If NAACP really cared it would have ended the influence of Teacher Unions, passing black students that were not educated in basic skills, and using their power re-instated trade schools/journeymen.

You know preparing kids for the real world.

what Scalia said wasn't wrong, exactly... but said in such a way that it invited the social hurricane that came after...

If you said: access to schools must be based on academic standards that EVERYONE must meet... you will have better outcomes across the board, since people will go to schools that are appropriate for their level and skill in learning. Allowing racial preferences to be implemented skews the outcome, because their ability to learn at a particular school isn't taken into account.

I didn't have the grades or test scores[or shcolarships] to get into Harvard or Stanford, or MIT. So I didn't even bother applying. Would'a wasted my time and theirs. But then I didn't have a counselor who would push that, or a school recruiting me to fulfill some demographic quota.

Equality of opportunity, is not equality of outcome... and we have seen time and time again where pushing the outcome ACTUALLY HARMS the party involved.

But-Next-Time-It'll-Be-Different™
:massive eyeroll:

The problem is we're using the step at the end of the public education process to fix the problems that came earlier. If we don't have enough minorities matriculating at Harvard, it's not Harvard's fault, it's the public education system's fault for not producing enough qualified students.

Fix the primary schools, not the admissions lottery at the end of the line.

That said, even the most under-educated student can study harder and work his way through an elite college. If a particular group of students is not graduating in high enough numbers from an elite school, it's not because the other students are too far advanced for him to keep up with, it's because he's not working at advancing his own education. He's expecting the program to be dumbed down to his level.

After all, most elite schools have set-aside admissions spots for students not coming out of elite prep schools, so there are working class kids at Harvard and kids at MIT who didn't come out of a technical charter school.

What most high schools teach is not so much subject matter, but work and study habits (better schools = better habits). That's why GED students generally don't fare much better later in life than drop-outs.

"If you look at employer surveys," he says, "the things that employers generally most look for or think are important, especially at lower-end jobs, are the things like perseverance and tenacity, and those kinds of qualities that are not measured by the GED."

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147015513/in-todays-economy-how-far-can-a-ged-take-you

"what Scalia said wasn't wrong, exactly... but said in such a way that it invited the social hurricane that came after..."

The thing is, those were not his own words. He was quoting one of the filed briefs, in the process of questioning one of the parties. The MSM have conveniently omitted that little detail. It's like accusing someone of being a Fascist just because they quote some words from Mein Kampf.

"Equality of opportunity, is not equality of outcome... "

Indeed. In fact the two things are diametrically opposed -- you can only have equality of outcome by enforcing unequal opportunities.

A point seldom considered; you don't have to start at a top-tier college to finish there. I know of several college students who did a year or two at a good quality community college, got excellent grades, and transferred to high-quality private and public-ivy level universities (where they graduated with honors). The only name on your diploma is the school you graduate from.

A secondary benefit, it's much cheaper to get a college education that way.

The only problem I see is the elitist attitude presented by clowns such as Chevy Chase in that awful comedy "Community". too many dumb people see a TV show and equate it with reality.