial level. For example, when it was noted that Californians with college degrees earned more than those with high school diplomas alone, the California voters passed a law granting all citizens a bachelor's degree upon graduation from high school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_(novel)

_______________________________________

L

[fishwax]

74. why wasn't that mentioned? I think it has something to do with how you framed the topic in your OP

:shrug:

[.... callchet ....]

36. College used to be free in California until Reagan.

Have we taken a beating for so long that we don't even want or remember out entitlements.

[Alexander]

79. You should've started the thread about free education

If you want people to talk about that.

You're expecting people to play guessing games and read your mind. Not going to happen.

[Uzybone]

40. Why not make the most stupid person president?

Idiocracy was not far from the mark.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

44. Didn't we just go through 8 years of that? nt

[.... callchet ....]

45. College education should be free to everybody.

Not even in my wildest dreams did I think that I would get this kind of response on a democratic forum. I thought it would have started a discussion about free education.

[cobalt1999]

47. WTF? Then start a thread about Free Education.

Jeez. Is everyone supposed to read your mind?

[.... callchet ....]

56. Get real , really, that should have been obvious.

Did I think I would get conservative Republican responses ? No, not in any way.

[tekisui]

63. You are quite transparent. I only open your threads to confirm.

[Horse with no Name]

113. ....

:thumbsup:

[kiva]

127. Ummhmmm.

Reference to a 'democrat forum.'
Whining that respect for intelligence is a Republican virtue.
Hidden profile.

Yep.

[.... callchet ....]

80. No, just read the OP

I said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally "?

Why did everybody overlook that. Only had to read one more sentence, Are people just sitting with their sarcasm guns loaded and taking cheap shots?

[blondeatlast]

169. If you are familiar with its history--yes, everyone IS supposed to

follow its convoluted thinking.

[Stevenmarc]

49. Well then you should of framed it that way

Scholarships have always been merit based and have nothing to do with a government funded free education.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

52. It would have if you framed the question differently.

Instead of essentially saying, "Let's shaft the people that or smart and work hard for people who aren't/don't" You could have said, "Everyone deserves a post-secondary education. What can we do to make this possible?" But you went for the flame bait option, instead.

[tekisui]

65. Flame bait is the MO of the OP.

Everytime.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

67. Yeah, I figured that out after my first post.

Well, either that or the OP really can't think things out.

[.... callchet ....]

73. Well, I think what is being attacked here is core liberal values.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

77. I think that you just have trouble formulating a coherent argument,

and that you feign indignation when people can't follow your train of thought. Notice how quickly I agreed with you when you got to your *actual* point - free post-secondary education.

So, either you can't formulate and argument or you're being deliberately provocative.

[.... callchet ....]

88. Did you not read this in the OP?

Seriously. I said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?' There is nothing hidden in that. Do you agree ?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

89. Your statement is flawed. Refer to my first post.

[.... callchet ....]

94. I read you first post and you were confusing hard work

with being lucky to be smart. Your working hard has nothing to do with whether or not you were smart. If you were smart, HIGH IQ or however you want to say it, you were lucky. You can't learn smart. You can't get taller or shorter. That is a trait. I clearly said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and "start helping everybody equally ?" " I didn't' feign indignation, I am just amazed at how a very clearly liberal thought , like affirmative action and equal opportunity could have been met with such conservative responses. My post can stand the scrutiny of being forthright and liberal. I composed it very carefully to look for fellow liberals to ignite a liberal conversation. I have an affinity for bringing down the walls, when all my posts are just very liberal, radically liberal. For instance , what is the Democrat position on teacher performance review and merit raises based on such reviews..

[Dr. Strange]

166. I think you're confusing the two.

What people have pointed out to you is that success (such as earning a college degree) is most often the result of hard work. You've decided that it's the result of "luck." One of the biggest adjustments I've seen incoming college students have to deal with is recognizing that college really is different from high school. I can't tell you how many students end up doing poorly in one of my (or a colleague's) math course, because they think they can just sit in class and soak up everything. It worked in high school, so surely it will work in college, they think. And after one or two poor exam scores, they realize that it doesn't. It's not enough to be smart--you really do have to study and work.

[Alexander]

78. No, what is being attacked here is your inability to have a discussion.

Why did you disable your profile?

[tekisui]

81. You're catching on.

Every OP from this one is the same song and dance.

[.... callchet ....]

102. Scared about losing my job.

It may not be apparent to very many people, but I post extremely left wing radical thoughts. Most of which are apparently over the head of a lot of the democrats here.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

107. wow...now yer more librul than e'ryone else two...

[.... callchet ....]

112. Two ? To or Too ? Just as confusing, I guess .

[ProdigalJunkMail]

118. and you cannot seem to get the point of the post

to which you are responding...i am beginning to think you ARE upset because you didn't get a scholarship cause you weren't 'smart' enough...

sP

[.... callchet ....]

129. ProdigalJunkMail

ProdigalJunkMail, I know liberal, liberal is a friend of mine. ProdigalJunkMail you are no liberal.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

130. yep...yer still more librul then e'ryone here

prolly more librul then me...butt not all thees other peepel

sP

[.... callchet ....]

135. Sorry, couldn't resist that !

Made Lloyd Bentsen Immortal.

[blondeatlast]

173. Oh/ My. Goodness. I think I burst my diaphragm from laughing so hard! nt

[blondeatlast]

170. Correct on both counts. The quality level of our "interning" guests is dropping

very quickly.

[.... callchet ....]

70. Wrong, just core liberal values that got attacked here.

[tekisui]

75. Right.....

You think you can lay a turd and us Democrats are going to polish it up to your preconceived standards.

You have no idea how discussions progress, if you expect someone to arrive at a point by starting a thread with a diversion.:eyes:

[.... callchet ....]

104. Once again, no diversion, I clearly said

"Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?" which clearly continues to get overlooked by everybody. Clearly "helping everybody equally " what is hidden about that thought ?

[fishwax]

132. "free college for everyone" doesn't necessarily follow from "helping everybody equally"

So the thing that was hidden about that thought was the "free college for everyone" part.

[sniffa]

96. I agree

We don't have enough stupid people taking up college slots. Why should the lucky smart people get the free sheepskins when the majority of this great country is stupid.

[Bluebear]

100. Smart people don't need education.

They have all the luck.

[sniffa]

116. Didn't Dubya get one of those non-smart scholarships?

I'm glad the Ivy League didn't bar him because he wasn't lucky enough to be smart.

[.... callchet ....]

111. Are you saying that everyone that does not get a scholarship is stupid?

Do you even read what you write, after you criticize what I say after not reading my whole post ?

[sniffa]

120. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

Then again I didn't read what I wrote so take that with a grain of dumbed-down salt.

You know, you can always audit classes at college. I'm pretty sure you don't need a scholarship for that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

122. yep...that is exactly what was said

:eyes:

but you cannot pick up on some pretty basic points in these posts...methinks i know the reason...

sP

[fishwax]

76. if you wanted to start a discussion about free education, then you probably should have

at least mentioned it. :shrug:

[Pithlet]

128. There's a huge difference between that, and what you posted in the OP.

I would definitely support free education for all who want it. I don't think academic scholarships are discriminatory against unlucky kids. That's stupid. Scholarships aren't automatically handed out to smart kids. They still had to work for them, you see. So, luck is only part of the equation and a small part at that. What those scholarships really do is ensure that it isn't just about who is financially able to attend. In other words, since education isn't free for all who want it and very likely won't be any time soon, these scholarships are a way of making the playing field a little more even. A rather progressive ideal, wouldn't you say? So I fail to see how you thought your OP would get a whole lot of support here, and why you're all that surprised at the results. I figured you had a hidden agenda, but I didn't think it was free education for all.

[seabeyond]

50. the smart kids have worked ass off, not just lucky. geeezus. reward the people NOT

putting in the effort and screw the ones that work

now, if you were to ask about kids taking scholarships when parent can afford the education. i would side with you though it isnt fair if the kid earned it, but still i would like to see scholarship go to the kids that work ass off and cant afford

[valerief]

54. Smart kids don't always do well. Scholarships can give them the boost they may need.

Stupid kids don't always do poorly. Some become presidents.

[scheming daemons]

55. This might possibly be the dumbest OP ever

A. Being "smart" has nothing to do with what socio-economic class a person is from. George W. Bush lived a privileged life and he's dumb as a rock. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton came from VERY humble backgrounds and are very intelligent.

B. College is not for everyone. It should be for those with the mental capacity to take advantage of it... and again, this has nothing to do with who is rich or poor. Those without the intelligence to take advantage of college should utilize the skills they have. Those skills aren't usually augmented by higher education.


Sorry... everyone is unique in their capabilities and potential. Not everyone is cut out for college. Those that are, we should do everything we can to make it easier for them. So... yes... Scholarships for those with aptitude.

[Stevenmarc]

61. Thank you

[.... callchet ....]

64. Everybody that goes to college does not ge a scholarship.

I would venture to say that most of the kids don't get scholarships. Scholarships should be awarded based on financial need.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

68. There are. A lot, actually.

Want to change your argument again?

[sniffa]

98. Many of the scholarships are based on financial need

It's just a shame that they also take into account the poor kids' grades.

[Art_from_Ark]

147. There are all sorts of scholarships

Academic scholarships-- both private and public
Sports scholarships
Talent scholarships
Scholarships for students going into specialized fields
Scholarships for students with special interests

And Peel Grants qualify as a sort of scholarship for needy students.

I would say that most students probably do get one sort of "scholarship" or another, if we define "scholarship" as being "money received from a 3rd party for attending an institute of higher education, with no requirement to pay it back". But very few of them are full scholarships.

[blondeatlast]

174. Ignorance doesn't suit you--many scholarships are need-based first, then

other qualis follow.

You are amusing, though, I will give you that much.

[Alexander]

69. Seconded. This OP wouldn't qualify for a scholarship anywhere.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

71. Well, not a merit one, anyway.

There are plenty of financial need ones out there, though.

[Alexander]

72. If the OP has this kind of time to waste asking stupid questions...

I don't think he or she is in financial trouble.

[.... callchet ....]

84. You need to read the whole post . Maybe equal rights don't mean anything

to you ? I said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?"

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

90. Now if you want to know what I think about education...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4991030&mesg_id=4991038

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. if you weren't so hung up on the luck bullshit

you might be able to make a cogent point. let's give scholarships to people who will fail...THAT makes sense...

sP

[sniffa]

123. That's exactly what your OP was about

I can't believe everyone failed to read the invisible sentences in your OP.

[fishwax]

58. No. It's definitely not a problem.

And I'm not sure what makes you think that "smart kids are going to do good anyways." :shrug:

[scheming daemons]

59. I think those without athletic skills should be put on NFL teams too

:sarcasm:


Can't get over how stupid this OP is.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

62. Well, it would certainly make games more interesting. nt

[.... callchet ....]

82. Was it too much to expect, to think the whole post would have been read?

I said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally " Do the sarcasm guns have hair triggers or just shoot at liberals?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

86. Back to the luck thing.

I'm not going to repost my other statements, though you're free to peruse them at your convenience.

[.... callchet ....]

121. I read them, and I read your OP on free education

a little while ago tonight. Once again , people are confusing smart with achievement. You can't get any smarter. You can learn and reduce ignorance and become well rounded,but you can't get any smarter. If you are smart, you are lucky. You can't learn smart. You can gain knowledge, but that doesn't make you any smarter, just more knowledgeable.

[.... callchet ....]

140. My question if you would please answer?

You said I feigned indignati0on but I clearly said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally "

You said "Everyone deserves a post-secondary education. What can we do to make this possible
you feign indignation when people can't follow your train of thought. Notice how quickly I agreed with you when you got to your *actual* point - free post-secondary education"

I clearly posted "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally " I hid nothing. I stated that in the OP. So why all the indignation about my saying helping "everybody equally"?
Please spare me one more reply and answer that.

[PM7nj]

109. I wasn't smart because I was "lucky." I worked my ass off. nt

[.... callchet ....]

161. If you were smart, you were lucky.

If you worked hard and used that to your advantage that is wonderful. But being smart or intelligent is a trait you can't acquire, you are born with it. Don't confuse making smart decisions with being smart. You can't acquire intelligence. You can gather knowledge and do great things with that knowledge. There are people of high intelligence, average intelligence and low intelligence and that is how you are born. If you have and IQ of 120 when you are 13, that level will never change. Some things come easy to some people and others have to work harder for it. Morality and ethics come easy for me. I don't like the idea of a lot of kids having to take a back seat to other kids, just because some kids are smarter. Or taller or run faster or can through a ball further. Special schools for gifted kids ? What about the rest of the kids. And by the way, gifted is being lucky. You can't learn or acquire gifted.

[Horse with no Name]

119. You seem to speak of Liberals and Democrats as outsiders

You have said as much in the multitude of posts you have written.
Perhaps it is not US who are outsiders?
I am pretty certain you really do NOT care about education for anyone...unless you would personally benefit from it.
And your framing sucks...you make a post about a topic and then cry foul when nobody picked up on your illogical course.
However, for some reason, I am quite positive that IF the postings actually veered that way, you would have attacked them for hijacking your thread.
The entire insane premise of your thread was nothing but to stir shit and I am QUITE certain that the answers to this are posted at other sites that cannot be named.
Sorry dude. Not interested in playing.
Drive-thru.

[tekisui]

92. See this link:

Excellent post about this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4991030

[.... callchet ....]

95. What is different in that post and what I said when I said.

"Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?" There was no hidden meaning on my post. I clearly asked that all people be treated equally. That is a core fundamental democrat belief. I am amazed at the conservative tone of some of the replies. What would their position be on Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

124. oh nevermind...you just won't be able to get it... n/t

[Horse with no Name]

101. My daughter is one of the smart ones

We prioritized education in my house. We aren't rich. Those scholarships helped a kid that might not have had enough to go to school complete her education.
Do you rather these scholarships go to kids who don't appreciate education?

[OhioChick]

108. Same here. n/t

[PM7nj]

105. Are you serious? This is the biggest bullshit I have ever read.

I worked my ass off in highschool while most of my classmates were out partying and blowing off school. Guess what? I was smart and they weren't. So should they have gotten a scholarship instead?

[dysfunctional press]

106. i thought that's what athletic scholarships are for...?

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

114. My kids will _never_ be able to afford college. Why punish them for being bright but poor? Let

them at least try to further their education with the help of scholarships, I say. (I'd prefer free college for everyone, but it will never happen in time for my kids.)

[.... callchet ....]

126. Why punish someone for being not as bright and poor also?

Equal opportuniy is what I said in my OP. I said "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

133. why should we put someone into a set of courses

that they will most likely fail??? do you even comprehend what you are saying? not everyone needs to go to college...because not everyone can succeed there...

sP

[.... callchet ....]

138. "Not everyone needs to go to college."

I was talking about receivers of scholarships. Not everybody that goes to college gets a scholarship. Are you thinking that only people with scholarships go to college ? You said "not everyone needs to go to college...because not everyone can succeed there" A lot of people go to college that don't get scholarships. Did you think that I said make everybody go to college ? Does it make a difference now that that is not what I said?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

139. you essentially said scholarships should be given to

stupid people as well as to smart people...all about equality...and that is the group of people i am arguing. not everyone needs to go to college. people who will likely not succeed on the basis of their intelligence should not be wasting scholarship money to go to school for a semester or two only to fail out because they cannot handle the curricula...

and oh yes, there are also a lot of very rich people who have no business in college either...they are usually weeded out pretty quickly unless the endowments are very large...

sP

[.... callchet ....]

141. Is that how you differentiate . Either smart or stupid.

Don't you believe that there are average people, as well as smart people as well as gifted people as well as challenged people. My impression is that you just want to criticize me without giving it any thought or reading my whole post. I never said stupid, I said "start helping everybody equally" What is wrong with that ?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

145. you figure it out...

you KNOW what is wrong with it, but you are too busy shouting about your librul-cred to admit it...

nighty night

sP

[.... callchet ....]

142. Who said fail, you are making up a concept that I did not say.

Do you think that just because they don't get a scholarship that they will most likely fail. I am giving up on this, the whole premise which I clearly state was make everybody have an equal opportunity to go to college. Lest I be challenged for license my quote is "start helping everybody equally ".

[ProdigalJunkMail]

144. and stupid people get scholarships and fail...

and you fucking know it but you are too 'librul' to admit to that little outcome...

sP

[Lydia Leftcoast]

134. See my post #131

Basically, it boils down to "College is wasted on dumb people, and they should have training for something that is actually suitable for them."

[distantearlywarning]

125. Um....No.

:crazy:

[cobalt1999]

143. After reading through this entire thread it's obvious...

You are in no danger of EVER getting an academic scholarship.

Your debating and arguing skills are nil.

When you have no logical points to make (which is often), you drape yourself in the "I'm more democratic/liberal than you" flag. Each time you use that shows your lack of ability to respond.

You failed to even start a post about what the topic you wanted to discuss. That's epic fail. :rofl:

[havocmom]

146. So is it discrimination that guys who play football well get scholarships

while clutzy females like me didn't get scholarships?

There are different scholarships for different reasons and FROM different entities. Spit the sour grapes outta yer mouth and work harder at jumping through the hoops if you want a scholarship.

[Zhade]

148. Would giving it to the less intelligent HELP anyone?

It'd be a waste for those who can't take advantage of it.

I would definitely support scholarships to technical institutes and trade schools, though.

[Cid_B]

150. AUGH!!! My brainZ!! You hurted it!!!

[blogslut]

151. Bless your heart

I'm afraid you don't know the meaning of the word "smart".

[seabeyond]

172. lol lol lol

your bless your heart has me gigglin.

[anonymous171]

152. No. nt

[BluePatriot]

153. Ugh

Oh man. I remember the flamewar that resulted from trying to have a Gifted and Talented forum / group.

The only thing I have ever hated about DU is taking equality for all to the point where people argue superior intelligence does not exist and does not come with challenges.

Bell curve, people....bell curve...

I am now going to slink out of here...

[OmahaBlueDog]

157. I think giving scholarships based on economic need makes the most sense

Isn't the best use of education funding to train the most economically disadvantaged, so they improve their economic situation, and enrich their community?

[BobTheSubgenius]

158. A name....

Harrison Bergeron

[defendandprotect]

159. Who's to say what "smart" is . . . ???

We should start a pool of funds from which every generation can benefit so that

everyone can go to college --- at any age.

As the woman from Bikini Island said after we nuked the islands . . .

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things."

[CTyankee]

163. Isn't this what they do in Western European countries? The smart ones get a free university

education. There are big exams that the students must do well on. If they don't, they simply must find work in professions not requiring the degree.

[Peacetrain]

164. One of the most cluesless things I have ever read...

I just do not even know where to begin.. well lets start with, smart kids are in all economic brackets and social , race, ethnic brackets.. so what are you proposing..letting the brightest and best hopes wither on the vine.. for what?

[caraher]

165. Wrong question

It's like health care - college should be free to every qualified student. And high quality, free public education should give everyone willing to work a chance to make it. And the social support system should make sure children get the nutrition, parents get the support, you know, the whole "it takes a village" thing the reich wingers mocked in the '90s.

That's what it would truly mean to leave no child behind.

Arguing about who should get scholarships is kind of like arguing about who should get private health insurance. Yes, it's better to have it than not, but the problem is a system that makes it necessary at all.

[Evoman]

167. Most of the "less smart" kids are completely average kids who don't try as hard as the equally

average "smart" kids.

Here it is plain....high school isn't hard enough to really separate people based on intelligence. Most people (of course) are average, and a person of average intelligence can get good marks if they apply effort. You are effectively recommending that the slackers who don't give a shit about school and would rather drink and party then do their homework should get the scholarships.

Sure there are really intelligent kids and really dumb kids...but they are such a small percentage of the population that they are pretty much irrelevant. The intelligent kids will take advantage of some scholarships, and the dumb kids probably couldn't read the scholarships you gave to them and would trade them in for some beans the smart kids told them were magic.

I do think that more scholarships should be provided and distributed among the people with the top 20 or 30 marks. But basically, marks are better reflectors of effort than intelligence.

[Tindalos]

171. Smart kids aren't lucky

Most of them got there through hard work.

[NeedleCast]

175. Wait Wait Wait

So it's your belief that smart people are smart because...they got lucky?

[.... callchet ....]

177. Yes Yes Yes

Intelligence is a trait or ability. And if you have this trait you are lucky, why is that so hard to understand, or am I on some list that says don't use reason, just criticize. It really perplexes me that people don't understand that if they are smart, that is a trait or ability that you are born with. And if yo are smart, you are lucky to be smart.


in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason ; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

[NeedleCast]

191. Well that's completely insane

Good luck with that.

It's hard to understand because its totally false. While some people may have a higher capacity for learning than others, intelligence is NOT a product of luck.

[Dr. Strange]

201. Okay, but even if intelligence is some innate ability...

it means nothing in terms of your argument. No one is getting a scholarship for having an innate ability. If someone is born with great intelligence, but doesn't use it and ends up with a 1.2 GPA, they aren't going to get those scholarships. They are going to have to do the work, things like earning a 4.0 GPA.

[.... callchet ....]

179. And by the way.

A smart logical person would answer my reply to your post " Wait Wait Wait ". I would like to see one contradiction to my assertion that smart is not a given trait, given at birth. Most of all the replies are confusing smart with gaining knowledge. You have to be smart to gain a lot of knowledge. You can't get smarter, increase your intelligence quotient. That is how you are born.

[NeedleCast]

192. Onus of proof is on you slick

You're the one making the argument that the capacity for intelligence is a train. Prove it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. The Scholarships Go To Exactly Who They Should Go To.

I find your premise to be absurd.

[Dreamer Tatum]

178. This is one of those idiotic Devil's Advocate threads

Someone's head can't completely wrap around the concept of merit-based scholarships, so
naturally they must be wrong.

I went to grad school with plenty of morons like that: "I don't understand what's in this
journal article, so it must be WRONG."

[.... callchet ....]

182. You can't seem to grasp the concept of equal rights.

Why is that so difficult to understand ? Meritorious advancement is the heart of pure capitalism. Equal rights is the heart of the Democrat Ideal. If I am wrong, as it appears to be from all the replies, I am just wrong in their opinion.

[Dreamer Tatum]

183. Try to get this

You are advocating for equality of OUTCOMES, not equality of OPPORTUNITY. In my particular case, I happened to work very hard to earn my scholarships and (get this) I had to work even harder to keep them. I'm sure it's that way for a lot of people. People to whom some things come very easily are given scholarships so they'll work even harder. I've observed that firsthand, too.

I think this is a rare instance in which someone is simply categorically wrong. It happens.

[.... callchet ....]

185. Well

"not equality of OPPORTUNITY." I said: "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?" How can making equal opportunity to get a scholarship be descried as equality of outcome. How can that be described any other way than equality of opportunity.

[Dreamer Tatum]

187. The outcome is the scholarship

The opportunity is the ability to get one.

The crux of your argument (that intelligence is simply luck) is silly on its face. You will need
to prove that intelligence is simply a matter of genetics before you can convince anyone of anything.
Since you are likely to define away anyone's counterexample ("why, he only knew to work hard because
he was BORN INTELLIGENT!"), this is a pointless exercise.

[.... callchet ....]

188. Finished Part Deux "Korean"

Does IQ Change Over Time?
Most experts agree that IQ changes little during a lifetime. Tests are not exact measuring instruments, and results can fluctuate. However, a person’s IQ generally stays consistent after the age of eight, changing no more than three or four points over time.

The more commonly accepted theory regarding IQ says intelligence is a combination of heredity and environment. A poor environment can stunt a child’s intellectual growth just as bad genes can affect a child’s potential. Combining an enriched environment with good genes should produce a child who will ace an IQ test (128 and over).

http://parentingagiftedchild.suite101.com/article.cfm/exploring_origin_of_intelligence

[.... callchet ....]

189. Maybe I over estimated the reception of my projection.

[blondeatlast]

202. Or maybe your OP has nothing whatsoever to do with the point you really want to make.

Lord knows that a thread by you will be amusing, though.

[seabeyond]

194. 193 posts and not one in agreement and STILL you do not get how stupid your post is

affirmation WHY we dont give stupid people the scholarships into college

[Bluebear]

203. Astonishing, ain't it?

[Freddie Stubbs]

180. Depends on how you define 'smart'

If you simply mean the students with the highest IQ, then it may very well not be fair.

But many scholarships are based on a student's grades. Sometimes students who may not be classified as 'smart' get good grades by simply working harder than the supposedly smarter students. Why shouldn't those students be rewarded?

[.... callchet ....]

184. How else can you perceive what I said ?

I said "Is this a problem, giving scholarships to the "smartest" kids ?" Does that not indicate intelligent ? Smart, smarter, smartest. Comparative description. Smartest being the " Smartest " And then I said: "Shouldn't our system try and get away from prioritizing luck and start helping everybody equally ?" Helping everybody "equally". What is wrong with that ?

[tjwash]

181. They already do give them to dummies...they're called "athletic scholarships"

:yoiks:

[NeedleCast]

195. Because there are no scholar-athletes

...

[.... callchet ....]

186. Finished

[tekisui]

190. You kicked this doomed post back up to say 'Finished'?

[Peacetrain]

193. I couldn't believe it either

:rofl:..

[cobalt1999]

198. Well, after completely proving themselves an idiot

Why shouldn't they go out celebrating the fact?

Is it any wonder the OP is jealous of smart people.

[WI_DEM]

196. Actually many scholorships do go to bright, but financially needy kids.

[RedCappedBandit]

200. Let's get really idealistic and say scholarships shouldn't be necessary to pay for education! nt