Mad Magazine: Overheard at the House Democrats' Sit-In

From Mad Magazine: Overheard at the House Democrats' Sit-In

Europe's Free Colleges? In France, the system is "a huge hypocrisy coupled with a profound injustice for the students" that "ends up excluding the weakest among us"

At the Paris Assas university years ago, I used to teach introduction to British and American Constitutional Law (no, not as a professor, as a teaching assistant);

when giving the (first-year) students their final grade, I was instructed to do as follows: give the top half students of the class a passing grade (above 50%), and give the bottom half of the students a failing grade (below). Those were the instructions, whether (say) 85% were outstanding (or at least passing) students or, conversely, whether 85% were terrible students…

In other words, the idea was that exactly half the "freshmen" at the university of law were to be expelled, so to speak, after that first year, no matter how good they might have been.

For those "progressives", both in Europe and in the United States, who are constantly looking to Europe for "free college" (as well as "health care for all"), the reality on the Old Continent can seem slightly different at times.

But do not take my word for it.

In Le Monde, in a period of only four months, we have seen articles on debates about the best policies (and whether colleges had the authority to choose among them), the intervention of politicians in the choice of how to prioritize among students, and, last but (definitely) not least, a report on the extent to which studies are at all effective in integrating the world of work…

In one recent article, Jean-Loup Salzmann, président de la Conférence des présidents d’université (CPU), and Gilles Roussel, président de l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, denounce the conditions high school students encounter in certain high-profile majors.

The idealism of the Republic cultivates its myths, not least that, ingrained in our society, which is to believe that every high school graduate, whatever his skills, he can access all university courses and succeed.

The reality is quite different!

Should we continue to accept this social mess by hiding behind a pseudo-myth of equality, which in the final analysis ends up excluding the weakest among us?

 … To those majors called "high voltage" (en tension) because they are the most popular with students, selection takes the form of a draw!

A Heresy

Who can understand that access to "high-voltage" majors is aawarded without taking into account the skills of the graduates, their grades, and their baccalaureate? No one.

That admission to a university major is done randomly and not on the qualifications of the candidates is a heresy and can only tarnish the image of the university and the quality of its degrees. Besides, the Ministry of eduction, in one unprecedented episode of frankness, recognized this when it congratulated itself for avoiding the draw in the areas of medicine and law.

A Right to Hear the Truth

It is irresponsible to suggest that a high school student can enroll in the sector of their choice without any prerequisites and without regard to employability at the end of the studies! Who can believe that a young person can succeed in languages ​​without a substantial baggage acquired during his high school years? This is not because the subject of law is not (yet) taught in high school that this material is accessible without a solid foundation of general knowledge, French language, or methodology!

You do not start from scratch when entering the university, you consolidate your previous gains to acquire new skills. Students and their families have the right to transparency and to the language of truth.

Let's put an end to this once and for all. The draw system is a huge hypocrisy coupled with a profound injustice for the students. The government must provide universities with the financial resources to increase the capacities of high potential insertion channels and allow them to guide the graduates according to their skills and to their professional projects.

En français : Jean-Loup Salzmann, président de la Conférence des présidents d’université (CPU) et Gilles Roussel, président de l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, dénoncent les conditions d’accès des futurs bacheliers dans les filières « sous tension ».

L’idéalisme républicain cultive ses mythes dont celui, bien ancré dans notre société, qui consiste à faire croire à chaque bachelier que, quelles que soient ses compétences, il pourra accéder à toutes les filières universitaires et y réussir. 

La réalité est toute autre !

Doit-on continuer à accepter ce gâchis social en se cachant derrière un pseudo-mythe de l’égalité, qui au bout du compte produit l’exclusion des plus fragiles ?

Ces jours-ci en effet, les futurs bacheliers prennent connaissance, via l’opaque système Admission post-bac (APB), des résultats d’affectation aux formations. Pour celles dites « en tension », parce qu’elles sont très prisées par les étudiants, la sélection prend la forme d’un tirage au sort !

A l’université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, par exemple, la moitié des 130 places disponibles en Sciences et techniques des activités physiques et sportives (Staps) vient d’être affectée en une journée seulement, alors que près de 2 000 futurs étudiants ont demandé, dans cet établissement, cette formation en premier choix.

Une hérésie

Qui peut comprendre que l’accès à des filières « en tension » se fasse sans prendre en compte les compétences des bacheliers, leurs résultats scolaires et/au baccalauréat ? Personne.

Qu’une admission dans une filière universitaire se fasse au hasard et non pas sur les qualités des candidats est une hérésie et ne peut que ternir l’image de l’université et de la qualité de ses diplômes. D’ailleurs le ministère, dans un accès de franchise inédit, le reconnaît en se félicitant d’avoir pu éviter le tirage au sort en médecine et en droit.

Face, d’une part, à l’augmentation du nombre de bacheliers choisissant l’université (100 000 de plus en trois ans) qui va continuer, et d’autre part, à la baisse des dépenses publiques par étudiant, il est temps que l’Etat prenne ses responsabilités.

Il est illusoire de croire que l’augmentation du nombre de places dans les filières « en tension » pourra à lui seul résoudre le problème : ce qui doit guider la programmation des capacités d’accueil ce sont les débouchés et les capacités d’insertion professionnelle des étudiants.

Droit au langage de vérité

Il est irresponsable de laisser croire à un lycéen qu’il peut s’inscrire dans la filière de son choix sans aucun prérequis et sans se soucier de son insertion professionnelle à terme ! Qui peut croire qu’un jeune peut réussir en langues sans avoir un bagage conséquent acquis durant ses années de lycée ? Ce n’est pas parce que le droit n’est pas (encore) enseigné au lycée que cette matière est accessible sans de solides bases de culture générale, en français ou en méthodologie !

On ne repart pas de zéro en accédant à l’université, on y consolide ses acquis pour acquérir de nouvelles compétences. Les lycéens et leurs familles ont droit à la transparence et au langage de vérité.

Finissons-en une fois pour toutes. Le tirage au sort est une vaste hypocrisie doublée d’une profonde injustice à l’égard des étudiants. Le gouvernement doit donner les moyens financiers aux universités d’augmenter les capacités d’accueil des filières à haut potentiel d’insertion et leur permettre d’orienter les bacheliers en fonction de leurs compétences et de leurs projets professionnels.

Cette orientation et les moyens qui l’accompagnent doivent mener une part de plus en plus importante de jeunes vers des études supérieures et permettre leur insertion professionnelle, aux bons niveaux de responsabilité et de rémunération.

A preview of Donald Trump's first 100 days in office

The BBC explains what

Republican Donald Trump has set out [as his priorities] in office [should he beat] Democrat Hillary Clinton in November's election.

U.S. History has not been, as Obama implies, 200 years of sustained mass migration—and it certainly hasn’t been 200 years of lawless open borders, which is his actual goal

The Supreme Court momentarily impeded President Obama’s attempt to “fundamentally transform America” last week with its 4-4 vote on his executive amnesty action plan 

reports Benny Huang.

When the court is deadlocked, previous decisions by lower courts are allowed to stand. In this case, Obama lost because the lower court found that his plan exceeded his executive authority, which is actually what Obama himself said before he decided to do it.

The evenly divided court apparently couldn’t make up its mind as to whether the president is permitted to act like a dictator and suspend laws he doesn’t like. That’s a tough question, you see, with half of our best legal minds leaning toward dictatorship. Scary.

After the ruling, President Obama held a press conference to assure the public that “comprehensive immigration reform” is still inevitable, if only delayed. He’s probably right about that. Like water on a rock, the Left just keeps wearing us down.

He began the press conference with a lot of feel-good pap about the glories of immigration—while lumping legal migrants together with illegal aliens, as the Left always does. “…[O]ne of the reasons why America is such a diverse and inclusive nation is because we’re a nation of immigrants,” said the president. “Our Founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world. And for more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic and entrepreneurial.”

That’s the fifth grade version of history that I was taught in school too. My well-meaning teacher taught us that immigration is part of our national ethos. We learned about Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and looked at a lot of pictures of young women wearing babushkas, staring out from the decks of ocean liners. It was all nice and corny.

Obama has seized on that familiar history lesson for his own advantage, clearly implying that unfettered immigration is all-American—which renders opposition to it un-American. Make no mistake about it, the president’s appeal to the Founders (whom he hates, by the way) and our supposed tradition of immigration is an attack on his opponents’ patriotism.

Usually when people talk about the Founders’ intentions they are referring to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or its offspring, the Bill of Rights. Nothing in any of those documents even hints that the Founders “conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”

Thomas Jefferson’s philosophical brief to King George doesn’t mention it. The Bill of Rights enshrines in law many freedoms, most of which are under siege in Obama’s America, but it does not include a “right” to immigrate. The Constitution even empowers Congress (not the Executive!) to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” (Article I, Section 8) Congress did their duty and established an immigration code, which happens to be very liberal, but the president has nonetheless sought to nullify it via executive order because some people still can’t come in the right way.

By empowering Congress to regulate immigration, the Constitution necessarily implies that we have the prerogative to set limits. We Americans are the gatekeepers because American immigration policy is supposed to benefit us. It doesn’t matter a lick if immigrants come here “looking for a better life.” If their addition to our society doesn’t make our lives better then we have no obligation to take them.

This idea is exactly the opposite of the Obama philosophy on immigration which says that anyone who can get here has a right to come in—except apparently devout Christians from Germany who want to homeschool their children.

Under Obama’s plan, newcomers don’t even have to go through a screening process to make sure that they don’t carry contagious diseases or terrorist sympathies. All they have to do is run across the border and Obama will be waiting there for them with a welfare check in one hand and a voter registration card in the other. If you oppose him, your patriotism is suspect.

Obama compounded his historical error with his reference to “wave after wave” of immigrants to our shores “for more than two centuries.” The truth is more complicated. Over the course of our history, Congress has used its rightful authority to adjust immigration levels as it saw fit. Sometimes immigration was a mighty river and sometimes a trickle. It has not been, as Obama implied, two hundred years of sustained mass migration—and it certainly hasn’t been two hundred years of lawless open borders, which is his actual goal.

There have really been two great “waves” of immigration to this country, and we’re living in one of them. The most recent began in 1965 with Ted Kennedy’s Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States opened its doors very wide indeed, accepting about 59 million immigrants over the course of fifty years. That’s more people than live in California, our most populous state, by the way, and it doesn’t include illegal aliens. Yet despite this very liberal policy, some people still can’t be bothered to come in the right way. Obama considers these people to be victims, probably because he views them and their children as potential voters. They are not victims, you are — the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.

The other “wave” occurred between the years 1880 and 1921. This is the much romanticized “Ellis Island” era of immigration. Though not without its problems, America managed this period of rapid change reasonably well because it subscribed to the melting pot model. These days, just saying that America is a melting pot is a “microaggression” on some college campuses.

An argument could be made that America needed the Ellis Island wave of immigrants because we were in the midst of westward expansion and rapid industrialization. In 1901, the United States became the world’s largest manufacturer, which was both the cause and effect of mass migration. There was certainly work in those days for anyone who wanted it—bridges and tunnels to be built, coal and ore to be extracted from the earth, and goods of every imaginable variety to be manufactured. New railroads were being laid across the continent, often by Irish and Chinese immigrants.
 
But that was then and this is now. America is becoming one big rust belt and yet we’re bringing in more immigrants than we did when we were a budding industrial power. It’s madness.

An alternative argument could also be made that we brought in those immigrants not because we needed them but because employers wanted them. The elite’s desires are not the same as the country’s needs, though the two are easily confused when the elite get to tell the story.

Employers have traditionally welcomed immigrants because immigration makes the workers fight each other for coveted jobs. In times of high immigration, wages tend to remain stagnant or even decline. Whenever the workers start getting uppity, employers seek labor in ever more exotic locales—first Ireland and Germany, then China and Italy, now Laos and Guatemala. The best way to make workers toil longer for less is to keep them in constant fear for their livelihood.

This idea that we are a nation of immigrants was advanced in no small part by exactly those employers. Call it corporate propaganda, if you will. I would compare it the diamond industry’s not-so-subtle suggestion to young men that spending two months salary on a diamond ring before proposing to a lady is some kind of obligatory right of passage. Though this practice may seem like an age old tradition it was actually conceived of in a DeBeers boardroom.

It’s the same with the American immigration ethos. Though we have been led to believe that America has always been open to absolutely anyone who wants to come here for a better life, that just isn’t the case. Our immigration policy has sometimes been liberal and sometimes conservative, but it has never been boundless. Our current president and his party don’t want any limits, nor do they want an orderly screening system. They want a free-for-all—and they’ll probably get it.

Immigration is certainly part of our history, though not because it had to be that way. The number of immigrants admitted was determined by a tug-of-war between employers and the working public. When the employers had their way, the flood gates were thrown open, whether we needed them or not. When workers had their way, the flood gates were closed.

Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration was narrowly upheld but the fight is not over. The Left hasn’t given up and neither should we.