John Hospers and John Rawls both lived and wrote during the 20th century, mainly discerning about justice and fairness of decisions. Hosper advocated for a self-autonomy where decisions should only affect oneself. Meanwhile, John Rawls believed in giving everyone an equal chance, even if it came at the expense of others. On the issue of college acceptance, the two of them possess very different views. While Hospers would argue that the college acceptance should prioritize those who can afford the education, Rawls, correctly, believes that everyone should be looked at equally regardless of income and background.
John Hospers initial vantage point in regards to acceptance would be based on financial capabilities. Hospers would first consider
…show more content…
Before any student is accepted, every decision would be made through the lens of the “original position”. When in the original position, the admissions “...must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust” (Rawls 129), in order to determine what would make a good student at the school. This process would allow the school to fairly choose students to attend the school, regardless of class or race, because the school admissions only see if the student fits the criteria set by the original position. However, this process of selecting students runs into the problem of tuition. Some qualified students would be able to pay for the cost, while the others would not be able to. To accommodate for this, Rawls would have the school engage in economic inequalities “to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged…” (Rawls 131). This would mean that Rawls would encourage the school to use their financial capabilities ensure that every qualified student is able to attend the school, even if means using taxpayer money. By the end of the application period, all students that meet the school’s criteria will be offered admission with or without financial
Imagine growing up in a society where a person is restricted to learn because of his or her ethnicity? This experience would be awful and very emotional for one to go through. Sherman Alexie and Fredrick Douglas are examples of prodigies who grew up in a less fortunate community. Both men experienced complications in similar and different ways; these experiences shaped them into men who wanted equal education for all. To begin, one should understand the writers background. Sherman Alexie wrote about his life as a young Spokane Indian boy and the life he experienced (page 15). He wrote to encourage people to step outside their comfort zone and be herd throughout education. Similar to Alexie’s life experience, Fredrick
The idea of freedom and equal opportunity that America was built on has sadly been lost and replaced with a system of quality education only being accessible by the wealthy. In-state college tuition should be free for all students meeting admission requirements, allowing students from the full spectrum of economic backgrounds to have the same opportunity to receive the same education. The incidence of poverty in the U.S. is directly linked to educational level. When a college degree is earned, income levels rise (College Board). The best use of federal government anti-poverty funds is not another welfare or assistance program; it is to make college education affordable for everyone.
Recently the merits of a race based admission policy to colleges and universities have come under scrutiny by the American public. Take into account the position of black conservatives, who feel that affirmative action merely perpetuates a system of preference in reverse and does nothing to fix the problems African Americans face in lower educational programs. When looking at the arguments of the Black conservatives and comparing them to the view points of the opposition, a certain conclusion may be reached.
Murray believes that students should receive a liberal education, yet they should not have to wait until college to do so (Murray 225). Murray states that a person should not be forced to obtain a college-level liberal education, simply because they are capable of doing so (Murray 228). On higher education, Murray says, “A large proportion of people who are theoretically able to absorb a liberal education have no interest in doing so.” (Murray 228). Regardless of the fact that a person fits the criteria enabling them to pursue a college degree, does not necessarily mean that they should, if they are not interested. It is more logical to teach students extensively before the time of college, instead of leaving out information and forcing them to attend a school (Murray 225). However, Addison disagrees with this ideology, and believes that a college education is essential to growing up.
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
In the article “College is Not a Commodity. Stop treating it like one,” Hunter Rawlings explains how people today believe that college is a commodity, but he argues that it’s the student’s efforts; which gives value to their education. Rawlings states that in recent years college has been looked at in economic terms, lowering its worth to something people must have instead of earn. As a professor Rawlings has learned that the quality of education has nothing to do with the school or the curriculum, but rather the student’s efforts and work ethic. Rawlings explains the idea that the student is in charge of the success of his or her own education, and the professor or school isn’t the main reason why a student performs poorly in a class. Rawlings
2. How does Rawls understand Justice, and how does he propose that we arrive at two principles of Justice that ought to inform social relations and political institutions? What are his two principles of Justice, and what changes would have to occur in the United States in order for us to adopt
In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting three inspirational people and their experiences on reading and writing. Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, and Sandra Cisneros all had different opinions about it. All of them overcame struggles that were different but similar in some way. What really intrigued me was that they followed their hearts in what they wanted to do even though people told them they couldn't.
The right and privilege to higher education in today’s society teeters like the scales of justice. In reading Andrew Delbanco’s, “College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be, it is apparent that Delbanco believes that the main role of college is to accommodate that needs of all students in providing opportunities to discover individual passions and dreams while furthering and enhancing the economic strength of the nation. Additionally, Delbanco also views college as more than just a time to prepare for a job in the future but a way in which students and young adults can prepare for their future lives so they are meaningful and purposeful. Even more important is the role that college will play in helping and guiding students to learn how to accept alternate point of views and the importance that differing views play in a democratic society. With that said, the issue is not the importance that higher education plays in society, but exactly who should pay the costly price tag of higher education is a raging debate in all social classes, cultures, socioeconomic groups and races.
Every spring, high school students around the country anxiously check their mailboxes, hoping to receive letters of acceptance to their dream colleges. Typically, in perfect world, acceptance to college should be based on grades, SAT scores, letters of recommendation, character, extra-curricular activities, and personal statements. Recently, however, another factor in the admission process has become more and more accepted; race based admission. This new policy has been made in order to give minority students a better opportunity to gain acceptance into better colleges. In the 1960’s, President Lynden B. Johnson trying to bring diversity to higher education in the United States and serve as a peace offering for past discriminatory treatment, the use of race in the application process is supported by some and opposed by others. Supporters of the affirmative action claim that it is necessary to achieve diversity in education, which in their opinion should be sought above all else, while the opponents say race based admission actually promote racism and discrimination by the use of skin color in the admission policy. Since the introduction of race is a factor in acceptance, many people have challenged the legality of affirmative action. The Supreme Court has heard many cases related to race based admission and this continues today. Furthermore, this essay will look into the different opinions as to whether or not race should factor into university enrollment policies.
Sawhill, Isabel V., and Stephanie Owen. "Why We Still Think College Isn't for Everyone." http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/05/13-college-for-everyone-criticism-response-owen-sawhill. Web blog post. Brookings. The Brooking Institution, 13 May 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.
Two of the most important authors of early America are Thomas Paine and St. John de Crevecoeur. De Crevecoeur in his work “Letters from an American Farmer” set forth in simplest terms just exactly what it was that people who were immigrating to the American colonies could expect. His words and thoughts still define how many think of America today even if they don’t know that the words are his. Thomas Paine was a firebrand that wrote perhaps the most important of the pre-Revolution tracts in “Common Sense”. His analytical style in addressing the problems that were obviously there between the thirteen colonies and
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.