posted by Sam Richards
When you respond to this, also respond to the qualification issue with regards to “nepotism” and the affirmative action that comes from giving favors to family and friends.
02
Apr
When you respond to this, also respond to the qualification issue with regards to “nepotism” and the affirmative action that comes from giving favors to family and friends.
I think affirmative action is way under studied. I think it is a very interesting topic because so many people get fired up about it and emotional whether they are defending it or bashing, yet it is hard to find anyone that can really explain it. I mean Sam described it as boosting those in the lowest class the poverty level. However I have always been told before that it was put in place to help minorities. And after that Sam tells us that the main benefactor of affirmative action is white women. And then goes on to explain that the second most benefiting group is people of color in the middle to upper classes. This was shocking but good to know the truth. I think if more people knew this both sides would feel differently. People that support it would begin to question why isn't the main benefactors lower class people of any race or color? And the people that are against it say it is discriminating or just for people of color would realize that they may be benefiting from affirmative action more than they thought.
A the far as the video question goes qualification should not be a factor. I mean yes I believe people applying for a job or to a college should have the required skill or knowledge and it should not just be a hand out for a poor person or anyone who is not white, but I don't think qualification is an issue. Like the example of the hospital and doctors, I think affirmative action should be their to help anyone that is poor and wants the chance to go to medical school or college, however just because they (a lower class/poor person) may get a boost to get into school affirmative action is not going to help them pass their exams or test out of certain requirements within the program. It just gives them the chance to rise out of their hole or trap they are in called poverty the rest is up to them and their knowledge to carry them through. For instance I am not 100% sure on this but President Obama didn't come from a rich family. He lived with his mother and grandparents and I don't know if he benefited from affirmative action, but I feel if his mother had a low enough income then I think he should have (again if he didn't). I don't believe affirmative action is the reason he is President, but it's possible that he got the boost from affirmative action that may have allowed him to go to college and pursue things that led him to that path. Whether you like or agree with President Obama you can't deny the fact that he is very intelligent. I mean before politics the guy was a professor so is he qualified? I would say so. Just because affrimative action helps people doesn't mean that all the people it helps are undeserving many are qualified for the thing they applied for. Unlike Nepotism which makes me wonder was George H W Bush's son really qualified to lead our country….?
[Reply]
I do not think any one who is less qualified or not qualified at all will get into med school JUST because of their racial identity or color. Maybe they are more likely to be picked because they need to add numbers to the minority count, but that is as far as it goes. But, hey, maybe that does happened. I think the point that was missed was that often it is not that unqualified get positions over more qualified individuals. The idea of affirmative action is to put those who seem to have been less considered or are more under represented more of a chance. Like Sam said, putting them at the same starting line. As for nepotism, it is not fair to give a position to a friend or family member if they are not as qualified. I have no problem with affirmative action or nepotism as long the people are deserving and qualified. The point of affirmative action is to extend, broaden, or include minorities in the pool of qualified applicants.
[Reply]
I really enjoyed this viewpoint. Why do we feel it is okay to accept people into medical school and universities based on whom they know? They will become greater people who help us out, like doctors. However though, most of capitalism works on this. Personally, I do not see a problem with networking for people who are qualified. I was given the chance and opportunity to meet a CEO and my credentials proved adequate, so why shouldn’t I get a position based on this? Sam gave an example of a guy’s son working as a manager just entering the business. My father owns a company and I worked as a secretary. I grew up with this company and know it inside and out, so why should I deny the opportunity to lead it?
[Reply]
I'm glad someone brought up the idea of diminishing the QUALITY of the system because that is what I was thinking all class (though more so in relation to Sam's rant on the health care bill). I think it definitely comes into play, though, in both cases, that is, that the mere concept of allowing individuals special access because of their appearance as opposed to merit cannot be a good one. How could it ever be? I am not an expert in affirmative action and talking about it in my discussion group in weeks past and hearing Sam's opinions made it more true-to-life and interesting, but honestly just acted as further fuel for the fire in my opinions that are against it. I struggle with voicing these opinions too strongly at all times because I have been trying to think of some kind of "solution" or at least, since I do not really think a true solution will ever be possible, a way to make the process more fair in all respects. I just think that Sam's arguments, at times, are faulty ones, or ones that are two things that should never be compared in the first place because the argument does not follow. For example, to go back to the quality issue in reference to health care, Sam compared the health care bill to our class. He said that we are unaware of it, but behind the scenes, students are "calling" him, asking for favors, saying they have issues so they need special treatment, etc. … and his response to that was that he can't give individual favors because if he did it for one person, he'd have to do it for everyone. Then, he compared it to health care as if giving everyone in America health care was the same thing, but the logic is completely the OPPOSITE. Handing out health care to everyone stands as further motivation for those who are unemployed or not doing anything to REMAIN just as they are. Why should they try? Why should they work? The government and the people are paying for them. This would be like, instead of Sam not giving out special privileges, if, in the very beginning of the semester, followed the current administration's logic and said, "Well, everyone has different circumstances, different socioeconomic backgrounds and opportunities, and I want everyone to be able to do well so since I can do this, I'm going to give everyone an A for the class and you know it from day one." It's the same thing. If Sam promised to give every student in the class an A, why should anyone try in class or study for the exams? The "government" (who is in charge so Sam in this case) is taking care of them, so to speak. The extending of anything to so many people would UNDOUBTEDLY cause a diminishing in quality of the system. It’s burning the candle at all ends, spreading ‘yourself’ (the government) too thin, trying to help everyone and yet in actuality helping no one at all. And, though I do not condone the violence for either side in any way whatsoever, the concept of fighting for something you strongly believe in is something this country was built upon, principles I still believe in and hold true to my heart, despite the times in class when we have been told they are myths. Even if you don’t agree, how can you come down on someone for fighting for a just cause? Perhaps the problem is those who agree with the bill cannot see the injustice that has somehow been allowed to become law. I spent a night in an Italian hospital.
[Reply]
(..continued from post 1)
The entire time, the only thing I was thinking was how thankful I was that I was blessed enough to be born into a country like America where we have (hopefully I won’t have to say ‘had’ soon…) quality health care, a system that you can actually trust. If unfair policies like affirmative action and nepotism (not to mention a government-run health care system that hands out policies to everyone) continue, I’m afraid to think how the quality of our medical system will plummet. People who are the most qualified for the job, most qualified for the school, most qualified for the raise, etc., should receive what is justly their’s, hands down, yet of course know this is not the case or we would not be having this discussion. I think something else I struggle with about affirmative action and nepotism is that affirmative action is not only legal, it is encouraged. It is put in place and actively used to give people of certain racial backgrounds things that white men (and women? Though sometimes, white women receive affirmative action, like Sam said) are not given. Nepotism, though equally wrong, goes on behind closed doors – it is not condoned, it should not be done, and I think the points made in class today about the differences between actual nepotism and making good connections need to be taken into consideration. I’m not sure if I am just trying to intertwine three different extremely complex concepts that should be researched much more in order to find a better solution, but I just think my fears stem from the notion of allowing citizens, students, or whatever group of people being referred to, to become apathetic and content. What I mean by that is that, if we keep putting these systems into place where people do not feel it is absolutely necessary to work as hard as they possibly can to reach higher goals, to get into a particular school, to make a certain amount of money, to hold a higher position, then the population is going to become a population that does not have strong work ethic or motivation. I don’t believe people should not feel like they deserve things – why shouldn’t it always be the opposite? If you believe in the greater good of mankind and the notion of equality and sanctity of human life – every human life – then shouldn’t we believe that EVERYONE deserves things instead? I think the simplicity of turning the question around changes its connotations completely, and I think there has to be a way to HELP people (such as those from certain backgrounds, social, cultural, racial, economic, etc.) who need assistance in going to school or to the doctor…without sacrificing the quality of the educational and/or the health care system in general.
[Reply]
I don’t think affirmative action necessarily lowers the quality of workers. I think companies typically make sure a potential worker is qualified for the position. For example, if it comes down to a man and a woman of equal credentials, they might pick the woman to meet the quota. Even then though, the woman will probably work harder than the man would have because in the work force, especially in a field dominated by men such as engineering, women need to prove themselves so they are taken seriously, whereas a man who is hired will be more likely to slack off because he wouldn’t worry as much about what others thought. I’m sure there are other cases where employers just pick a minority to meet the quota. In this instance problems can definitely occur if the new worker’s qualifications are not up to par. I don’t think there is any way to justify this. Sometimes affirmative action can be a good thing because it keeps diversity in the workplace, but anytime the quality of the company or product is neglected, affirmative action can have very negative effects.
As far as nepotism goes, I think quality is often compromised. Usually when people help their family or friends, they are doing so because the person in need of assistance cannot find work or does not have the skills to get a job on his/her own. This means that the person will be given a position for which he/she probably does not qualify. This is not fair to other people trying to get the same position who are qualified, and it is also not fair to the employer or company. The new worker will probably do a below average quality level of work, and this will hurt the business. I definitely agree with the guy on this video that industries like healthcare can suffer. Nepotism should be used lightly, because if you help someone who is struggling to get into medical school and he/she becomes a doctor then eventually makes a big mistake such as killing someone during a surgery, you are somewhat to blame for helping them get to that position. I know this sounds extreme but there are instances where dramatic things like this can occur, and it’s not worth taking the risk. If someone isn’t qualified for a position, they shouldn’t be accepted into it. A big problem with nepotism is that it is like lying because it often involves writing fabricated recommendations for people who do not deserve them. Doing this can have a chain negative effect and hurt many people including consumers or patients.
Overall, I think this guy brings up a really good point that I didn’t even think of, and it just gives another reason why nepotism is so bad for society. I single out nepotism because I don’t think affirmative action does this as much. As Sam said, affirmative action is much more controlled by quotas and such than nepotism is.
[Reply]
I don’t think affirmative action necessarily lowers the quality of workers. I think companies typically make sure a potential worker is qualified for the position. For example, if it comes down to a man and a woman of equal credentials, they might pick the woman to meet the quota. Even then though, the woman will probably work harder than the man would have because in the work force, especially in a field dominated by men such as engineering, women need to prove themselves so they are taken seriously, whereas a man who is hired will be more likely to slack off because he wouldn’t worry as much about what others thought. I’m sure there are other cases where employers just pick a minority to meet the quota. In this instance problems can definitely occur if the new worker’s qualifications are not up to par. I don’t think there is any way to justify this. Sometimes affirmative action can be a good thing because it keeps diversity in the workplace, but anytime the quality of the company or product is neglected, affirmative action can have very negative effects.
As far as nepotism goes, I think quality is often compromised. Usually when people help their family or friends, they are doing so because the person in need of assistance cannot find work or does not have the skills to get a job on his/her own. This means that the person will be given a position for which he/she probably does not qualify. This is not fair to other people trying to get the same position who are qualified, and it is also not fair to the employer or company. The new worker will probably do a below average quality level of work, and this will hurt the business. I definitely agree with the guy on this video that industries like healthcare can suffer. Nepotism should be used lightly, because if you help someone who is struggling to get into medical school and he/she becomes a doctor then eventually makes a big mistake such as killing someone during a surgery, you are somewhat to blame for helping them get to that position. I know this sounds extreme but there are instances where dramatic things like this can occur, and it’s not worth taking the risk. If someone isn’t qualified for a position, they shouldn’t be accepted into it. A big problem with nepotism is that it is like lying because it often involves writing fabricated recommendations for people who do not deserve them. Doing this can have a chain negative effect and hurt many people including consumers or patients.
Overall, I think this guy brings up a really good point that I didn’t even think of, and it just gives another reason why nepotism is so bad for society. I single out nepotism because I don’t think affirmative action does this as much. As Sam said, affirmative action is much more controlled by quotas and such than nepotism is.
[Reply]
I’m not sure if hospitals or medical schools base much of their employment and student acceptance through affirmative action. But if they did I can see how it could downgrade the quality of their care, because they could very easily decline an excellent upcoming doctor and choose one that may not pull through in the end all because they were following the codes of affirmative action. Although I don’t believe affirmative action occurs (or at least that often) in the medical fields, but I’m sure there isn’t a huge (negative) result from it. Nepotism is just an unfair action but I don’t think there are many ways around it.
[Reply]
I would have to agree with the statements that he made in the video. I think affirmative action is just a special number that places need to hit in order to satisfy the political correct agenda of today’s society. Affirmative action only gives a person an edge because of their race. The only thing that should matter in a selective process is their credentials. Whoever has the best credentials wins. That is it. Race and gender should not give anyone an edge on someone else.
Due to the increase in use of affirmative action in the workplace, I feel that it will only have a negative effect on the business. One is that the quality of people working there has the possibility of becoming worse because people are chosen over others only because they are a minority. Another negative is that because of the almost complete integration affirmative action has in our society, businesses who have a very low quota could be looked at as racist or prejudice and lose business just because they do not have a certain amount of minorities. Affirmative action seems to hurt the business more than it intends to do.
Affirmative action has also caused in some sense to allow for prejudice remarks to flourish. I can remember when I was going through the college process and some of my friends who were minorities got into really good schools and my white friends would make a comment about how they only got in because they were a minority. It seems that white people only see affirmative action a reverse discrimination process. They feel the minorities don’t need to work hard in school or in other aspects because they already have the advantage. This downplays the need for qualifications and further enforces prejudice ideals in our society. It also gives way to the feeling that minorities in general only get their jobs because they are minorities. White people begin to feel that Affirmative action is just a free pass for minorities and whites have to work two times as hard to make their qualifications seem more qualified than the minorities. This is another major reason why Affirmative Action has no place in our society.
Affirmative seems to just attract more negative attention than positive attention. I think that the effects of it have more of a negative impact. It seems to also promote discrimination rather than equality. Qualifications should be the only thing that determines a position. Affirmative action just exacerbates the problem of equality. Equality should just be that the best qualified person gets the job. There should not be anything else that goes into the decision for the position.
[Reply]
I think that this guy who posted this question hit the issue right on the head. If you were a CEO or a manager for a hospital, would you not want the best company or the best available care at the hospital? Then why wouldn't you want the most talented workforce or doctors at your hospital? Affirmative action means to me that everyone is given an equal opportunity. Whoever in regards to race is the most qualified should be hired. I can see where this draws a problem, many people would agree that minorities aren't given the same opportunities as well the majority, so why shouldn't they be treated on a level playing field if their education and upbringing was out of their hands. I think many companies use this affirmative action policy in the wrong way. As a I am looking to land an internship, that will hopefully lead into a full time job. I have come across many things that have surprised me so much that I have thought there is no way I would want to work for that company. My freshman year, I had an event with a large corporation that even for later on in the school year was still looking for interns. Someone raised their hand and asked if they were still hiring interns, and the recruiter actually said "We are only hiring interns that are diversity candidates". If you really think about that statement it makes no sense, but we all know what that recruiter was saying. If you are black, brown, or asian there are still opportunities for you. However the white male who asked the question: you are out of luck. This really took me back.. So you come to Penn State where everyone is more or less on a level playing field, but still because I'm white I have a disadvantage.
Nepotism is completely different and not as big of a problem in my view. I've heard before I even came to Penn State that your success is based on who you know more than what you know. That Penn State is one of the best places to go because of the large alumni base. I think because your dad is the VP at Fortune 500 company doesn't mean you should automatically get the job or internship. However, theres really no way to control that. You can get to know VPs and recruiters, they are on campus all the time, so in that respect, the more work you put into getting to know a recruiter or hiring manager, the better shot you have at the job. However, I have been told by several people with "connections" that the best they could do for me or even for their own child is get them an interview. The hiring managers will not hire someone based off of a family member, if this is true though, why is "are you related to a employee of X company" asked on every job application?
[Reply]
To be honest, Thursday’s topic of affirmative action really did not interest that much. So after lecture, I kind of didn’t even think twice about what effects affirmative action and nepotism could have on society. The topic doesn’t really evoke much emotion in me and I wasn’t looking forward to writing a blog on the issue. After coming across this question, I was more intrigued and I also had more reaction about affirmative action or nepotism that I previously. I guess since I have never been directly affected by affirmative action, I have never taken a good look at it. I have, however, benefited from nepotism. The summer job I have worked at for the past 2 years was given to me mostly because it is at the office where my mom works. So that, along with this question, made me thing: am I taken a job away from a more highly qualified individual who would be more beneficial for the office? I would like to hope that this is not the case but who knows. I guess that is the scary about nepotism and affirmative action. No one really knows if you are the most highly qualified applicant for a position or spot at university. If a company or school is trying to reach a quota or seem more diversified then there has to always be a lingering thought in the back of your head regarding your ability. Even though I have benefited from nepotism, I still believe that each and every individual should be considered for a job or acceptance at a school. I think this is true especially when making major decisions that could affect society. What I am referring to are things like medical school, law school, positions as doctors in a hospital, etc. People should not be put at risk because some hospital is trying to be more diverse or because the niece of a prominent donor is asking for a position as a surgeon. I think that is just utterly irresponsible. Affirmative action can let someone who may be mediocre at what they do slide through their respective system. I know that as a woman, I am not one to accept free rides through life. I think if you looked at the people who have received some sort of affirmative action, they too would not want to be handed things in life. Thinking about it, I’m sure I sound like a hypocrite because I’ve already admitted to benefiting from nepotism. In my case though, I don’t think the fact that I have my job as office help would really affect society around. So, I guess there is a line as to when nepotism or affirmative action is appropriate. I think all employers should take a look at not only who the employ but why they decide to employ them.
[Reply]
I agree with the guy in the video. I think that affirmative action has the potential to be a problem if we let it get out of control. The whole reason that it "works" right now is because it's mostly for colleges and universities, somewhere where it isn't dangerous, as opposed to, as he said, hospitals or clinics. I also think that it's the responsibility of the people hiring employees and the people being hired to make sure that they fulfill the right qualifications. If, for example, a white person and a black person apply for the same job with the exact same qualifications, it would make the most sense for the company to use that as an opportunity to put affirmative action into effect and create a more diverse working environment. If it comes to a point, however, when people of color (or women too) are being employed without the correct qualifications, then we have a problem.
As far as nepotism goes, I have yet to experience it from the end where I am the one out of a job because the other person had connections. I am almost like Sam in the way that most of what I have today, with the exception of my high school job, has been a result of nepotism. Even my entrance into main campus at penn state was partly based because my father is an alumnus. Because nepotism has had a positive effect on me, it's hard for me to see the other side of the bargain, and really understand those who are being effected negatively by maybe not getting into a school or even not getting a job that they deserve. I think that nepotism has the potential to be a problem in the way that under-qualified people are being hired to perform tasks that they aren't put up for. I would hope that the person hiring has enough control and sense to not hire let's say, a surgeon, just because it's his nephew. I also know that when nepotism has affected me – say being allowed entrance into penn state – I've used it as motivation to get my act together. I'm not sure if I would have been accepted into Penn State without my dad being alumni, but I am sure that once I arrived here and saw people who really worked really hard to be here (my good friend came from a poor family and is working almost full time to pay off the tuition) I had more motivation to prove I deserve a spot. So I could say that nepotism really helped me out, because without it I may be slacking off at a worse school, instead of working to prove that I deserve to have my spot at Penn State.
[Reply]
I don't think Affirmative action reduces the quality of services in which it affects. The purpose of affirmative action is to give people who normally would not have an opportunity at something, for whatever reason, an equal chance at said opportunity. Therefore, in my opinion, even if certain individuals benefit from affirmative action, and receive a job or acceptance to a college of interest, and anything else it could possibly affect, these individuals would still have to succeed themselves. My point is, even if someone earned a job through the affects of affirmative action, if that individual cannot perform the task appointed to him or her, he or she will be let go.
[Reply]
Yes, I understand that it is unfair that this individual may have received the job over someone else who may have had a better resume, however, if both individuals could've performed the task equally anyway, then I do not see a significant issue, emphasis on SIGNIFICANT. So in the case originally presented, if someone earned a job in the medical field through a benefit of affirmative action, this person must first prove he or she can perform the job. I highly doubt an employer is going to hire someone who is responsible for the lives of others, only because of affirmative action. The prospective employee must be qualified; qualifications for a certain job are not ignored.
[Reply]
In regards to nepotism, at least the purpose of affirmative action is to level the playing field for all people, where as nepotism is simply an employer giving someone a job because the prospective employee has some sort of connection with someone in the company. I mean, life is pretty unfair, and as we saw in class, most people have benefited from nepotism in one way or another. Though, I still feel as if the individual who is benefiting must still be qualified for the position, or he or she will lose the position. So I mean, yes, it is very unfair-nepotism-but as long as the individual can perform the tasks of the job, efficiently and successfully, than he or she is semi-deserving of the position. Of course, this isn't to say he or she is more deserving than the other individuals who did not have an advantage who were also competing for the job. I'm simply saying, as long as this individual can perform the job successfully, though he may have received it by advantage, he is still qualified, or he would be let go, as in affirmative action.
[Reply]
I guess the point I am trying to make is that affirmative action and nepotism are both unfair. Whether one is more unfair than the other is irrelevant, because in either case, whenever an individual receives a job, he or she must still prove to be qualified, thereby proving that in either case, the quality of the job is not at stake. So, though unfair, in either case, the individual must still be successful at his job, or as a student at college, or whatever the case is.
[Reply]
I completely agree with his statement, it is a valid fact that affirmative action has its positive effects as well as a downside. The positive effects would most normally be for the people for whom it has been brought into effect. The negative effect has to do with the quality of professionals that are being affected by this affirmative action. This happens because Darwins theory of 'survival of the fittest' is not allowed to take place as the government intervenes in the process for the benefit of the people who are having problems with their survival.
I come from India, it is a country which is filled with corruption. There is corruption at every level of society, also there are people of many religions that live in India. It is a secular democratic state. The education system in India for medical is a very badly structured system.
Students who want to work in the medical field face a lot of competition as there are only a limited seats available, this happens not beacuse of lack of funding or anything like that, but it occurs because there are caste reservation. So if a who does not qualify for the quota has 90 % in the entrance exam and another student who qualifies for the quota has 75%, the person who qualifies for the quota would be taken. This will most definitely affect the future medical personnel of India.
It is not only that, the corruption in the state has let student with lower grades get through with bribes and social class. This causes an inefficient system and the the best student aren't chosen.
I do not agree with this process as it brings out the age old problem of discrimination based on caste, religion and sex. Since the various revolutions we have tried to eliminate this discrimination, but using affirmative action and reservations just adds to the discrimination.
I think if everyone is treated equally then the chances of having inefficient professionals is reduced. This is not only limited ot the education system, but all parts of life.
[Reply]
Here is the issue I want to bring up in regards to nepotism. For many occupations, I do not believe that an employer would hire someone who was not fully capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job no matter what the relationship between the prospective hire and the employer was. Since this is the case, I do not believe nepotism is unfair. It is not an issue of fair versus unfair but more an issue of lucky versus unlucky. As well, we could consider networking to be nepotism because your contacts help you get a job you would not otherwise get. But is that necessarily unfair? No.
I am a finance major and a hopeful to be working on Wall Street in a few years when I graduate. When someone applies to one of these Wall Street firms, they enter one of the most competitive job pools on Earth. The fact that I go to Penn State instead of a University of Pennsylvania or Harvard or Stanford or University of Virginia puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage in this situation. However, my stepbrother works on Wall Street and I intend to use him in order to get myself an interview or job. When there are this many people, all of whom are extremely intelligent, fighting for the same position, recruiters literally read one line of the resume and move on unless they see something that really sticks out. OR they or someone they know can vouch for you and tell them that you deserve an interview. I do not think nepotism in this sense is at all bad and I intend to use all the connections I have to get ahead in this process.
As we saw in class, nearly everyone has used someone they know to get a job or position somewhere, sometime. On the other hand, I do not believe giving a systematic advantage to someone is as fair. However, I know that affirmative action would never hire an unqualified person for a position and that whole idea should be squashed. The fact of the matter is that no business is going to hire someone that is not qualified for a position because they could make more money and run a more successful business by hiring the most qualified person. Affirmative action may force them to hire some LESS qualified but definitely qualified for the position.
I believe affirmative action may be necessary in order to even the playing field when getting into schools, especially given the struggles of inner city schools in areas that are traditionally heavily populated by minorities. It could be used in a situation where there are two candidates of equal or very similar skills applying for the same position in a company that has poor diversity. But I believe that if a company has a good track record as far as diversity, that company should hire the most qualified person no matter his or her color.
[Reply]
Sadly affirmative action does do this in many case, what you are questioning as far as medical it does not. people someone who gets to med school on affirmative action is in for a rude awakening. If he is not qualified, he will not make it and pretty much waste a ass load of money.
Affirmative action should not be considered at all when it comes to med school. it should always be about who is the better qualified to do the job at the best. i mean i would not want my medical physician to have gotten his job based solely on affirmative action. the last thing i need is a dumbass talking to me about my body.
it would definitely lower the quality of care from the hospital if the guy less qualified got the job due to affirmative action. Because well you just hired a dumb ass. and lets be honest, i don't see hospitals hiring retarded people that magically graduated from med school. Sadly there could be some places where this goes on.
Here is a question that could arise, what if someone got into med school or a got a job at a hospital because of nepotism?
I see this happen a lot more than affirmative action. because so many people like to take advantage of knowing doctors and having a degree that say im a smart ass. But if you can get your way there without them, then i say you deserve to be in that position to get the job. Even with Nepotism, if you know someone that can give you a little more of an edge because they know you personally, that does not mean its necessarily a bad thing. If you think of it as daddy's son getting a job over you then yes, it could be a bad thing. but knowing someone goes a lot further than just an interview.
Say you decided to start your own business, would you hire your best friend over someone who is more qualified but is a random stranger? its a big thing to just start your business, but would you hire someone you know you can trust? or would you hire someone that you just meet?
as long as affirmative action is used as a tie break situation, in which both individuals are equally qualified, then that insure that there is no reduction in the quality of business but at the same time avoids employer bias. its human nature to distrust that which is different from you, so even if individuals try to be unbiased there is still a chance they might still hire someone of the same. and affirmative action should remove this kind of bias theoretically
[Reply]
Just because you are using affirmative action doesn’t necessarily mean you are lowering the quality of the individuals. If you are hiring in the medical field, just because you hire a minority doesn’t mean that the minority is worse at being a doctor than a white male. Affirmative action doesn’t mean that you are hiring somebody just because they are a minority; they also have to meet the qualifications of the job. I feel like that is one of the biggest misconceptions that everybody has about affirmative action and it makes people hate the idea of affirmative action because they believe that they are losing out of jobs to people who are less qualified.
[Reply]
I think that the kid in this video asks a great question. In reality and in theory, Affirmative Action probably does place less qualified individuals into jobs that maybe they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Can this kind of thing become directly detrimental to individuals? Certainly. However, I think this is tightly connected to what Sam was saying at the beginning of last class. Surely, some people will be negatively affected by Affirmative Actions, or any policy for that matter. The thing is though, the nation and the economy benefits overall from something like Affirmative Action. As Sam was saying, the idea is not to make every single individual better off than they were before, because that's not really a realistic goal. Affirmative Action makes our economy better off by giving jobs to those who, for some reason or another, could not get a job. Now, personally I've never lost a job opportunity or anything like that because of Affirmative Action, so I can't empathize with those who have, but even if you do I don't think you should get very upset about it. If you had the qualifications to be considered for the job, you can probably get another job, right? The person who took your spot was given the job because they couldn't get one on their own accord. I understand that the initial reaction is to get angry about something like that, but three or four weeks down the road you're going to get a job too. Now, two people have jobs instead of one. Expand that over the entire country and you've got more people with jobs, and more money flowing through the economy. The point that I'm trying to make is that I understand where the kid in the video is coming, but the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are not getting jobs conducting brain surgery, I promise. So, while he makes a completely valid point by voicing concern about diminishing quality of service, I think this sort of policy has more pros than cons. Also, was anyone else as astounded as I was when Sam asked how many people had benefited or had family members who benefited from Affirmative Action and almost no one had? I honestly thought there would have been way more people than there were. However, this helps to pad my point because it's not at all like the government is displacing millions of people from jobs, they're trying to improve the future for as many people as they possibly can without completely acquiescing to everyone's individual needs. To me, the majority of the problems that people have with race and politics stem from polarized media attention. If you think about it, almost every political pundit on television is either unwavering in their conservatism or drowning in liberalism. Guys like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are quite literally extremists. They automatically ridicule anything that a Democrat says purely because of their political affiliation, and it frightens me that that's who the conservatives are primarily getting their news from. Whereas, I also have an incredibly difficult time watching anyone on CNN because they've made a career of kissing President Obama's behind. There's no possible way to agree with one idea or ideology all the time.
[Reply]
I thought this was a very interesting question. After thinking about it, I don’t think that affirmative action would necessarily make less qualified people hired in fields that require certain certifications. It would at most give them a boast into getting accepted into programs, but it would be their own responsibility to be successful in that program. A minority may get accepted into medical school because of their ethnicity. However, acceptance does not equal completion. Like we learned in class nepotism is more of a threat than affirmative action. Nepotism would bring less qualified people into a position before affirmative action. When people hire their friends and family, the most qualified people are not even considered. Although, how can we blame each other for hiring their friends and family when we all do the same thing? We trust the people we know before we trust strangers. Different people could bring more to a job than our friends but they do not get the chance to. I have gotten jobs through friends/relatives and there are definitely more qualified people for those jobs than me. Also I found that by working for people I have a personal relationship I could get away with a lot more than another person would have. I would show up late or take longer breaks or was just lazy. My quality of work was significantly less than another’s would have been. It sucks to be the person who does not get hired because they don’t have the connections to get the job. Life really is who you know rather than what you know. There is nothing we can really do to solve this issue so we need to just accept it. In real professional jobs such as doctors, this should not be the case. You need to know how to be a doctor rather than just knowing other doctors. But you may get accepted into a college over someone else because you are a certain race. This could be seen as an unfair advantage to some but you need to work hard afterwards to make that schooling worthwhile. Personally I benefitted from a form of affirmative action/nepotism getting into Penn State. I applied from out of state and for some reason there are higher standards for non-Pennsylvanians to get accepted. My high school college counselor is an alumnus from PSU and our school has a decently high acceptance rate to the main campus and the branch campuses. Upon arriving at PSU, I found that I had a higher GPA and SAT score than most of the Pennsylvanians that got attend here. If my counselor did not have the relationship he has with this college would I have gotten in even though I think I am more qualified than others? I don’t really need to worry about it because I was fortunate enough to have gotten in. We all benefit from certain things in certain ways. Overall, I think we all need to just except things for the way they are because there isn't anything we can do about it.
[Reply]
Affirmative Action is in essence trying to correct inequality, with inequality. The person in the video raises an interesting question. I think that the real issue is that this the perception that people in society could have. I believe that it is wrong that people should be given preference based on a perceived racial inequality, especially in schools when it is only based on race. There is already a system in place for most schools (including Penn State) to deal with inequality of social classes. This is done by comparing applicants within their own school districts and not by comparing them to people in higher or lower educational systems. For example I come from a a very well off school district, and therefore it is much harder to get into Penn State because I am being compared to people from my own district. I know people from other school districts with similar GPA's to people who got rejected by Penn State from my district who got a 1050 or so (out of 1600) while the same GPA and a 1300 doesn't qualify. That is already unfair enough without adding the arbitrary element of race into it. I believe that the best of the best should be the first accepted and that race or where you come from should not have any baring on it. Another problem is that affirmative action creates perceptions. In order to get into a medical position of importance you're likely going to have to be absolutely qualified, but people may not make that assumption. Affirmative Action creates the perception that the person of color treating you is not qualified for their job; even though they are. This perception could lead to a lack of business just because of an ignorant assumption. I think it could set people of color back more in the long run than it would do to help them.
[Reply]
Absolutely not, I don’t believe in any way that is how affirmative action works, you have completely misunderstood the point.
The idea of persons unqualified for job or unprepared for a university falls more under the lines of nepotism, NOT affirmative action.
Affirmative action is ideally suppose to affect only those who are not in a position for nepotism to reach them and get them into higher positions. Those who were qualified for positions, had all the credentials as all the other people, but lacked the resources or opportunities to go to networking dinners or career fairs, etc. It is for people who for instance don’t have a car to drive to the networking dinner, no money to buy business attire, things like that. But they went to school did their homework , studied for their SATs and ACTs and still didn’t make it into college, because some below average kid had parents that could afford to take them to all those events to network, make friends and got the shiny reserved spot. That is was what affirmative action, there is no fear real ration reason for why one should believe that it will lead to unqualified persons being put in positions in which could hurt someone, like a doctor.
Nepotism, that is what endangers the prosperity of companies, occupation fields, etc. Unlike affirmative action which has real limits, too large or too small is what is a sensitive topic to discuss, but limits that help a real number of people is much better, than the unregulated undetectable under the table favors that go on through all institutes of our society. It is also a problem, that instead of enforcing the idea of solely judging all prospective students or employees based on resumes or past experiences and displayed skills, we are taught that by making friends and networking that is how you get the things you want in life. Instead of trying to stop itearlier we adapted our ways to get ahead.
So, I think what this person meant to say is “isn’t nepotism bad, what will we do when unqualified doctors are hired over qualified ones, won’t we be in trouble?” The answer is yes, yes yes yes, I have no doubt that we are probably already being affected negatively by nepotism in other ways besides the obvious of not getting the jobs, internships, or getting into jobs we want. For an example, our last president, I admit I am no political expert but i find pretty apparent and obvious there is no way he would have elected president, none the less was able to become a candidate, if he were not his father’s son, the son of a former more competent person and president. Nepotism has landed us in many of our countries problems from just that one person. It is a serious problem, but what can we do now.
[Reply]
When I think of nepotism I think of the royal families and elites. Which could be why some our leaders seem to be incompetent. I would consider George w., an incompetent leader. He got to be in the position he was in because of his father even though he doesn’t seem to be the most intelligent of people, or the type of person fit for running a country. It is true that incompetent people can enter important positions because of nepotism, but I don’t know if becoming a doctor is as easy as that. Becoming a doctor, I hope, would require hard work and intelligence. I don’t know what it takes to be a doctor, but I assume that you still have to pass the exams and go to medical school which is important. Standards should be strict for positions of importance and social responsibility such as a doctor. If my doctor was an incompetent one I think I would notice, and I would be the first one to say something about it or switch doctors.
There are a lot of doctors out there who love what they do and who are very good at what they do, and I am sure that there are plenty of upcoming doctors who will love what they do and who would be very good at it as well because they have a passion for helping people get well. It would be hard to put an incompetent person in the position of a doctor. Eventually people would notice or you would be put in a position where competency is needed and you won’t be able to perform. Anybody who ends up being a doctor, just because a family member got them in, should reevaluate what they are doing, because being an incompetent doctor is just silly and a bad idea which will eventually lead to trouble in the long run.
[Reply]
I do not think that just because of affirmative action that people are less qualified for a particular job. The fact of the matter is that people take take this issue too far, it is 2010 and people need to relax a little bit I do not get why everyone is so serious and take things like affirmative action. I feel that everyone should be treated equally. Affirmative action is simply a way of helping minorities succeed, a chance for them to be successful. I feel that affirmative action is a good thing, because of the way people are today if it was up to most people then minorities would not have these types of opportunities.
The simple fact that someone such as a minority got a job due to affirmative action does not mean that they are less qualified than someone else. In addition to that, no one except for the individuals whom are hiring know that a certain person was due to affirmative action so that again goes to show that it is very unlikely that they are less qualified. It does not reduce the quality of businesses in any way, an individual that was not hired due to affirmative action could be any body. People just like complain about things such as this, and I think that this is what it comes down to. Like myself I could care less if someone gets hired by affirmative action, maybe they are more qualified then me and maybe not. I am a firm believer that diversity is needed in the work place, in addition to that nepotism is not always a bad thing either.
I know that there was quite a bit of talk during class about weather that was fair or not, I feel that it is a networking thing and the more people you know the better. I know that I have gotten a few jobs this way, but it is not just because you know someone that you are getting the job in most cases I would think that they know your work ethic and know that you are going to be able to do the job. I do not think that someone should be frowned upon because they were hired due to nepotism. If someone that is more qualified comes around than yes they should get the job weather affirmative action has anything to do with it or not. However, I do feel that it is something that not a lot of people quite understand and that is why there is so much hate towards it, it does not surprise me that people feel this way. So I do understand where the kid asking his question came up with that from, I see where he sees why he might think that because someone is hired due to affirmative action especially as a doctor might not be qualified but then again I know that I see a lot of doctors of minority whom are very good doctors so then how do you know? Truly you will never know if someone was hired due to affirmative action or nepotism unless you know an individual personally or you are the one doing the hiring.
[Reply]
I think this is the main concern that people have with affirmative action. We all want the people we rely on to be good at their jobs, but with policies that look at physical characteristics instead of paying attention to skill and qualifications, we can’t know if they are. All professions are not created equal, however, and affirmative action hiring is less concerning in some industries than in others. Still, no one wants a crappy fry cook making their burgers, but going off of what the guy in the video said about the health care industry, even fewer people want a bad surgeon doing their bypass procedure. There’s just something inherently wrong about not choosing the person who would perform their job in a superior way. The best person for the job should get the job, not the person who fills some fake quota.
The government’s job is to work for the greater good; to make sure what happens is best for the posterity. The question is which is for the greater good: hiring the most qualified people so aid society now or hiring the disadvantaged people now in an effort to bring equality to everyone down the road? Is giving a hand to the poor and oppressed even going to help at all? We can’t know the answer for sure unless we try and we wait. But why don’t we just employ the best and let survival of the fittest sort the rest out? Won’t that make for a stronger, smarter posterity? It depends how you look at the big picture. I think that things tend to even out in the end either way.
However, the largest group of affirmative action beneficiaries is not made up of poor minorities anyway; it consists of middle class white women. That may be because the largest group of people who aren’t white men are white women, but still, white people aren’t losing that many jobs to minorities because of affirmative action. Maybe, as Sam was saying in class, the real problem in the unequal job market is nepotism. People in power can pull strings whenever they want and give power to whomever they choose. It’s fantastic when you are the one getting the job simply because you know someone. It’s a piece of cake. You didn’t have to do anything. But when you’re the one being denied in favor of the nephew or the family friend, it is unfair and infuriating. If we could just eliminate nepotism somehow I think we could get rid of a hell of a lot of good-for-nothing employees in a lot of high places.
[Reply]
I agree with what the student above says, to a certain extent. I don't fully believe that affirmative action completely diminishes the quality of care throughout the medical field or law practices, etc. However, I do believe that nepotism has a more potent impact with this issue. It's a pretty well known observation that colored males, females, and then white males are the preference for medical residents and practices due to the quality and rigor of education outside of the United States. So if the majority of people practicing medicine are not of European descent, how can we adamantly state that affirmative action could possibly cause a decrease in the health care field in the future, or even presently. Nepotism, on the other hand, plays a large role in most areas of the work force for people receiving jobs, especially in the declining economy while people are so desperate for a steady income. Coming into Penn State, the students and professors always boast about how large the Alumni Association is and how we should always use that to our full advantage. It's about knowing someone who knows someone or being lucky enough to be related to a big shot in one of the more important fields that our country so vigilantly relies upon. Further, I don't fully believe that we will ever be able to completely abolish affirmative action or nepotism. These unfair advantages will always exist, whether affirmative action be the result of guilt from past actions or nepotism just the unfortunate benefit of having many acquaintances. How can we even begin to put an end to these things? Putting an end to fulfilling quotas or requiring a check for acquaintances in a company or practice, etc. doesn't seem to be enough. I do believe that this was a good topic to bring up in relation to the class topic this past week since no one ever wants to say that this is wrong. But I feel that going to job interviews or taking medical boards and exceeding at these things but then not getting the job or residency position due to quotas, affirmative action, or nepotism does not inspire one to continue to strive to succeed. So what happens next? What exactly can we do to "level the playing field?" Yes we have SATs, MCATs, and LSATs, but can we solely base intelligence, personality, or hard-working and determinant qualities through paper? Does removing photos from applications or leaving out gender/race check boxes improve the odds? Maybe we should all be given numbers instead of names so no one can personally identify with anyone else. But is that what society should really come down to?
[Reply]
Its all about how people view races, the whole reason why medical places care so much about hiring different races is because it is a business. The business they have obviously cares about how much they make and need people to view them in a good way so they can do business with them, the way the world views people today is that a community that have a lot of black people is a less fortunate one, and a lot of white people in a community is usually a rich community. It is how the world views everyone else is what matters, so that’s how it works.
[Reply]
Get more realistic what you are saying, affirmative action helps minorities or those who are less fortunate to pursue their dreams and oppurtunities that if affirmative action didnt exist wouldnt be able to do. Minorities arent less qulified they are just less fortunate and looked down upon by the majority. Which in would make anyone seem less qulified . I think its time to open up or minds and eyes and start to understand that everyone is equal and not less qulified they just had a different childhood or different parenthood so as they grow and learn about something that they care about , such as a doctor degree they just need a little time to catch up on there stuff and i trust and believe that you could put them to the same test as your quote on quote qulified individuals to your less qulified individuals and i think they would be capable of doing the same things as the person who is supposabley more fit for the job. Its just the matter of opening up your thoughts and look past the money class aka social class and realize that the money doest make the person the person makes the money.
[Reply]
Just because someone is hired because of affirmative action does not automatically mean they are under qualified for the position. White people especially get so hot and bothered about minorities getting jobs over them and in many cases pull the "affirmative action" card…when in reality there's a great chance that person was just more qualified, had a better interview, stronger resume, etc. Affirmative action doesn't give jobs to people who are black or brown just because of their skin tone, it helps those people who have what it takes, who have probably worked harder than their white counterpart, get a job that they might not have gotten otherwise because of their background and how they grew up. In terms of this question, and jobs allocated to people in hospitals, I mean really? Is that a serious question? I think the real question that needs to be asked is not about people who get jobs because of affirmative action, but instead about people in hospitals/the medical profession who get jobs because of who they know. It is much scarier, in my opinion, to think about a doctor who was taking care of me or someone i am close to who got their job because their uncle worked at the hospital and they were much less qualified than, for example, someone of color. Affirmative action is by no means a perfect system, it has a tendency to be unfair and has numerous flaws, but my question is, what else can we do? There is no perfect system, and for the time being affirmative action does what it can to help those people who are not born with a head start like most of us at Penn State have been. Also, as we learned in class, it isn't even people of color who benefit the most from affirmative action, it's women. So, this question about having unqualified people of color working in our hospitals, if you really believe that this is true then wouldn't we have to question every female working in a hospital? Maybe they all got their jobs based on something other than their abilities?? No, this would be an absurd assumption to make, and that's why I was annoyed at this question. I mean seriously, affirmative action isn't about givings jobs to unqualified people, it's about trying to make sure those people of color who have what it takes but weren't born with the step up that most of us were born with, can have an equal opportunity of landing a job as the white person sitting next to them. Until we can come up with something better, something more efficient, I think the idea of affirmative action is good and is completely necessary. We need it in order to help those people trying to rise from the bottom up.
[Reply]
I completely agree with his statement. I never agreed with affirmative action or nepotism. However, if I ever benefit from a job due to nepotism, I’m definitely not going to complain. The downside of these two plans is that it restricts perfection. Why is it alright to have a diverse company with adequate employees as opposed to having one that has the most qualified people? To me, affirmative action doesn’t look as the best candidates for a position, but rather the best candidates in a specific category. For example, say two people apply for a job, one black and one white, and the white man is much more qualified for the job than the black man. However, the black man receives the job because he was born with a different skin tone and the company wants to be seen as diverse. How does that justify anything we were taught as kids? Work hard and you’ll go far, but if you’re a different skin color you have an edge on the more qualified. This can work both ways too. You can have a black man that’s more qualified, but loses out on a job to a white man. I just never agreed affirmative action, and probably never will.
He raises a good point about in hospitals, you don’t see affirmative action. When it comes down to life or death, you want the best person possible, white or black. The most qualified doctors should be given the job. I don’t want someone performing surgery on me that has no idea what they’re doing, but filled the diversity quota. When dealing with the business world, companies can afford to sacrifice on qualified people a little bit more, since they have a public image to uphold. This fact scares me because I am white and affirmative action can harm us in many situations. I’d be extremely pissed if I ever lost a job to a person of another race that I was much more qualified than. It just isn’t fair that because they’re another race, it’s alright for them to be more inadequate than me. Why do we need a diverse work force if it sacrifices efficiency? I honestly don’t care if the company I work for has all black people or none at all, but as long as it has the best people for the job. The hospital reference can also be seen in sports. There is no affirmative action quota there because people want to see the best athletes around. Imagine if sports had all races in sports. I honestly can’t see more Asian people (except Yao Ming) in the NBA. They’re average height is under six feet. Sports just wouldn’t be the same. Sports and hospital are given a free pass from affirmative action, now we just need the rest of the country to catch on.
[Reply]
This topic is very interesting to talk about because it is something that comes up in many careers. I overall think affirmative action is a good idea because it helps those who are born into less fortunate situations get into good colleges and or help with their career aspirations. However, when you take into account what the student said in the video, I do not think that race should play a part. It is unfair for a hospital to take a person of color over a white person who may qualify better for the job just because of their race. During the hiring process, the only thing that should be considered is who would be most qualified for the position. Especially when considering a doctor in a hospital. As a patient, I would want someone who could provide me with the best help.
[Reply]
Affirmative action, in my opinion, has many different pros and cons. On one hand, it helps to create equality and give people who didn't get that head start, but on the other hand, it can quite possibly take away an opportunity from someone that doesn't benefit from affirmative action. This whole idea that Sam was explaining in class was interesting. I think the way Sam explained how those who are not white and do not have a head start, are given one with affirmative action in hopes to present more equality. I think providing equality is important, but the truth it, there will always be countless glitches with laws like these. No matter how much we try to provide and create equality among all Americans, we will be taking away something from someone else. In this case, it is the white supremacy power. Sure, it can make whites uneasy knowing that their chances of not getting a job because it is given to a person of color, but it is just one of the consequences that has come up as we try to move forward. However, the question asked above did present an extremely important thought, and I think it ties into the questions that were brought up in class. If a job is given to a black person over a white person even if they are not as qualified, won't that hurt someone in someway, whether it is the company or people? The idea that giving a job to a black person over a white person that is less qualified for the field of health care is probably the most uneasy case. When someone goes to a hospital they want to be sure they are getting the best care possible. When a parent brings their child to the doctors they want to rest assure that they were given the most precise prognosis. It is extremely important that we take into account how not choosing the most qualified and professional doctors/medical professionals could seriously hurt us. This is not to say that if a black person were more qualified over a white person they shouldn't get the job. It is simply whoever is more qualified should get the job. I think that depending on the field of work and how skilled you have to be should depend on the strictness of how affirmative action is enforced. I certainly think it should always be taken into account, but the choice should truly be based on skills and how qualified someone is for a specific job.
[Reply]
I completely disagree with this statement that affirmative action places unqualified people into fields. I think that affirmative action seeks out the best potential candidate from an underrepresented group and give them the chance to compete and excel with the majority that have a number and plethora of people who have been granted certain privileges and resources for various opportunities in life. This is a common statement that is brought up about affirmative action, which I think is garbage. If there are unqualified people getting elevated it is because the people doing the hiring have made a bad decision to elevate that person or place them in that position. The truth is no one truly knows who benefits from affirmative action or who has been chosen or picked because of affirmative action. We must realize that this is not a tool used to help out any less privileged person but to give those who are excelling a chance to succeed like everyone else. It is up to the people who are picking to make sure that they are doing the right job when this picking and choosing is carried out.
[Reply]
I have mixed feelings about this blog post. I totally understand where you are coming from by asking if affirmative action could potentially hire someone less qualified based on economic status. However, I do not think affirmative action’s purpose is to provide opportunities to those less qualified over someone more qualified, I think it is to try and give everyone an even playing field. I do not understand everything about affirmative action and I think most of us can agree that all of us could learn a little more about it. I do not think that hospitals and health care systems would hire someone less qualified over someone more qualified just because of affirmative action, that is not its purpose.
[Reply]
I undstand what your are saying but I am not sure that I really agree with it. When it comes to college, I understand what you mean by affirmative action taking those less qualified for reasons based on their race ethnicity or gender. I don’t really know what my stance is on affirmative action, I kind of think it is a good idea. Maybe I just think it is a good idea because I feel like I benefittef from it. Although I did have good grades and a lot of extra curricular to put on my college applications, I got into schools that some of my friends did not get into even though they had better grades or better test scores. I don’t want to say that I got into college based on the fact that my last name is Gonzalez and I can put Hispanic on my college applications and test scores, but I definelty do believe that it had some influence on determining where I got accepted to. Same thing went for my sister, she was not as qualified as others to get accepted into Berkeley for her under grad or Columbia for her masters, my sister even received a Hispanic female scholorship. The funny part of it all is that my sister and I don’t even really speak Spanish. If you were to look at us you would think of us as white even though we are 100% Mexican, she has blue eyes and blonde hair and I have green eyes and light brown hair. However, because we check a certain box we are seen as something else and judged based on that check mark. Obviously, I benefittef from affirmative action but I don’t really know if I am okay with it.
I don’t think that affirmative action would effect the standard of our health care. I think affirmative action can only take you so far, eventually you definetly need to show that you are the most qualified for a certain position in order to get it. I don’t think that someone would get a job in a hospital based on their race or gender, I think that at that point the most qualified person would get the job. But I do agree that at a point in the beginning of the process affirmative action does take affect and helps determine who will be given what opportunity.
Since I benefited from affirmative action, I do somewhat appreciate it but I also do have a side of me that thinks it should go away. Not only does it not create an equal opportunity for everyone, which is what America is apparently about, it also leads people like me to question if I really deserved to be accepted where I was accepted and I I deserved to be in the penn state class of 2012.
[Reply]
I like this guy's question mainly because I can understand where he is coming from as I have wondered about similar issues myself. First of all, I don't think affirmative action will impact the quality of a job done whether it's in law or medicine. Affirmative Action is simply a means to level the playing field in order to represent an underrepresented minority. That doesn't mean a person who may have benefited from Affirmative Action necessarily will get a job if his or her skills are not up to par. It just means they are getting their foot in the door to meet the requirements for whatever profession they choose to pursue. Just because someone benefiting from Affirmative Action may have lower test scores or a lower GPA does not mean they aren't fit for their prospective job. The degree is the important part, and like Sam said "C's earn degrees." I believe nepotism is a true problem in these types of situations however. I am a business major and this is evident through out the year around job fair time and when internships are being discussed. Of course those who are more well off are going to have more connections through which they might be able to get a job over someone more deserving. This not only limits the people who are just as qualified as the person with more connections but it also limits the applicants for the same position. I understand that in business there is a general theory that "it is not what you know but who you know" and this is a problem. It is creating another gap or bridge in the job market, separating those with connections from those without. But it is also good to know that hard work and determination along with personal skills will typically be the recipe for a job. Whether or not it's a job that is your ideal choice or not is a different story because who knows, someone could get a job that they don't deserve because of who they know, then again one can get a job out of pure merit. The good thing about this is that those who may end up getting a job over someone more deserving could either perform well or under perform which could cause for their firing or removal from that position. And normally with getting raises, benefits, and promotions, they are not from who you know but from how you are in the work place based on efficiency, work ethic and results. That is of course if there is corruption which is a radical viewpoint. Nepotism is also a way for people to get their foot in the door though because if they cannot handle the position, they will be replaced unless the company is corrupt like i mentioned before.
[Reply]
After attending class on Thursday, I definitely think about affirmative action more differently. At times, I think it’s unnecessary and unfair and other times I think it is much needed in order to help those move up in the world. Regarding the above question, my initial reaction was that student was completely correct. Why should someone who is less qualified for a job, especially in the medical field, receive a job based on affirmative action, when there is probably someone more qualified for that job? I don’t think that someone should be chosen for a job based on their sex or race just to assure that a hospital or doctor’s office meets the specific regulations on affirmative action. If I were a patient I would much rather have a doctor care for me who is right for the job, whether that means a person of color, a woman, or a white person. There are many qualifications that are needed to be a professional in the medical field, and I don’t believe race should be one of them? In order to be a qualified individual in the medical field I think one needs experience, a warm personality, knowledge of their practices, patience, sympathy, and intelligence, nowhere in those qualifications would race play a factor, which is why I don’t think affirmative action should be a determining factor while hiring in specific jobs. If I were a director of a hospital I would want to hire those who are highly qualified for a job despite sex and race.
On the contrary, when it comes to college admissions, I think at times affirmative action is necessary. Everything Sam has been saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer shows to be true in a situation like college admissions. Those who are at the bottom, who attended a poor schooling system, live in low-income areas, and are unable to afford college, don’t really have the chance to move up in the world. Having affirmative action gives these individuals a chance that they wouldn’t necessarily receive without it. College admissions would take into consideration where the individual grew up, the number of students in their class, and their race to find the best group of students to attend their school.
When it comes to nepotism, I feel as though I’m torn similar to how I feel about affirmative action. Before taking this class I had more of a distinct opinion, or so I thought I did, but Sam actually is making me think, put yourself on the other side of the argument. I’m sure people who are less qualified for jobs are able to get jobs because of the connections they made or the people they know. But who’s to say that’s not fair when they made the connections themselves becusae they knew if would help them get a job and in the end they’re the ones benefitting? On the contrary, as an elementary education major if someone who has a lower GPA, and less experience than me receives a job over me because their Uncle is a principal I would be angry and discouraged. So I guess the question is where do we draw the line? How do you find a balance between the two?
[Reply]
The first thing that popped into my mind when i watched this video was why does having minority workers lower the quality of a product or service (in this case)? I was angry and upset that this comment had been made. Then i took a moment to calm down and realized what i took his comment as, probably was not the intent of the person who asked the question. I can see how this issue could be in question. The concern being that instead of highly qualified persons being selected for a job or student placement, a person is chosen based on their race not their smarts or sat scores. I can also understand the other side of this issue, saying that racism still exists and affirmative action is a good way to make sure race doesn’t effect opportunities.
[Reply]
I do not think that affirmative action necessarily hurts our work force, because affirmative action is not the only basis that employees are recruited on. The best person for the job still gets the job, I think affirmative action could be thought of as if someone is on the fence for a job or something, their difference could be positive, and maybe get them the job. A person isn’t going to be a CEO because they are ethnically different; they get the job because they are the most qualified. I hate the idea of nepotism. I do not believe it is just networking, and it sucks there’s not too much we can do to curb nepotism, at least at the lower levels.
[Reply]
I agree with this kid completely. I know it may be a self conscious thing that people tend to pick the white people over colored people but what if we could just get rid of that category completely? What if interviews could be completely over the phone or without seeing someone’s face and no one had to check and ethnicity box? In my mind that would be the ideal hiring world. The job should be fully based off of your skills and experiences. The way you look should not be an influence. I know we say that discrimination against race occurs, but I wonder about the studies about people with handicaps or deformities. Do they have an advantage or disadvantage in the hiring world? Personally I completely agree with this person. I want the best qualified person for the job. I could care in the least about skin color. If I have a doctor operating on me, I want the most skilled and easiest to get along with. That is all I need.
[Reply]
When people talk about Affirmative Action one of two definitions pop up in their heads: 1) equal opportunity for all, no matter what your race or gender; or 2) preferential hiring and promotion based on race or gender. The impression I got from Sam’s last lecture (Sorry Sam if this is wrong) is that he was pushing for the second definition. And that it was a means toward closing the starting gap we see between minorities and the majority.
In your example you talk about the qualifications of medical professionals (which is definitely on the extreme end of this topic). When you look at Affirmative Action of Doctors, I think you will find it (at least I hope) more in terms of acceptance into pre-med college and medical schools. Doctors have to go through residencies where the hope is, anyone that can’t keep up and give the best care possible will be weeded out (no matter race to gender).
[Reply]
I agree with some aspects of this argument. Medical school is competitive enough as it is, but there are many instances that affirmative action and definitely nepotism play a role. In applying to medical school, if you get a friend who is a well-known doctor that is an alumni from the school to write your recommendation, you are set. You may most likely get in over students who are more qualified but didn’t have a good known person write their recommendation. But my philosophy is, it doesn’t really matter how to get in, just as long as you prove yourself. If I get a really good job on wallstreet because of who I know, who cares? Networking is half of it. Many people think that nepotism is such a bad thing, but first of all there is no way to really stop it, and second, many people who say they oppose, actually benefit from it.
In my classes, for my major especially, I go up to the professor and introduce myself in the very first week of classes so they know my name. Even in classes in as big as Forum because I want to be able to come up to them in the future whether it is to write a recommendation, or help me find a job. I network with everyone I know and try to gain opportunities. And is there anything wrong with that? No. I am most likely working for my dad’s company this summer and of course my dad is getting me the job. But when I am there I will be proving that I am the right pick and that I am qualified. We are never going to get rid of nepotism, and honestly, I don’t want it to go away. Half of the people who work on wallstreet got those jobs because they know someone. Good for them. The obviously are qualified if they were able to network. And if they were actually an awful pick and are incompetent, they would have been fired.
Many people seemed upset about this subject in class and think it is unfair that nepotism exists. Well those people probably don’t have connections, because if they did they wouldn’t be complaining about it. If their dad was the CEO of Goldman Sachs, I think that they would have a very different opinion on the subject. Maybe those people should start networking and reconsider their viewpoint. It’s obviously not going to go away so people need to be able to accept that under qualified individuals may get the job instead of you. It sucks but that is how the workforce runs. And for all of those people who feel almost guilty for getting the job because you know that you don’t “deserve” it. Just prove yourself and let people know that you fit in and can do just as good of a job as the next guy.
[Reply]
I think Affirmative action is used a lot however, I think there is a line where it is used. For instance, in health care, if you have a degree and someone else has a degree and one is better then the other and the one that is less "smarter" i guess ill say is approved the job because of Affirmative Action, I do not see that a problem anywhere. You earned a degree just like everyone else. I consider that in the end the same qualifications. Someone without a degree Affirmative Action or not, they will not get that job I dont care if your my son or daughter. Yes there are some people with degrees that really shouldn't have that degree or whatever, but it doesnt matter, you have it you use it!
[Reply]
I think many people have a misconstrued notion of affirmative action. When a company or school practices it, it doesn’t mean they just go up on the street and find the first black person or woman and give them the job. Believe it or not, there are plenty of qualified minorities out there and those are the people affirmative action benefits. That’s why I believe affirmative action to be better than nepotism. At least with affirmative action, you have to be qualified for the job. I really don’t think anyone unqualified gets the benefits of affirmative action and it’s definitely not creating reversed racism in the workplace. This should be obvious from the study Sam showed us in class about job discrimination.
[Reply]
I think that affirmative action can and can not be effective. In certain cases I think it is important to have affirmative action because it helps people who would not normally have that help. However, I also feel that sometimes people take advantage of affirmative action and just check off that box to get a better opportunity that they do not necessarily deserve. There is a girl from high school who had worse SAT scores and a worse GPA than another girl I know. The girl with the lesser grades happens to be Hispanic and the other girl is just a normal white girl. The white girl did not get into the main campus of Penn State, but the other girl did. It really makes me wonder if the reason the girl with the lesser grades and SATs got in because of her race. This girl does not live in an awful circumstance; she actually has a lot of money and comes from a very good family. Her opportunities for school were probably higher than that of my friend who did not get into the University Park campus. I think affirmative action should be looked into more than just a check on an application. The person’s background should also be looked into like where they come from and the high school they attended, not just the color of their skin or nationality. In the case that the person questioned about as far as people being qualified, I do not know how much affirmative action plays into getting into medical school. I would hope that it does not play that big of a part because I want my doctor to know their stuff regardless of their race.
As far as nepotism goes it is really hard to argue with because if I was able to get a job from a family member or a close a friend I would most likely accept it because I want to be working. I know it really sucks for the person who might be more qualified than me. I mean I would be really pissed if someone else got the job I was more qualified for because of a family member. However, it is sort of just the way the world has been working and I do not know if there is much that can be done to change it. I am not sure that anyone would really pass up the opportunity of a job if they knew someone was better qualified than them to do the job. That is part of the problem because no one really sees it as an issue unless they are the other person, they would accept the job if it was their uncle giving them the position.
[Reply]
I don’t really agree with you. I think that maybe schools might fill its spots with people who should not be getting in over someone else. However, when it comes to employment I would hope and think that businesses would not employ someone just to meet affirmative action standards. Firms or medical practices should look for people who are first qualified for the job. They should not hire someone to meet affirmative actions standards if that person is not as qualified for the job as someone else may be. I believe a company should wait for the right candidate if they need to fill a quota.
[Reply]
I completely agree with what you are saying. Affirmative action can put unqualified people in places they should not be. I think that when dealing with affirmative action, you have to be very careful to not allow this to happen. If it does happen, it’s reverse discrimination and is just as bad as what affirmative action tries to eliminate. I only see a problem with nepotism to a certain degree. I definitely don’t think that very unqualified people should be given something just because of family ties. However, a common theme for people is that they want to work hard to provide their children with a better life. I think that if someone works really hard throughout their life, they should be able to let their kids benefit. Obviously, only to a certain extent.
[Reply]
I don’t know that affirmative action really would affect people in the medical field to such an extent. If they have two candidates and one is black and one is white, I highly doubt they would hire the black one if they felt the white candidate was much more qualified and better able to work more proficiently in a hospital. If you’re talking med school, again I don’t see that directly affecting health care. If they accept a black student to med school over a white student, the black student will still be studying to get all of the proper qualifications to do their job as best they can and as well as any other white student in the same program—which in the end is all that really matters.
[Reply]