Using Race in College Admissions

CindiBryce

One can't deny that certain races are judged by different standards in college admissions.
It has been proven by research that...
Whites were three times as likely to gain admissions as Asians. Hispanics were twice as likely to gain admission as whites.

Do you believe colleges should be "race-blind"? I have mixed feelings. On one hand, admission based solely on merit may limit diversity. On the other hand, applying different standards to different races is racism and implies inferiority to certain races. I certainly don't believe one race is inferior or superior to another.

What do you think?

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students?PageNr=2
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

adjones5

Affirmative action makes me extremely angry. No one should be given preference based on their race. Admissions should be 100% based on merit.

Azdak

There are different ways of defining "merit". Many opponents of "affirmative action" use limited criteria, and for a multitude of reasons, fixate on that criteria as the only way of defining "merit". (Why they think that way is a different topic entirely).

For the take of brevity, I am not going to address the issue of affirmative action in general. Colleges and universities are unique in that the social and cultural experiences one receives at such institutions are part of the larger educational experience one receives. IMO, therefore a prima facie argument can be made in favor of diversity being an essential part of assembling a university "community". (Diversity meaning many things, not just based on race).

The definition of "merit" as being totally defined by a linear arrangement of standardized test scores is, IMO, unacceptably narrow. There is more to predicting educational performance at the college level than just achievement on a standardized test. Saying that someone, for example, who scores 1400 on the SAT has a higher "merit" than someone who scores, say 1150, is just wrong.

Once a potential applicant has reached a certain minimal level of academic achievement (as determined by the school) than it is completely appropriate for the school to include other criteria in making the selection process. Right now, there is at least a 10 to 1, sometimes up to a 14 to 1 ratio of applicants to class spaces in most "desirable" or "elite" colleges. At some schools, there probably aren't enough spaces to admit all of the applicants with perfect SAT scores, if that was considered the ultimate standard of "merit". With such large competition, schools can pick and choose based on whatever criteria they feel best meets their needs.

Azdak

One can't deny that certain races are judged by different standards in college admissions.
It has been proven by research that...
Whites were three times as likely to gain admissions as Asians. Hispanics were twice as likely to gain admission as whites.

Do you believe colleges should be "race-blind"? I have mixed feelings. On one hand, admission based solely on merit may limit diversity. On the other hand, applying different standards to different races is racism and implies inferiority to certain races. I certainly don't believe one race is inferior or superior to another.

What do you think?

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students?PageNr=2
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

Nothing of the sort has been "proved"-- at least not by the sources you cited (well, the first one, I don't normally waste time reading anything in USA Today).

In fact, the author of the study said just the opposite:

Espenshade warned against concluding that his study proved that colleges improperly discriminated.

He cited the disparity in the size of applicant pools, which make the ratios you cited less significant.

He also admitted that

(his) study didn't account for "soft" qualifications such as essays, recommendations, extracurricular activities, musical or artistic talents, or community service, all of which play important roles in admissions decisions.

So, your blanket assertion that "one can't deny that certain races are judged by different standards" is baseless--and that's putting it as gently as I can. Are you really trying to say that ALL members of certain racial groups are somehow unqualified and thus must be judged by "different standards"?

CindiBryce

So, your blanket assertion that "one can't deny that certain races are judged by different standards" is baseless--and that's putting it as gently as I can. Are you really trying to say that ALL members of certain racial groups are somehow unqualified and thus must be judged by "different standards"?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am NOT trying to say that different racial groups should be judged by different standards. In fact, I OPPOSE the idea. I am saying that currently, racial groups ARE judged by different standards by college admissions officers. Yes, they take things other than SAT scores into account, but SAT scores are the "benchmarks". Sometimes you will see outliers, but schools normally don't have applicants with scores ranging from 1000-1600. And no, you cannot deny that race plays a role in admissions. If schools were to be "race-blind", then the admission rates of certain minorities will drop. --->(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/study.html)

And for the record, I never stated that certain minority groups are unqualified. I just used statistics and testimonies to explain the current situation.

Bahet

I went to college in the late 80s/early 90s. I had several scholarships based mostly on grades and test scores. One day I came home for the weekend and my parents had gotten a bill from the university for $500. There was no explanation as to why. Everything had already been paid for that semester so my dad called the school. After a bit of run around he was finally told that half of one of my scholarships was being taken away to go towards minority scholarships. Apparently, as a caucasion female I was only worthy of half. If I had been black I would have kept the full scholarship as it had been awarded in the first place.

castadiva

In an academic setting, admissions should be blind to anything other than academic merit. End of story. (And that precludes admissions on the basis of sporting or creative prowess too, in my book, unless we are talking about specialist sport or performing/creative schools). How you judge academic merit is a whole different question - I agree standardised testing doesn't give a complete picture, but most elite colleges, for example, are looking at a lot more than an SAT score to differentiate between applicants.

Bahet, my sympathies. I'm surprised they were allowed to do that after the fact, but not surprised that it happened. It's often forgotten that racism means discrimination on the basis of race, whatever your skin tone.

macpatti

I support affirmative action. I can't stand when it's called "reverse racism". It's sad that we must have policies in place for people to be given the same opportunities as others, but that's the way it is right now. Until we are void of all racism, we will need policies in place to make sure everyone is given the same opportunities.

castadiva

There's nothing 'reverse' about it. What else do you call it when someone who has worked tirelessly to achieve the required standards and marks to get into medical school, for example, loses the place to someone with lower marks, who has not met the standards so well, or at all, because that person is of a different race?

I agree that inequality of opportunity must be addressed, but how is this scenario fair to the person who did the work and got the grades, or to the person whose preparation has been inadequate and is likely to struggle with the course of study? This was the scenario my sister faced in applying to medical school as an undergraduate (different system) and the drop-out rate among those given preferential admission on lower grades was sky-high. Surely it is better to offer, for example, a preparatory year to those whose circumstances are perceived to have held them back, in order to give them a chance to meet the same standards as other candidates are required to show?

macpatti

There's nothing 'reverse' about it. What else do you call it when someone who has worked tirelessly to achieve the required standards and marks to get into medical school, for example, loses the place to someone with lower marks, who has not met the standards so well, or at all, because that person is of a different race?

I agree that inequality of opportunity must be addressed, but how is this scenario fair to the person who did the work and got the grades, or to the person whose preparation has been inadequate and is likely to struggle with the course of study? This was the scenario my sister faced in applying to medical school as an undergraduate (different system) and the drop-out rate among those given preferential admission on lower grades was sky-high. Surely it is better to offer, for example, a preparatory year to those whose circumstances are perceived to have held them back, in order to give them a chance to meet the same standards as other candidates are required to show?

I find it interesting that people claim to "know" they lost a scholarship or an admissions seat because a minority "got it". I work in an admissions office and can't imagine anyone ever telling someone that's the reason they weren't accepted. Of course there are those who cannot do the work and end up dropping out, but there are plenty of success stories because people were given a chance. They still have to do the work once they're in.

castadiva

I find it interesting that people claim to "know" they lost a scholarship or an admissions seat because a minority "got it". I work in an admissions office and can't imagine anyone ever telling someone that's the reason they weren't accepted. Of course there are those who cannot do the work and end up dropping out, but there are plenty of success stories because people were given a chance. They still have to do the work once they're in.

This particular policy was published in a national newspaper a few years prior to my sister's application, and was still in force when she applied - the University was quite open about accepting less-qualified minority students (I seem to recall there was a self-imposed 'quota'), and the required standards for other applicants were well-publicised. Although she specifically may not have missed out due to a minority student - we can't know for certain - there certainly were applicants better-qualified than those who were accepted preferentially on the basis of race, who did.

Yes, there are success stories, and everyone has to do the work once there, but wouldn't there be more success stories and fewer drop-outs if constructive alternatives to penalising one group on the grounds of race were used? Surely that's a more truly affirmative action?

macpatti

Yes, there are success stories, and everyone has to do the work once there, but wouldn't there be more success stories and fewer drop-outs if constructive alternatives to penalising one group on the grounds of race were used? Surely that's a more truly affirmative action?

Many people drop out, not only those given the chance through a form of affirmative action. Even affirmative action does not award seats to people who are UNqualified. Perhaps less qualified in some areas, but certainly qualified.

Azdak

I think personal anecdotes provide the weakest form of evidence for any position in a debate--it's too easy to "rationalize" a "position" to fit one's individual concerns.

To me, it once again gets back to the definition of "merit". As I said previously, I think that many people who opposed affirmative action use a definition of "merit" that is too narrow, or that doesn't take into account other skill that might be necessary to do a particular job.

Years ago, medical schools placed the highest amount of emphasis on things like grades in pre-med classes and MCAT scores when determining admissions. However, it became apparent when more research was done and as society changed, that many of the intellectually "brilliant" doctors being produced completely sucked when it came to essential qualities such as empathy, communication, and interpersonal skills. We now know that these qualities are essential in the healing process and in the practice of modern medicine. So it would be completely acceptable to choose someone with a more modest academic record (as long as they met minimum standards) and high people skills over someone with a perfect MCAT who had the personality of a brick.

Affirmative action was never intended to be a quota system -- if there are situations where it has become so (either de jure or de facto) then those programs should be criticized, challenged, sued, etc.

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

macpatti

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

I agree with all of this!

Azdak

I find it interesting that people claim to "know" they lost a scholarship or an admissions seat because a minority "got it". I work in an admissions office and can't imagine anyone ever telling someone that's the reason they weren't accepted. Of course there are those who cannot do the work and end up dropping out, but there are plenty of success stories because people were given a chance. They still have to do the work once they're in.

This particular policy was published in a national newspaper a few years prior to my sister's application, and was still in force when she applied - the University was quite open about accepting less-qualified minority students (I seem to recall there was a self-imposed 'quota'), and the required standards for other applicants were well-publicised. Although she specifically may not have missed out due to a minority student - we can't know for certain - there certainly were applicants better-qualified than those who were accepted preferentially on the basis of race, who did.

Yes, there are success stories, and everyone has to do the work once there, but wouldn't there be more success stories and fewer drop-outs if constructive alternatives to penalising one group on the grounds of race were used? Surely that's a more truly affirmative action?

Just wanted to quickly say that, while we are kind of disagreeing on this subject, you are raising some relevant questions. I believe these programs have value, but I also know that they are administered by human beings who can lose sight of the original intent.

The questions you raise I think are necessary -- whatever type of program is developed, and whatever the original intent, I think we always have to evaluate whether it is still effective and doing what it was intended to do.

In this case, I think, at least in America, that we have a long way to go before we no longer need things like "affirmative action" , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't always be looking for better ways to achieve the same goals.

castadiva

Not a technocrat, so haven't figured out how to break up a larger quote to reply to individual portions - apologies, will try to make my responses clear!

I think personal anecdotes provide the weakest form of evidence for any position in a debate--it's too easy to "rationalize" a "position" to fit one's individual concerns.

***Yes, anecdotal evidence is a poor form of evidence. I am using this particular scenario to illustrate a larger point, because I am aware of the specific details through the experience of a family member. However, anecdotal evidence can shed light on the real-world problems that often arise in the application of theoretically-laudable policies. ***

To me, it once again gets back to the definition of "merit". As I said previously, I think that many people who opposed affirmative action use a definition of "merit" that is too narrow, or that doesn't take into account other skill that might be necessary to do a particular job.

Years ago, medical schools placed the highest amount of emphasis on things like grades in pre-med classes and MCAT scores when determining admissions. However, it became apparent when more research was done and as society changed, that many of the intellectually "brilliant" doctors being produced completely sucked when it came to essential qualities such as empathy, communication, and interpersonal skills. We now know that these qualities are essential in the healing process and in the practice of modern medicine. So it would be completely acceptable to choose someone with a more modest academic record (as long as they met minimum standards) and high people skills over someone with a perfect MCAT who had the personality of a brick.

***Absolutely. I don't want a doctor who can't explain in layman's terms what is wrong with me or how he or she might fix it. The problem with the specific situation I described is that minority students were admitted on lower standards ie. the standards demanded for that racial group were lower than the standards demanded of every other applicant. Some minority applicants may well have met the higher standard, in which case, well done to them, and welcome to the programme. Those who did not meet the same minimum academic standard as other applicants should not have received preferential treatment on the basis of race. Am I making the distinction I am making clear?***

Affirmative action was never intended to be a quota system -- if there are situations where it has become so (either de jure or de facto) then those programs should be criticized, challenged, sued, etc.

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

***Unfortunately, while the idea is laudable, this is not how many people experience affirmative action and similar programmes being applied. Identify, and recruit qualified minority applicants? Feel free - I have no argument with that. But the crucial word must be 'qualified' and 'qualified', in an academic institution, must mean the same for everyone, regardless of race or any other factor. ***

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

***Provided the applicants meet the same basic standards, I have no problem with other factors being considered. However, if one group is granted admission not having met that standard, that, in my view, is unacceptable and discriminatory. However you choose to define academic merit, the definition has to remain the same for all. If that means a University has to lower overall standards to engineer a suitable pool of minority candidates (and isn't that a fairly patronising perspective to start from?), then the minimum standard should apply to every applicant, not just to one or other group. ***

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

***There are always going to be limited spots and a large pool of highly-qualified applicants for certain programmes. An individual may not be able to claim that 'their' spot was taken, but it is certainly possible to state that, when the same standard is not demanded of all applicants, someone better-qualified was denied a spot taken by a less-qualified minority (or other social-aspect) applicant.

I'm not saying that there are not deserving applicants whose backgrounds, not just race, have impeded, or are perceived to have impeded, their performance. What I am saying is that it is equally unfair to discriminate against those who do not have those specific characteristics. If someone is seen to have potential in a field, but has not met the minimum standard required of the applicant pool as a whole, by all means, offer a constructive pathway to help that person meet the standard required, but don't use his or her race or socioeconomic background as a reason to deny other candidates who have met the standard a place.

Not that it matters at all, but just so we're clear that my view of this as injustice is not a sense of personal grievance on my sister's behalf, my sister is about to start in her final year at one of the finest Med schools in the world, and I'm unutterably proud of her. She will be a fantastic doctor. My indignation is on behalf of all students of whatever race, creed, background, discipline, who have had to face this sort of blatant discrimination in following their dreams. ***

castadiva

I find it interesting that people claim to "know" they lost a scholarship or an admissions seat because a minority "got it". I work in an admissions office and can't imagine anyone ever telling someone that's the reason they weren't accepted. Of course there are those who cannot do the work and end up dropping out, but there are plenty of success stories because people were given a chance. They still have to do the work once they're in.

This particular policy was published in a national newspaper a few years prior to my sister's application, and was still in force when she applied - the University was quite open about accepting less-qualified minority students (I seem to recall there was a self-imposed 'quota'), and the required standards for other applicants were well-publicised. Although she specifically may not have missed out due to a minority student - we can't know for certain - there certainly were applicants better-qualified than those who were accepted preferentially on the basis of race, who did.

Yes, there are success stories, and everyone has to do the work once there, but wouldn't there be more success stories and fewer drop-outs if constructive alternatives to penalising one group on the grounds of race were used? Surely that's a more truly affirmative action?

Just wanted to quickly say that, while we are kind of disagreeing on this subject, you are raising some relevant questions. I believe these programs have value, but I also know that they are administered by human beings who can lose sight of the original intent.

The questions you raise I think are necessary -- whatever type of program is developed, and whatever the original intent, I think we always have to evaluate whether it is still effective and doing what it was intended to do.

In this case, I think, at least in America, that we have a long way to go before we no longer need things like "affirmative action" , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't always be looking for better ways to achieve the same goals.

This posted while I was responding to your last post! I think you are right, in that the great problem is that the administrators and promulgators of these programmes have become complacent - intent and effect seem to have parted ways in places. There is indeed a long way to go until help is not needed in some quarters, I just don't think the way to help is to disadvantage other sections of society in the process - seeds of discontent grow remarkably fast and find fertile ground in worryingly extreme sections of the world we live in.

Azdak

Not a technocrat, so haven't figured out how to break up a larger quote to reply to individual portions - apologies, will try to make my responses clear!

I think personal anecdotes provide the weakest form of evidence for any position in a debate--it's too easy to "rationalize" a "position" to fit one's individual concerns.

***Yes, anecdotal evidence is a poor form of evidence. I am using this particular scenario to illustrate a larger point, because I am aware of the specific details through the experience of a family member. However, anecdotal evidence can shed light on the real-world problems that often arise in the application of theoretically-laudable policies. ***

To me, it once again gets back to the definition of "merit". As I said previously, I think that many people who opposed affirmative action use a definition of "merit" that is too narrow, or that doesn't take into account other skill that might be necessary to do a particular job.

Years ago, medical schools placed the highest amount of emphasis on things like grades in pre-med classes and MCAT scores when determining admissions. However, it became apparent when more research was done and as society changed, that many of the intellectually "brilliant" doctors being produced completely sucked when it came to essential qualities such as empathy, communication, and interpersonal skills. We now know that these qualities are essential in the healing process and in the practice of modern medicine. So it would be completely acceptable to choose someone with a more modest academic record (as long as they met minimum standards) and high people skills over someone with a perfect MCAT who had the personality of a brick.

***Absolutely. I don't want a doctor who can't explain in layman's terms what is wrong with me or how he or she might fix it. The problem with the specific situation I described is that minority students were admitted on lower standards ie. the standards demanded for that racial group were lower than the standards demanded of every other applicant. Some minority applicants may well have met the higher standard, in which case, well done to them, and welcome to the programme. Those who did not meet the same minimum academic standard as other applicants should not have received preferential treatment on the basis of race. Am I making the distinction I am making clear?***

Affirmative action was never intended to be a quota system -- if there are situations where it has become so (either de jure or de facto) then those programs should be criticized, challenged, sued, etc.

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

***Unfortunately, while the idea is laudable, this is not how many people experience affirmative action and similar programmes being applied. Identify, and recruit qualified minority applicants? Feel free - I have no argument with that. But the crucial word must be 'qualified' and 'qualified', in an academic institution, must mean the same for everyone, regardless of race or any other factor. ***

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

***Provided the applicants meet the same basic standards, I have no problem with other factors being considered. However, if one group is granted admission not having met that standard, that, in my view, is unacceptable and discriminatory. However you choose to define academic merit, the definition has to remain the same for all. If that means a University has to lower overall standards to engineer a suitable pool of minority candidates (and isn't that a fairly patronising perspective to start from?), then the minimum standard should apply to every applicant, not just to one or other group. ***

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

***There are always going to be limited spots and a large pool of highly-qualified applicants for certain programmes. An individual may not be able to claim that 'their' spot was taken, but it is certainly possible to state that, when the same standard is not demanded of all applicants, someone better-qualified was denied a spot taken by a less-qualified minority (or other social-aspect) applicant.

I'm not saying that there are not deserving applicants whose backgrounds, not just race, have impeded, or are perceived to have impeded, their performance. What I am saying is that it is equally unfair to discriminate against those who do not have those specific characteristics. If someone is seen to have potential in a field, but has not met the minimum standard required of the applicant pool as a whole, by all means, offer a constructive pathway to help that person meet the standard required, but don't use his or her race or socioeconomic background as a reason to deny other candidates who have met the standard a place.

Not that it matters at all, but just so we're clear that my view of this as injustice is not a sense of personal grievance on my sister's behalf, my sister is about to start in her final year at one of the finest Med schools in the world, and I'm unutterably proud of her. She will be a fantastic doctor. My indignation is on behalf of all students of whatever race, creed, background, discipline, who have had to face this sort of blatant discrimination in following their dreams. ***

Like most discussions among thoughtful and reasonable people, we are going to find that, while it may appear we start farther apart, by the time we completely explore our positions, there is little real "disagreement" between us.

Based on the terms of your argument, I am certainly in agreement. I also agree that the key term is "qualified" --yes, the same minimum competency standards must apply to everyone. I agree with you that in the case where someone who does not meet the qualifications, there should be an alternate path to allow them to meet the standards before being admitted to a program--to me that better meets the philosophical standards of affirmative action--rather than applying different standards.

(The alternate argument is that the "standards" contain an inherent bias against certain groups and that is why lower standards are acceptable. Personally, I think this is a "slippery slope" and a weak argument. Unless there is really strong empirical evidence that allows one to quantify the level of bias, I personally it's better to come up with a fairer evaluation process that, again, can be applied to everyone).

But that again goes back to the issue of "standards". As I mentioned before, IMO, in most cases test scores do not represent a linear ranking of "merit". By that, I mean a higher test score does not automatically mean a candidate is "more qualified". In most cases, I think there is a "threshold" score that demarcates those who are more likely to succeed vs those who are not. In that case, the only "qualification" is the threshold score--anyone who meets that "threshold" is in the "qualified" pool (at least for that measure) and whether or not one achieved higher than the threshold score is not that relevant.

In this scenario, I think we can both agree that, yes, every applicant should meet this minimum "threshold" and I would agree, hypothetically, that it is wrong for a "minority" applicant who did not meet the minimum threshold to receive preferential treatment in order to fulfill some diversity "quota".

Part of our disagreement may be about how realistic that scenario actually is. I am not going to claim that I know all the facts.

Azdak

Oh, and BTW, the insertion of "quote boxes" is not difficult at all (proof: I can do it).

You just set off the text you want to put it a "box" by inserting the following commands:

(bracket key)quote(bracket key) at the beginning of the cited text, and

(bracket key) /quote (bracket key) at the end

I had to spell out "bracket key" or else it puts the text between the commands in a blue box.

_Timmeh_

Not only no, but hell no should race be considered. Sick and tired of coddling someone because of their skin color.
They don't want to be discriminated against because of skin color why should they receive something because of it.
Try living in California, the governor just approved scholarship money to illegal immigrants, yep financial aid and scholarships.

castadiva

Not a technocrat, so haven't figured out how to break up a larger quote to reply to individual portions - apologies, will try to make my responses clear!

I think personal anecdotes provide the weakest form of evidence for any position in a debate--it's too easy to "rationalize" a "position" to fit one's individual concerns.

***Yes, anecdotal evidence is a poor form of evidence. I am using this particular scenario to illustrate a larger point, because I am aware of the specific details through the experience of a family member. However, anecdotal evidence can shed light on the real-world problems that often arise in the application of theoretically-laudable policies. ***

To me, it once again gets back to the definition of "merit". As I said previously, I think that many people who opposed affirmative action use a definition of "merit" that is too narrow, or that doesn't take into account other skill that might be necessary to do a particular job.

Years ago, medical schools placed the highest amount of emphasis on things like grades in pre-med classes and MCAT scores when determining admissions. However, it became apparent when more research was done and as society changed, that many of the intellectually "brilliant" doctors being produced completely sucked when it came to essential qualities such as empathy, communication, and interpersonal skills. We now know that these qualities are essential in the healing process and in the practice of modern medicine. So it would be completely acceptable to choose someone with a more modest academic record (as long as they met minimum standards) and high people skills over someone with a perfect MCAT who had the personality of a brick.

***Absolutely. I don't want a doctor who can't explain in layman's terms what is wrong with me or how he or she might fix it. The problem with the specific situation I described is that minority students were admitted on lower standards ie. the standards demanded for that racial group were lower than the standards demanded of every other applicant. Some minority applicants may well have met the higher standard, in which case, well done to them, and welcome to the programme. Those who did not meet the same minimum academic standard as other applicants should not have received preferential treatment on the basis of race. Am I making the distinction I am making clear?***

Affirmative action was never intended to be a quota system -- if there are situations where it has become so (either de jure or de facto) then those programs should be criticized, challenged, sued, etc.

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

***Unfortunately, while the idea is laudable, this is not how many people experience affirmative action and similar programmes being applied. Identify, and recruit qualified minority applicants? Feel free - I have no argument with that. But the crucial word must be 'qualified' and 'qualified', in an academic institution, must mean the same for everyone, regardless of race or any other factor. ***

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

***Provided the applicants meet the same basic standards, I have no problem with other factors being considered. However, if one group is granted admission not having met that standard, that, in my view, is unacceptable and discriminatory. However you choose to define academic merit, the definition has to remain the same for all. If that means a University has to lower overall standards to engineer a suitable pool of minority candidates (and isn't that a fairly patronising perspective to start from?), then the minimum standard should apply to every applicant, not just to one or other group. ***

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

***There are always going to be limited spots and a large pool of highly-qualified applicants for certain programmes. An individual may not be able to claim that 'their' spot was taken, but it is certainly possible to state that, when the same standard is not demanded of all applicants, someone better-qualified was denied a spot taken by a less-qualified minority (or other social-aspect) applicant.

I'm not saying that there are not deserving applicants whose backgrounds, not just race, have impeded, or are perceived to have impeded, their performance. What I am saying is that it is equally unfair to discriminate against those who do not have those specific characteristics. If someone is seen to have potential in a field, but has not met the minimum standard required of the applicant pool as a whole, by all means, offer a constructive pathway to help that person meet the standard required, but don't use his or her race or socioeconomic background as a reason to deny other candidates who have met the standard a place.

Not that it matters at all, but just so we're clear that my view of this as injustice is not a sense of personal grievance on my sister's behalf, my sister is about to start in her final year at one of the finest Med schools in the world, and I'm unutterably proud of her. She will be a fantastic doctor. My indignation is on behalf of all students of whatever race, creed, background, discipline, who have had to face this sort of blatant discrimination in following their dreams. ***

Like most discussions among thoughtful and reasonable people, we are going to find that, while it may appear we start farther apart, by the time we completely explore our positions, there is little real "disagreement" between us.

Very true, and I am using my new skills - thank you!

Based on the terms of your argument, I am certainly in agreement. I also agree that the key term is "qualified" --yes, the same minimum competency standards must apply to everyone. I agree with you that in the case where someone who does not meet the qualifications, there should be an alternate path to allow them to meet the standards before being admitted to a program--to me that better meets the philosophical standards of affirmative action--rather than applying different standards.

(The alternate argument is that the "standards" contain an inherent bias against certain groups and that is why lower standards are acceptable. Personally, I think this is a "slippery slope" and a weak argument. Unless there is really strong empirical evidence that allows one to quantify the level of bias, I personally it's better to come up with a fairer evaluation process that, again, can be applied to everyone).

We are in agreement about slippery slopes - the proof of the pudding is in the ever-declining educational standards we see around the western world. Standards were lowered to meet notional ideals, rather than improving teaching, addressing key reasons for academic failure etc to ensure ideals were met at the original standard, and standards have been declining year-on-year - at least in the UK.

But that again goes back to the issue of "standards". As I mentioned before, IMO, in most cases test scores do not represent a linear ranking of "merit". By that, I mean a higher test score does not automatically mean a candidate is "more qualified". In most cases, I think there is a "threshold" score that demarcates those who are more likely to succeed vs those who are not. In that case, the only "qualification" is the threshold score--anyone who meets that "threshold" is in the "qualified" pool (at least for that measure) and whether or not one achieved higher than the threshold score is not that relevant.

In this scenario, I think we can both agree that, yes, every applicant should meet this minimum "threshold" and I would agree, hypothetically, that it is wrong for a "minority" applicant who did not meet the minimum threshold to receive preferential treatment in order to fulfill some diversity "quota".

Again, we are, essentially, in agreement - as long as the threshold is the same for everyone, then above and beyond that, decisions become fairly subjective anyway, if decisions are not made purely on test scores, which I agree is not always the best way to define the 'best' applicants.

Part of our disagreement may be about how realistic that scenario actually is. I am not going to claim that I know all the facts.

It was certainly very curious, but it did happen for several years at the specific institution I referenced - I had classmates who got caught up in it as well. As I left the country while it was still in place, and provoking an annual outcry, I'm not sure how long the policy lasted - it may still be in place, for all I know! One of the reasons I love debating is that one does inevitably find that even major differences of opinion often come from common ground - it's fascinating to see how others have reached different conclusions from similar beginnings. And with that, I'm out for the weekend - hope you enjoy yours!

macpatti

Not only no, but hell no should race be considered. Sick and tired of coddling someone because of their skin color..

How is providing equal opportunity considered coddling?

Regmama

I think personal anecdotes provide the weakest form of evidence for any position in a debate--it's too easy to "rationalize" a "position" to fit one's individual concerns.

To me, it once again gets back to the definition of "merit". As I said previously, I think that many people who opposed affirmative action use a definition of "merit" that is too narrow, or that doesn't take into account other skill that might be necessary to do a particular job.

Years ago, medical schools placed the highest amount of emphasis on things like grades in pre-med classes and MCAT scores when determining admissions. However, it became apparent when more research was done and as society changed, that many of the intellectually "brilliant" doctors being produced completely sucked when it came to essential qualities such as empathy, communication, and interpersonal skills. We now know that these qualities are essential in the healing process and in the practice of modern medicine. So it would be completely acceptable to choose someone with a more modest academic record (as long as they met minimum standards) and high people skills over someone with a perfect MCAT who had the personality of a brick.

Affirmative action was never intended to be a quota system -- if there are situations where it has become so (either de jure or de facto) then those programs should be criticized, challenged, sued, etc.

The original intent was straightforward: There is a pool of (usually minority) individuals who, because of years of discrimination, have not been given the equal opportunity for jobs, positions in university, etc. Institutions set up affirmative action programs to make proactive efforts to identify and recruit otherwise qualified applicants for these positions. Nothing I have ever read about the development of affirmative action suggests that it was ever meant to promote "unqualified" candidates into positions just based on a numbers game.

Again, in a situation where minimum academic qualifications have been met, and where an institution has decided that a diverse student population (diverse based on gender, race, socioeconomic status, geographic origin, etc). is in the best interests of both the institution and the student population, IMO it is completely appropriate to consider other factors beyond a narrow-defined, academic standard of "merit".

And if there are a limited number of positions available, with a high pool of qualified applicants, then I think it is difficult if not impossible for someone to claim they were "denied" a spot due to an "unqualified" minority. Chances are, that position was never "theirs" to begin with.

On this, I agree with you. I definitely think this is as close to fair as possible. And on that note...even interviewers hire the person who's personality fits the job better than the one that doesn't even with similar resumes. When I worked on Capitol Hill we received a lot of qualified resumes. Though it wasn't listed under requirements, those who did not have volunteer work on their resume were not considered. Needless to say, it was always a pleasant environment to work in because we all were pretty caring of all those we encountered.

fbmandy55

Affirmative action makes me extremely angry. No one should be given preference based on their race. Admissions should be 100% based on merit.

Agree 100%.

macpatti

Affirmative action makes me extremely angry. No one should be given preference based on their race. Admissions should be 100% based on merit.

But not everyone is on equal playing ground yet.

LuckyLeprechaun

Affirmative action makes me extremely angry. No one should be given preference based on their race. Admissions should be 100% based on merit.

But not everyone is on equal playing ground yet.

In what way are the playing grounds unequal? All students in America get K-12 provided without having to pay tuition....we can never equalize the conditions in every school in America but NCLB has done a massive amount of good by requiring and measuring performance.....imho.

Interested to hear in what ways you see things as being unequal.

fbmandy55

There's nothing 'reverse' about it. What else do you call it when someone who has worked tirelessly to achieve the required standards and marks to get into medical school, for example, loses the place to someone with lower marks, who has not met the standards so well, or at all, because that person is of a different race?

I agree that inequality of opportunity must be addressed, but how is this scenario fair to the person who did the work and got the grades, or to the person whose preparation has been inadequate and is likely to struggle with the course of study? This was the scenario my sister faced in applying to medical school as an undergraduate (different system) and the drop-out rate among those given preferential admission on lower grades was sky-high. Surely it is better to offer, for example, a preparatory year to those whose circumstances are perceived to have held them back, in order to give them a chance to meet the same standards as other candidates are required to show?

My boyfriend works in a predominantly black suburb of Chicago and has issued like this all the time. In fact, a white co-worker of his was fired when he reported the black co-worker stealing. Assuming they worried that black co worker was going to sue if reprimanded.

Same with the New Haven firefighters, Supremem Court Case Ricci v. DeStefano. Several white firefighters and one hispanic were denied promotions though they tested higher than the minorities. None of the black firefighters tested high enough. "The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. He placed 6th among 77 people who took the lieutenant's test."

It's sad but I think those who play the "race card" have brought on all of this crap. Race should NEVER play a role in school or the workplace-only performance and qualifications.

fbmandy55

Affirmative action makes me extremely angry. No one should be given preference based on their race. Admissions should be 100% based on merit.

But not everyone is on equal playing ground yet.

Bull. I hate hearing that. If a poor black kid from a terrible public school wants to be a a brain surgeon, he has no one stopping him. People with determination do things like that all the time.

macpatti

In what way are the playing grounds unequal? All students in America get K-12 provided without having to pay tuition....we can never equalize the conditions in every school in America but NCLB has done a massive amount of good by requiring and measuring performance.....imho.

I'm referring to the years of discrimination causing a trickle down effect. The resources of inner city schools pale in comparison to those in more afluent areas, thus impacting equal scoring on standarized tests.

Bahet

There's nothing 'reverse' about it. What else do you call it when someone who has worked tirelessly to achieve the required standards and marks to get into medical school, for example, loses the place to someone with lower marks, who has not met the standards so well, or at all, because that person is of a different race?

I agree that inequality of opportunity must be addressed, but how is this scenario fair to the person who did the work and got the grades, or to the person whose preparation has been inadequate and is likely to struggle with the course of study? This was the scenario my sister faced in applying to medical school as an undergraduate (different system) and the drop-out rate among those given preferential admission on lower grades was sky-high. Surely it is better to offer, for example, a preparatory year to those whose circumstances are perceived to have held them back, in order to give them a chance to meet the same standards as other candidates are required to show?

I find it interesting that people claim to "know" they lost a scholarship or an admissions seat because a minority "got it". I work in an admissions office and can't imagine anyone ever telling someone that's the reason they weren't accepted. Of course there are those who cannot do the work and end up dropping out, but there are plenty of success stories because people were given a chance. They still have to do the work once they're in.

I DID lose a scholarship. It was because it went towards a minority. I already had it. It had been awarded and credited in full. My semester was paid in full. Then, about a month later, my parents got a bill for $500. Because it had already been paid in full my dad wondered what the bill was so he called. They gave him a bit of run around but eventually someone said that it went towards minority scholarships. It's not that I wasn't accepted, that wasn't the issue. It had nothin to do with admissions. It was a scholarship awarded by the school.

LuckyLeprechaun

In what way are the playing grounds unequal? All students in America get K-12 provided without having to pay tuition....we can never equalize the conditions in every school in America but NCLB has done a massive amount of good by requiring and measuring performance.....imho.

I'm referring to the years of discrimination causing a trickle down effect. The resources of inner city schools pale in comparison to those in more afluent areas, thus impacting equal scoring on standarized tests.

I beg to differ. My charter school where I taught in Oakland was 98% FRL. Our STAR test scores were #4 in the entire state of California.

Being poor doesn't equal bad test scores. Or, it doesn't have to. We did all of this in a non-air conditioned, old run down church. We didn't even have a computer in the entire school.