SB 23-17: End of Affirmative Action in Atlasia Act (At Final Vote)

[Former President tack50]

How on Earth did this pass the House?

Anyways I oppose affirmative action but as I said this is an issue best left to the regions, not the federal government.

[Former President tack50]

I mean, I am personally of the opinion that college access should be as equal as possible. College applications should not look at supreflous stuff. That includes an applicant's race, gender and income; but also they should not look at stuff like extracurriculars and what not.

I can say here irl my college application was literally just a number. 60% is your GPA equivalent; 40% is the "end of high school" exam. (it is actually slightly more complicated but not too much).First say, 20 students that want to get into a certain degree get in; everyone else doesn't get in (depends on supply and demand).

Of course if Atlasia really wanted to ensure perfect 100% equality, it could move to a "universal admission" model like the one France uses, though it is worth noting even the French are moving away from that model; and moving towards a French-like system would require deeper changes.

In my opinion college access should be above all objective and equal for all.

[Former President tack50]

I mean, I am personally of the opinion that college access should be as equal as possible. College applications should not look at supreflous stuff. That includes an applicant's race, gender and income; but also they should not look at stuff like extracurriculars and what not.

This is probably one of the most disturbingly fascist ideas for higher education I've heard. I'm no fan of how the current American/Atlasian college application system works, but basing it all on a score would result in all the top universities being composed solely of score-chasers - people who are mainly just really good at test taking and preparation, and spend a lot of time on just those things. We'd end up with the top colleges all just churning out nothing but management consultants and hedge fund managers.

I mean, this also involves setting different "passing scores" for different majors and universities. So no, the top colleges will not become "full of hedge fund managers", though the "hedge fund manager at Harvard" admission score would be through the roof. At the end of the day it shuld work on "supply and demand".

While I can understand the point about score-chasers; it does reinforce my point regarding objectivity and an even playing field, scores are probably the closest thing to that. I do not think there are any good ways to filter score chasers bad at everything else that are also objective and fair.

Anyways I 100% know that is not passing and I will not propose it. And as I said college access should probably be a regional policy, though the federal governments should provide oversight; though unless we were to change college admissions at a much deeper level (I proposed "Universal admission" as an alternative for example) I think this would exceed the level of oversight from the federal government that is admissible.

And before you ask, I'm not introducing such a reform in Lincoln either (again because I know it isn't passing; though pretty sure I did try a reform along those lines back in my time in the Council)

[Former President tack50]

First off, this wouldn't work because in a lot of schools in the US you don't have a declared major until halfway through college - forcing specialization early is something I strongly disagree with. Also this would be even worse - as people would start choosing majors in things they aren't actually interested in in order to get admissions into a certain school. This is already a problem with the current system; doing that would only make it far far worse.

Well, I would disagree that specialization from the start of college is too early or a bad thing. We are talking about 18 year olds here, not 10 year olds. People should join university with a declared major, knowing that in 4 years they will hold a "College degree on X". In fact I oppose the concept of "core subjects" but that is just a tangent here and not really related to the bill. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

As for people choosing majors in things they aren't actually interested to get admitted to a certain school, is that really a problem? I would assume people would choose their major first and then go to whichever school admits them for that major and not the other way around?

I certainly do not know anyone who would have preferred to study something they hate at a "good" university than their preferred degree; but at a "mediocre" university. I will say I do know people who had to study something they didn't really like, but that is because their score was too low to get to it anywhere (access scores, while they differ throughout the country, do not vary that much)

[Former President tack50]

On a sidenote, we are at 2 pages already and debate has not even started. The only other time I have seen as much debate in the Senate was when I introduced my semi-meme train bill lol

[Former President tack50]

You aren't a Senator. You get no say in that, nor will your opinion ever influence a currently sitting Senator.

Also worth pointing out, since you clearly paid no attention to the House debate, the education funding was the compromise that allowed this bill to pass with bipartisan support.

I mean, as an actual sitting Senator I welcome all debate and input, including that from the general public and other officeholders

[Former President tack50]

As for people choosing majors in things they aren't actually interested to get admitted to a certain school, is that really a problem? I would assume people would choose their major first and then go to whichever school admits them for that major and not the other way around?

Not when the top of the top universities carry such good name recognition and clout that they can get you into to a wide range of jobs no matter what your actual major is. Maybe it works differently somewhere that doesn't have that distinction idk.


Also there are PLENTY of people who choose to study something they aren't interested in because it looks good or whatever.


And also this brings me to another point on this. If you are admitting people to specifically, let's say, a physics program. Ideally, you want students who are really interested in physics and capable of doing something with the learning you offer. However, instead, learning or doing physics beyond the "normal high school" level is actually punished under your system because the more time you spend on subjects you actually care about the less time you will spend studying for the One Big Exam that actually gets you into stuff.

Well, that is an argument for a more egalitarian college system I suppose. Doesn't that apply to only the top of the top of universities? Like just the top 1% or something like that?

I do know tons of people study something they don't really like because it looks good, their parents did it, it carries a good reputation or whatever, but I don't think such a model makes things any worse (or better)

As for the actual point, I certainly believe all students should learn roughly the same level of stuff. In any case, a student that wants to go the extra mile probably is rewarded by teachers in class (leading to higher scores) and also will benefit from learning more once he gets into college, making his life easier.

I will also not that the "One big exam" model tends to be the rule and not the exception to my knowledge

[Former President tack50]

I see no point on striking section 1 as it is the whole point of the bill

[Former President tack50]

Nay

That moment when you are a better Federalist than at least one of the 2 Fed Senators

Anyways I fullu support getting rid of affirmative action but I think this bill intrudes into the competences and powers of the regions. This should be a regional bill like the one the South (probably) has or the famous one Lincoln had and then repealed

[Former President tack50]

I move for a veto override.

This motion is out of order: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=296784.0

LT is the sponsor of this bill though? Or do we need to wait for the House?