By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Farmageddon on 11 July 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Farmageddon said:
Kasz216 said:

Well... that's just stupid if your quotas actually work that way.  I've never seen or heard of quotas actually working that way. 

Of course your region also teaches America as one continent somehow doesn't it?

I'm not a fan of quoatas myself, but the idea behind it is to make access to universities easier to a group of people who would rarelly ever get there otherwise because they have weaker  education prior to that. It's meant to be a way to help income distribution by distributing study better, a way to make sure people won't be stuck in a loop because they were born on poverty and never get a chance to get ou of it. That's why the system works in a way that the student who's elegible for the quotas get's a big advantage over the others. Still, the percentage is small and it's not like getting in without them gets that much harder, even if it obviously does get harder.

Why is that stupid, or better yet, worse than what you described?

About America, kinda. They do define Anglo-America and Latin America as well as South, Central and North America, so it depends on the context.


It's stupid because it gurantees inequality based on race.   With the way it works in america... people with quotas still get a big advantage, because they have less competition for said spots if said inequality exists.

It self adjusts for how well and how bad said students are doing.... which is important since the goal is equality. You always make sure the percentage is equal to what it should be.

You would be right if not for one thing: the inequality in the States is a completely different beast from the inequality in Brazil.

The idea behind the quotas is to fight inequality and poor income distribution, and here their enemy is much bigger and much stronger than in the USA, so the system itself also has to be stronger in order to remain effective. Truth is that the chances of a low-income-family student are ridiculously lower here, instead of just lower. And unless more of these people get a good education, it'll never get better. That's the reasoning. It's callibrated to make a difference but still not be too taxing on the other students.

We have quotas for race but we have them for low-income/porr education too. I don't agree with the reasoning behind the first one, being that even when they do have money black people (I won't take indians in consideration here) are descriminated against and all that. Sure, it too is a bigger problem here than in USA, but I still don't think it's a big enough problem in a solid majority of cases. Still, the other, the "social quotas", are a lot more justified.

I still don't like the system as a whole, I think the selection and level for the quotas should be much less digital, but it does have it's merits and good reasons for being different from the one you describe. I think that, and understand why, you're being too superficial about it as a system in an isolated vacuum, without taking in consideration the vast differences between different countrys.