|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 33 of 232:
| 
Jan 17 11:08 UTC 2003 |
re #20 ... actually, n an interview i heard today, the texas 10% criterion
DID make a significant difference - not in the first year - but as the
system progresssed the admissions balalnced the culture.
as for graduations ... well, that's different entirelky. and a toic
topic for another itme.
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 232:
|
Jan 17 11:09 UTC 2003 |
btw, teh interview was with the university of texas admissions guy, not
some pundit.
|
jep
|
|
response 35 of 232:
|
Jan 17 15:51 UTC 2003 |
I read in the AA News yesterday that one of the U. Texas campuses
(Austin?) dropped it's affirmative action admissions, and had a 25%
drop in black admissions. They then adopted the top 10% rule and their
racial balance has been moving back to what it used to be, but isn't
quite there yet. I don't remember the numbers on how close it has
gotten to what it was before.
|
klg
|
|
response 36 of 232:
|
Jan 17 17:34 UTC 2003 |
According to the 10/19/01 University Record, "African American" first
year enrollment as of Fall 2001 was up to 499, or 9%. I didn't notice
any info on graduation rates, however.
I did observe, though, that males are under-represented. Oh, the
unfairness of it all.
I also observed that the total number for total university enrollment
was some 1,050 greater than the sum of the breakdown by
race/origin. ??????
|
other
|
|
response 37 of 232:
|
Jan 17 18:16 UTC 2003 |
Enrollees who did not supply ethnic information?
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 232:
|
Jan 17 18:16 UTC 2003 |
err, ethnicity...
|
scg
|
|
response 39 of 232:
|
Jan 17 19:41 UTC 2003 |
If your goal is to have something that looks diverse, and your high schools
are all fully segregated, the 10% rule would work reasonaly well. I still
think it's a pretty poor Affirmative Action substitute.
The Ann Arbor Public Schools, through the analysis of racial data in the
drawing of school district boundaries and the dreaded quotas (yes, really
quotas, not bonus points) in determining admissions to the alternative
schools, manage to be pretty diverse at the per building level. However, when
I was a student there (graduating seven years ago), there still wasn't mixing
between black and white students. With a few exceptions, people of different
races didn't tend to socialize together or eat lunch together, or anything
like that. There was also a big racial achievement gap. So despite the
buildings being integrated, there was still clearly a lot of segregation, and
something seemed to be creating a big disadvantage for the black students.
Using the 10% rule, black students from the Detroit area, where rigid
segregation at the school district level has been maintained, would be
admitted to the University in the same proportion as white students from the
Detroit area. However, black students from a place like Ann Arbor that had
attempted to integrate its schools would apparrently remain at a big
disadvantage.
Another issue here, though, is that I think the argument about diversity
helping the white students is somewhat of a smokescreen for those afraid to
support Affirmative Action on its more important merits -- compensating for
other bad treatment of black people in the US. It appears that nobody thinks
they can sell contemporary American society on doing anything to help a
segment of scoiety other than white people. Maybe they're right, but I find
that rather sad.
Way back there, somebody asked if the eliminiation of Affirmative Action had
turned the University of California campuses into a "sea of white faces."
The simple answer to that is no. You don't see a "sea of white faces" in the
big urban areas of California, anywhere. But I don't tend to see a lot of
black faces wandering around the UC Berkeley campus either. I don't have the
statistics in front of me, but my impression was that there was a significant
drop in black UC enrollment when Affirmative Action was outlawed, and that
continues to be a source of campus protests.
|
klg
|
|
response 40 of 232:
|
Jan 17 20:34 UTC 2003 |
The U Record chart showing racial/ethnic breakdown had line items
for "other" and "unspecified" categories. Also, the #s did add up for
the first year enrollment column. I presume the error was a typo in
one of the #s.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 232:
|
Jan 17 20:50 UTC 2003 |
Re #39: This article has a statistic that may be the one you're thinking of:
Minority enrollment lags under plans Bush favors
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/class17_20030117.htm
"Percentage plans guarantee admissions to a percentage of the graduating
class at each high school. In California, the top 4 percent of graduates
are guaranteed a spot in the University of California System."
...
"Yet the results have not met expectations. Today, fewer minorities
enroll in California's most-selective universities than before
affirmative action was banned in 1995. U-C Berkeley enrolled 222
African-American students in 1995, out of 3,405 freshmen. That compares
with 141 African Americans out of 3,655 freshmen in 2002."
...
"At the same time, some of the least-selective California universities
have increased their minority enrollments, leading to concerns that the
U-C system could become racially divided."
[We're headed back towards seperate but (un)equal, I guess.]
There's also a couple quotes from UofM President Sue Coleman. One is
that the Texas and California plans put universities in the
uncomfortable position of depending on high schools being segregated to
integrate universities. The other points out that unlike the University
of California, the University of Michigan is a single institution, not a
state-wide system, and couldn't guarantee enough admission slots to take
a fixed percentage from each high school.
|
tsty
|
|
response 42 of 232:
|
Jan 17 21:52 UTC 2003 |
fully segregated highschools???? hoshposh!! that implies instantly,
immediately adn unequivocally that blacks are inferior high schoolstudents in
non- segrated schools. what a racist presumption!! think about it, kneejerker.
/sheesh
|
tod
|
|
response 43 of 232:
|
Jan 17 22:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 44 of 232:
|
Jan 17 22:39 UTC 2003 |
re 42:
That black students on average do considerably worse than white
students in many integrated American public school systems, including Ann
Arbor, is well documented and not in question The interesting questions are
why that is, what can be done about it, and how much the rest of American
society should be doing to make up for it. There certainly are answers to
those questions which I would consider to be inherrently racist, but I'll
leave which answers those would be as an exercise for the reader.
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 232:
|
Jan 17 22:48 UTC 2003 |
Apparently you're a racist unless you stick your fingers in your ears and
say "la la la there are no statistics that say black students aren't doing
as well as white students la la la".
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 232:
|
Jan 17 22:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 232:
|
Jan 17 23:04 UTC 2003 |
The problem is deep and multifaceted; part of it is that black students, on
average, tend to be poorer than white students, and wealth tends to have an
effect on performance in school. There are probably a number of subtle
racist effects at work, as well.
The whole *point* of affirmative action is to act as a stopgap to help
improve the situation while the more difficult societal problems are
resolved. A good university education, allowing minority students to
eventually get better jobs than their parents had, will arguably do more to
close the achievement gap for the next generation than anything else.
|
tod
|
|
response 48 of 232:
|
Jan 17 23:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 232:
|
Jan 18 01:02 UTC 2003 |
re: "#42 (tsty): that implies instantly, immediately adn unequivocally
that blacks are inferior high schoolstudents in non- segrated schools.
what a racist presumption!! think about it, kneejerker. /sheesh"
Exactly! And when are we going to get some "graduation rates" in order
to demonstrate that gettin' yer foot in the door isn't the important
thing. It's winding up with the sheepskin. How many sacrificial lambs
are lost between those two points?
|
russ
|
|
response 50 of 232:
|
Jan 18 01:43 UTC 2003 |
Re #20: Which is, if you look at it, just another way to game the
system. The 10% rule is anti-meritocratic because student bodies
vary so much; in some schools the top 70% might be university
material, and in another 0% might be. Students who can't make the
top 10% in a top school could coast their senior year in a bad
school and probably graduate in the top 1%, and knock an unqualified
student out of the running. (Insofar as that 90th-%ile student in
the bad school probably has a very low likelihood of graduating from
a university, that is a *good* thing.)
The costs of doing this are high. The "integration" would be for one
year, benefitting the poorer students not at all. The year in the bad
school would probably be a waste for good students. People would have
all the expenses of moving, even if only for a year. And it would add
one more non-merit hurdle to getting into the university.
"Diversity" preferences are just a band-aid over the spurting artery
of socioeconomic and cultural barriers to achievement.
Re #30: If the admission of only those with the proper academic
(or athletic, for athletic scholarships) qualifications would result
in 5% instead of 8%, is that wrong? Perhaps the extra 3% should be
in institutions which aren't quite so difficult.
As should "legacy" students, perhaps. The problem is that universities
run on money, and it's hard for UM to tap an alumnus for funds when
admissions made their kid go to Central instead. (Which is another way
of saying that the state is too cheap, state universities are too
addicted to money, or both.)
|
gull
|
|
response 51 of 232:
|
Jan 18 01:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #49: I'd say it's hard to "get the sheepskin" if you never get your foot
in the door.
I don't see anyone who opposes affirmative action complaining about all the
unqualified athletes and legacy students getting into our colleges. It
seems there's more to this than just a belief that colleges should be
meritocracies, since they voice no objection when it's the children of rich
white people who are getting preferential treatment.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 52 of 232:
|
Jan 18 05:50 UTC 2003 |
The Ann Arbor Borad of Education gets statistics every year on the achievement
gap in the Ann Arbor Public Schools. You can find statewide MEAP results
at
http://www.michigan.gov/eMI/Agency/CDA/agy_CDA_Frame/1,1630,7-102-111_495_5
97-1020--CI,00.html?frameURL=http://www.meritaward.state.mi.us
(That will probably break up. I started at www.michigan.gov/mde and
followed the item on the left-side menu for "Parents and Family" to
"School Performance Information")
The document "CompleteStatewideSummariesEthnicity.pdf" tells the story.
|
jep
|
|
response 53 of 232:
|
Jan 18 05:54 UTC 2003 |
We could probably have another item to discuss the merits of athletic
scholarships. In fact, we did, last Agora.
Graduation rates are important. It does no one any good to be admitted
to a school where he can't succeed. In a competitive school like
Michigan, every student who's admitted is taking an opportunity away
from someone else who's not allowed in.
If half as many "affirmative action" admissions get a degree, compared
to the general student body, then two "affirmative action" degrees cost
three "general student body" degrees. (I don't know what the real
numbers are. I just threw out a number to make my point.) Wouldn't it
make more sense to admit students to a school where they have a better
chance to get a degree?
Hey, I have an idea: The university could find out what the difference
in grades is for Michigan students from different ethnic backgrounds
throughout their college education, and then give bonus points to some
groups to make up for those differences. That would be affirmative
action for obtaining degrees, making the Dean's list, and having a
great grade point average. I think it would be silly. I also don't
think it would be one bit less fair than giving bonus points for
admissions.
|
drew
|
|
response 54 of 232:
|
Jan 18 06:08 UTC 2003 |
How about admitting *everyone* who has a reasonable chance of understanding
the material and can secure funding in some way, and expanding to accommodate
the traffic?
Failing that, better to have a simple meritocracy - no racial, athletic, son-
of-the-college-president, or any other "bonuses". Let the decision makers have
*no way of knowing* any applicant's race.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 232:
|
Jan 18 06:23 UTC 2003 |
I don't think UM is admitting students who can't succeed there (except
possibily athletes). I seem to remember hearing that they admit less than
half of those who apply. For example, according to
http://www.umich.edu/~oapainfo/TABLES/FR_Prof.html
for this year, 25,108 applied, 12,315 were admitted and 5,187 enrolled.
With that kind of a cut, I find it hard to believe that *un*qualified
people are admitted.
|
janc
|
|
response 56 of 232:
|
Jan 18 07:13 UTC 2003 |
I have doubts about affirmative action in admissions to college. When
I was at Texas A&M, there were a good number of black students, but an
embarrassingly high proportion of them were failing, and an
embarrassingly low percentage were at the head of their class. I saw
statistics that indicated that much the same thing was happening at many
other schools.
Part of the point of the adminission systems is to admit students who
are up to meeting the challenges they will meet. When you admit
students whose academic credentials are below those of other students,
there is a good chance that they are going to end up occupying the lower
end of the grade scale in many of the classes they take. This is not
necessarily a favor to the student. It might have been better to turn
down the student, and let him attend a less challenging university,
where they will feel less like failures.
I've known several people who got into colleges on various kind of
preferments like the alumni thing, and then had a nasty time there,
leaving them with emotional scars that effect the rest of their lives.
But I think it can be worse for blacks, because they are easily
identifiable. The white kids at A&M mostly weren't geniuses, just kind
of medium brightish. Lots of black kids graduate from high school just
as well prepared for college, but those don't go to A&M. They get
admitted by racial-equality hungry schools like U of Michigan. So A&M
makes up the difference by admitting black students just a bit less
prepared than the white students. So the end effect is the artificial
creation of an environment where the whites are actually "smarter" (at
least in the limited sense that matters in a University) than the
blacks. And because the place spends all it's time rigorously grading
and sifting its students, weighing half-points on exams, everybody can
tell who is "smart" and who isn't.
The students think the college is the world. They don't realize it is
an artificially selected population. They see a world where whites are
smarter than blacks. This is demoralizing to the black students, and
fosters racism in white students. I think this policy of systematically
placing each black student into a school that is a bit too tough for him
has aggravated the lack of faith that many blacks seem to have in
education as a route to success. They've seen their brightest go off to
college and fail. Why should little sister try to go the same route?
The black students being admitted to the U of M medical school wouldn't
be condemned to being street sweepers if they didn't get that admission.
They's simply go to a slightly less prestigious medical school, where
they'd be competing on even ground with the white students. They'd
still learn to be competent doctors, and fewer of them would flunk out.
So, although I think whites who complain about not being treated fairly
by affirmative action are rather pathetic, I'm not convinced that the
system is a net benefit to blacks.
On the other hand, I thought affirmative action was very effective in
hiring faculty at Texas A&M. We never hired any black computer science
professors. I think there were only about 4 black computer science
professors in the country, we tried hiring one once, but some other
university out bid us. However, we did make an active effort to hire
female computer science professors. And we got some excellent ones. At
least as well qualified as any male we could have gotten. I think it
made a real difference to our female students to see such able women
working as equals with the men in the department.
Though there were problems there too. There had been several female
professors hired years ago, but they had all vanished, sucked up into
the higher reachs of the college administration. The one older female
computer science professor no longer taught classes or did much of
anything else with students. She was a assistant dean. So was the sole
older female in the electrical engineering department. If we had manage
to snag us an black CS professor, the college would have wanted him to
serve on every committee they form. He'd never have had time to teach
classes or do research. He'd have been a assistant dean in no time,
leaving the CS faculty as white as ever.
|
richard
|
|
response 57 of 232:
|
Jan 18 07:19 UTC 2003 |
re: #55: 25,108 applied, 12,315 were admitted and 5,187 enrolled
you mean that less than half of those who got admitted to the U of M
decided to go there? Thats a bit hard to believe. Who are the 6,000 or
so who got into U of M and decided to go somewhere else? Did they all get
into the Ivy League or something? I would've thought UM would probably
get the vast majority of those it accepted as enrolled.
|