I believe that to be true but the point I was really trying to get at is that what would really be beneficial on a larger scale would be the big long haul instead of the quick fix. Of course allocating more funds to underfunded schools wouldn't help much if the attitude towards education didn't change in the student body but perhaps it might be a step on the road to getting the nighbourghoods onto a better track in the long run. I'm quite sure that being thaught by dis-illusioned teachers in a crumbling school building using antiquated textbooks for exams that won't get you anywhere surely doesn't motivate students to giving a damn about it. Improving the conditions just might slowly get more and more kids into seeing that you actually can get something positive out of attending other than a scholarship based on some kind of sport. KJ
You completely missed the point of my post. I didn't say he shouldn't take what advantages he's afforded, my point was in asking the question, "will this type of policy alter his thinking and views about himself and his own ethnicity specifically for the sake of gain?"
Depends on the kid, but it might. I know those that did. The question to me, however, is whether or not its fair to give your kid that advantage if he doesn't really need it.
You'd be treating the symptom rather than the disease. Those are, sadly, mostly irrelevant for this issue.
This is the fundamental **************** surounding the debate. (I am am putting most of the admissions arguments, like U of Michigan and Berkeley and UTexas together). The issue is simple. All the applicants who make it this far are qualified. The question is, which qualified persons do you take. People often try to distort the argument by saying that these particular minorities can not cut it, or would be better served elsewhere. In other words, there is nothing unearned about making it into the final cut for admissions. At that point, the decisions are not really determined by general qualifications but rather by other standards -- and history has shown that those standards can be related to legacy, money, and of course, in many cases, overqualification. (Scoring a 1400 rather than a 1200 on the SAT -- a sign of test taking prowess to be sure but not necessarily directly linked ot the mission of the school.)
This is just a simple busing desegregation case. IMO, they should just use a lottery. Using this system is just bad policy, because its the kind of thing that just exacerbates white flight and the destruction of the public school system anyway.
I was in the same situation that your kid will eventually be in. My father is Hispanic and my mom is white. I ended up with my mom's skin color, so I'm pretty much white too, but when it came down to applying to college, I applied as a Hispanic. However, affirmative action didn't really help me, I didn't get into any of my reaches, I actually got rejected from a school I thought I would get into, and I decided in the end to go to a school that I would have gotten into if I was white and did 250 points worse on the SAT. As you can tell, affirmative action didn't really do anything for me, but your kid should still try to take advantage of affirmative action because it has really helped some people and you should use whatever help you can get.
I think you do to, but once you get beyond "getting a diploma" at another school or being able to read and write, you move into an area that gets away from qualifications to subjective utilitarian goals. One school may have a goal of educating as many qualified students as possible. Another may want to educate as many qualfied students as possible, taking care to have a diverse population. And another may want to educate only the students with the highest scores on A, B or C. My sense is that the goals of the first two examples are every bit as valid as the third example.
But that's not how admissions are determined, and you know that. Schools look at the people who fall within certain ranges and then take some of them. However, when your grades and test scores are lower than this "window", I do think you begin to fall down a slippery slope.
Geographic diversity preference: folks from all over the nation getting access to slots in other parts of the nation, not always meeting the highest standards...no debate. Legacy preference: folks getting access to education slots because they are "son of," daughter of" "grandson of," not always meeting the highest standards...no debate. Whatsoever. Athletic preference: athletic performers gaining access to these slots, making money for their institutions, yet not always meeting the highest standards (I stood in the mud next to a regularly-fvcking-up football recruit during Basic Training at USAFA who was white, and who finally pissed off the upperclassmen so much that they screamed out "____what's your SAT score? He hesitated, knowing the Honor Code...they pressed for an answer...the answer? 700. Total. He's in your USAF today)... No debate. Even when they are minorities. None. But after 244 years in which it was illegal for the black community to read and write, and then a period of Jim Crow where the black community PAID TAXES for public institutions of higher learning but couldn't even THINK about sending their children to those institutions for almost a century...after all that, black folks get a foothold and a toehold, and then the WHOLE MACHINERY KICKS IN, and now everybody's so worried about everybody meeting some elevated standard... ...without, of course debating all the other forms of preference. Just the one benefitting the Negroes. That's an instituonal (and, for you, personal) level of hypocrisy and utter race-hate we ought to be honest about... Did you debate the deficient qualifications of Irish rich folk when Ted Kennedy got into college, through legacy, by meeting the minimal standard, thus keeping out some working-class man who may have been a genius but went to Boston College instead? Have you launched the debate and diatribe on the deficiency of rich WASPS when George Bush, meeting minimal standards, got into Yale, on legacy, keeping out some other genius who did not get in because of this man? Where's your thread asking why we can't hold these folks to the same standard as everyone else? If people don't meet minimal qualifications they don't belong. At Harvard, for example, 9000 people a year who apply meet minimal standards; they've only got 1800 slots, why do you hate their right to choose among that cohort, for all the above reasons? AFter minimal qualifications, schoosl bring all KINS of ish to bear to select students; When you all are railing aginst athletic, legacy, and geographical preference the way you rail against a historical truth, I'll hear you.
Did Jesus Christ ever say the word "diversity"? No... not in his recorded speech or Bibical text. Did Abraham Lincoln ever say the word "diversity"? No... not in his recorded speech or remarks. Did Martin Luther King ever say the word "diversity"? Probably not, at least not in modern context. But they all used the word equal, and alluded to it, many times.... thus: ...Treat everyone -- everyone -- equally... Admissions to schools which favor or prefer certain races or ethnic backgrounds goes against the spirit of equality set by our civil rights leaders and spriritual leaders. In the same way that our school admissions should not discriminate against certain races, they also should not prefer certain races in admissions....
Not sure we are arguing. My point is simply that when people debate about "affirmative action", they often lose sight that they are talking about many qualified people. I am just trying to stay away from the very common misperception that those who are benefiting from diversity really can't handle it, or that we are lowering standards. The issue is usually dealing with lots of people who are in the window.
Careful Mel. Otherwise, you'll have to start giving preference to Jewish students, since standardized tests were invented as a way to keep them out of Harvard and Yale. (Ironically, the Soviets eliminated standardized tests........to keep Jews out of the top universities. Ain't life funny?)
To the extent that we reduce admissions qualification to standardized tests, I distinguish Carl Brigham from Alfred Binet, who preceded Brigham anyway, particularly in terms of intent; in any case, Brigham hated a number of people, including, but not limited to, Catholics, Greeks, Hungarians, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians and Turks. But he had a special hatred for the Negroes. "We must face a possibility of racial admixture here that is infinitely worse than that faced by any European country today, for we are incorporating the Negro into our racial stock, while all of Europe is comparatively free from this taint." From A Study of American Intelligence, by Brigham... All that being said, if you want to incorporate the historical truth of the employment of standardized tests to marginalize various peoples into the spectrum of considerations in any application, which I think is already done, I'm all for it.