Dear davidf,

This is a subject dear to my heart. On another posting I put the case for proportional allocation of government funded university places to each of the three sectors, public, independent and catholic. The link is here…

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2770&page=0#62584

I would be quite interested to hear your thoughts.

Although no one has raised it the main problem I have with my own proposal was the history of allocations, for instance those of the Jews in American Universities.

From Norman Cantor’s - The Sacred Chain A History of the Jews.

In the 1920s “The New York public school system did more than anything to provide assimilation and social mobility of the younger generation. The WASP and Irish teachers did not fail the Jews” but at the NY University “Jewish quota was a rigid fifteen percent”. Princeton was three percent, Harvard 15% and Columbia 25%.

However “By the mid-1970s about a third of the faculty in the humanities and social science departments of the top twenty-five universities were Jewish. Forty percent of the entering class at Yale Law School in 1974 was Jewish. A quarter of the undergraduate body of Harvard College by 1970 was Jewish, and forty percent at Columbia College.”

All this while making up less than 2% of the population.

Probably a more modern example would be that of the Chinese in Malaysia where quotas are used to limit their access to government university places. Again ethnicity is the deciding factor. Dr. Shafie Salleh
Declared in 2004 "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher" and only 2% of Chinese students attend government schools.

So I recognise the need to be circumspect when putting forward my arguments for proportional allocation but it is something I feel very strongly about. It would be far better if it was not needed although the arguments for the societal benefits of the public education system extending well beyond ENTER scores appear to be falling on deaf ears.

Speaking of quotas I believe I have reached mine.

" ... If parents want to send their children to such schools it should be their right. ... "

Couldn't disagree more. Children too should have comprehensive rights which should extend to not being indoctrinated, i.m.o.

csteele wrote:

In the 1920s “The New York public school system did more than anything to provide assimilation and social mobility of the younger generation. The WASP and Irish teachers did not fail the Jews” but at the NY University “Jewish quota was a rigid fifteen percent”. Princeton was three percent, Harvard 15% and Columbia 25%.

However “By the mid-1970s about a third of the faculty in the humanities and social science departments of the top twenty-five universities were Jewish. Forty percent of the entering class at Yale Law School in 1974 was Jewish. A quarter of the undergraduate body of Harvard College by 1970 was Jewish, and forty percent at Columbia College.”

All this while making up less than 2% of the population.

Probably a more modern example would be that of the Chinese in Malaysia where quotas are used to limit their access to government university places. Again ethnicity is the deciding factor. Dr. Shafie Salleh
Declared in 2004 "As the Higher Education Minister, I will ensure the quota of Malay students' entry into universities is always higher" and only 2% of Chinese students attend government schools.

So I recognise the need to be circumspect when putting forward my arguments for proportional allocation but it is something I feel very strongly about. It would be far better if it was not needed although the arguments for the societal benefits of the public education system extending well beyond ENTER scores appear to be falling on deaf ears.

Dear csteele,

Neither Jews nor Chinese attained their position by chicanery. Both the US and Malaysia benefitted as societies from activities of Jews and Chinese. The two cultures exalt the scholar and have a work ethic which encourages the student. Better than quotas restricting those who have the ability and desire it is a better alternative to encourage other groups to have the same respect for scholarship and work ethic that exists in Jewish and Chinese culture. Unfortunately, it often works the other way. Succeeding generations of Jews and Chinese lose these distinctive traits as they become assimilated in the surrounding society.

DreamOn wrote,

"Children too should have comprehensive rights which should extend to not being indoctrinated, i.m.o."

Dear DreamOn,

I would also like to see no children indoctrinated into religion. However, I think it would either create a schism between parents and children if the state were to enforce it, result in children and parents opposing a tyrannical state or having spirits crushed by state oppression. Although I am an atheist I consider those alternatives worse than allowing the state to prevent indoctrination of religion. It has been tried in the USSR, Albania, China and other places with lamentable results. Religion seems to thrive under persecution. It is a better alternative to teach comparative religion, to allow the free exercise of religion and encourage interfaith activities.

One has to wonder whether the indoctrination that children undergo in state schools viz a viz homosexuality, transgenderism, reconciliation, multiculturalism, diversity, etc, isn't more insidious than other ideologies which have more traditionally religious trappings.
At least they admit to being religious.

Dear davidf,

I feel I am imposing on your good grace to continue this line of argument much further.

I would at some stage like to raise as a topic an exploration of why the Jewish people are so over represented in the ranks of the intelligentsia although I have been wary about doing it in an open discussion forum. Norman Cantor would have us believe it is in the genes while you seem to imply it is because of the culture.

However for the record I certainly don’t think Chinese or Jewish students have engaged in any sort of chicanery to obtain their positions.

When you said “The two cultures exalt the scholar and have a work ethic which encourages the student.” I wondered at the idea that one could separate the Jewish culture and religion. You seem to celebrate the first but disparage the second. Is one “indoctrinated” into a culture?

That western society has benefited from the activities of the Jews is inarguable, one only has to look at the proportion of Nobel Prize winners who are Jewish to understand that.

By acknowledging the fruits of that culture for the rest of us and recognising the vital role religion plays in the equation, perhaps our society should be wary of diluting the successes they enable and work instead to maintain those religious/cultural schools that bear these fruits.

Why would we even countenance such a move unless we felt that, as you appear to do, that there is something more valuable to be gained in an inclusive, universal education system.

By acknowledging that “In Australia graduates of non-public schools have a better chance of getting a university education. Subsidies of non-public schools as is in effect in Australia increases that inequity.” you identify one huge benefit which is equality.

Cont...