|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 58 of 232:
|
Jan 18 07:27 UTC 2003 |
Why is it so hard to believe that so many more people get admitted to the
U of M than actually attend?
|
other
|
|
response 59 of 232:
|
Jan 18 07:29 UTC 2003 |
Lots of HS seniors send out three or more applications. And typically,
people apply to schools they think they'll have a good chance of getting
into. You do the math.
|
tsty
|
|
response 60 of 232:
|
Jan 18 11:01 UTC 2003 |
since there is more than one state university &/or college in the state,
teh top 10% (for example) could EASILY distribute themselves among
teh schools in which they *can* achieve graduated status.
how does mi state, western, eastern, central, etc., handle admissions?
with the race-based um policy, um might be the only school available!
and, yes, that would easily (as janc noted from texas) over-challenge
an otherwise capable student.
and then, there is alwyas the provost's 20 point discretion. those
um points could be skin-color based and also focus some higher-up care
towards a few students.
as for the misinterpretation of the bell curve, 'nuff said.
yeh, no one *stated* the bell curve, but that's behind lots of
previous responses.
|
russ
|
|
response 61 of 232:
|
Jan 18 15:21 UTC 2003 |
Re #51: It's also hard to get the sheepskin if your skills are up
to swimming ten laps in the pool but the program requires crossing
the English channel. If the objective is to have doctors, lawyers
and businesspeople, isn't it important that they *graduate*?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 62 of 232:
|
Jan 18 19:45 UTC 2003 |
If everyone admitted actually attended, fewer would be admitted.
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 232:
|
Jan 18 19:54 UTC 2003 |
I just think people's biases are showing when they insist this issue be
separated from athletic and legacy preferences. It's pretty blatant
hypocrisy IMHO.
|
russ
|
|
response 64 of 232:
|
Jan 19 02:21 UTC 2003 |
I personally think that most athletic programs are ridiculous, and
would support the same academic requirements for athletes as
everyone else. However, the demand of the public for entertainment
on saturdays and alumni for winning teams will continue the lower
academic standards for "student" athletes regardless of what I want.
I got into UM at least partly because of my legacy status, but I was
also accepted by MTU. I feel no guilt on that account.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 65 of 232:
|
Jan 19 02:23 UTC 2003 |
fag.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 232:
|
Jan 19 06:09 UTC 2003 |
..that mindless gnat is sure persistent.
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 232:
|
Jan 19 18:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #64: So preferences are okay as long as they benefit you personally?
|
other
|
|
response 68 of 232:
|
Jan 19 19:39 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative Action programs benefit *everybody* except [in the short
term] the few individual "majority" folks who lose their places to
minority folks. That seems like a very reasonable trade-off to me, no
matter how much it might suck to be one of those who don't get the short
term benefit.
|
other
|
|
response 69 of 232:
|
Jan 19 19:42 UTC 2003 |
The fact is, all resources available within a limited timeframe are
limited, and allocation of them is going to make some people feel left
out no matter how they are allocated. The goal of these programs is to
mitigate the societal damage done by always choosing the same groups of
people to leave out.
|
drew
|
|
response 70 of 232:
|
Jan 19 20:03 UTC 2003 |
As I remember it, I got into UM mostly just by applying before the deadline.
No legacy involved, and definitely no athletic preferences.
|
jep
|
|
response 71 of 232:
|
Jan 19 20:09 UTC 2003 |
re resp:68: Asserting that affirmative action benefits everyone does
not convince me that it really does so, or really will do so.
I don't think affirmative action ever really benefits anyone, except in
the very short term. It gives an unearned bonus -- based on race; it's
called "discrimination" -- to an individual. The individual then has
to accomplish the same from the opportunity as others, who have not
been given a bonus, and can be expected to be more qualified. The
benefitting individual is then at a disadvantage, making him more
likely to fail. Also, everyone who is ever in that same position
again, and who *might* have benefitted from that bonus, is suspect as
well. Meanwhile, a more qualified individual who didn't receive a
racial bonus is left out of the opportunity he otherwise would have had.
Where's the benefit? That society has "done something"?
|
klg
|
|
response 72 of 232:
|
Jan 19 20:20 UTC 2003 |
re: "#68 (other): Affirmative Action programs benefit *everybody*
except [in the short term] the few individual "majority" folks who lose
their places to minority folks. That seems like a very reasonable
trade-off to me."
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
|
aaron
|
|
response 73 of 232:
|
Jan 19 20:52 UTC 2003 |
Many employers only look to prestigious schools when recruiting new graduates.
Many graduate schools calculate the difficulty of the undegraduate program
into their weighing of an applicant's GPA. Having a lower GPA at a more
prestigious school isn not necessarily an impediment to future success - and
in many cases it can create a multi-generational advantage (as lesser
intellects descended from graduates are given bonus points as the children
of alumni.) The Republican Party has given us a couple of interesting cases
in point - Dan Quayle, admitted to law school on a "color blind" affirmative
action program, despite a dismal undergraduate performance, and GW Bush,
admitted to Ivy League undergraduate and graduate institutions as a legacy.
But for the preference, would either have achieved the same level of success?
(And this, despite Quayle's being described as "vapid" by a former professor,
and Bush's admitted "Gentleman's C" average.)
Further, for a variety of reasons, schools across the board seem to be
turning out students who are less suited to college performance than past
generations. Colleges are spending ungodly amounts of money on remedial
education, and not just for "affirmative action" students. There's
something more than a bit racist in the assumption that students who are
admitted through "affirmative action" are academically inferior and
undeserving, when associated with the expression or implication that those
who came in as legacies, or through less visible diversity programs, are
deserving.
With regard to Texas, while the "10%" formula has led to a bounce-back in
enrollment of minorities at the undergraduate level, the same cannot be
said for Texas graduate schools.
Something that I find interesting is the Republican call for a
"color-blind" society. Prior to 1964, the factions of the Republican party
which are most obsessed with race weren't making that call. They seemed
perfectly content to let the Constitution make color-based judgments, to
their own benefit. Should we be surprised that their new demands for
"color-blind" laws *also* work to their advantage?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 74 of 232:
|
Jan 19 22:46 UTC 2003 |
I change my mind about the "10% solution". For this to aid minorities, one
must have extreme segregation in the high schools. Otherwise, if all high
schools are segregted, the poorer, discriminated against, minorities will
not rise uniformly into the top 10%. Perhaps this is the Bushites real
motivation. With the 10% solution, the smart minority student would opt
for a minority-majority high school in order to increase his/her chance of
hitting the top 10%. Ergo, more segregated high schools. Whoopee.
In addition, the "10% solution" is much more of a quato system than
the UM affirmative action system. After they get the high schools more
segregated, the "10% solution" guarantees exactly the same quota of
minorities in college as in the general population.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 75 of 232:
|
Jan 20 22:26 UTC 2003 |
Re: 73 - that doesn't do you much good if you flunk out. The article I quoted
above reported that in some cases, black drop-out rates were twice those of
white students.
|
klg
|
|
response 76 of 232:
|
Jan 21 02:25 UTC 2003 |
re: "#73 (aaron): There's something more than a bit racist in the
assumption that students who are admitted through "affirmative action"
are academically inferior and undeserving, when associated with the
expression or implication that those who came in as legacies, or through
less visible diversity programs, are deserving."
Right. Isn't that more or less the idea when the former get 20 bonus
points to the latter's 4?
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 232:
|
Jan 21 03:11 UTC 2003 |
Maybe legacies only get 4, but athletes get 20, the exact same number as
affirmative action students. So if we rephrase aaron's statement to
talk about athletes, instead of legacies, I think his point still stands.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 232:
|
Jan 21 03:33 UTC 2003 |
Re #74: s/'are desegregated'/'are segregted' (Funny how it looks OK after
editing, but it changes on being posted..... )
|
janc
|
|
response 79 of 232:
|
Jan 21 05:10 UTC 2003 |
I've taught a couple football players. Failed one. One struck me as being
in over his head, the other struck me as quite smart, but short of time to
study adequately. I'm inclined to think that football players don't, as a
rule, get much in the way of an effective education in their classes. I don't
particularly get upset about this, because presumably they are getting a
chance to excell at football and open up some pretty good opportunities.
They are getting something out of the college experience - just not what most
other students are getting.
Note also that stereotypes about dumb football players abound on campuses.
This is not particularly accurate, but if you encounter a football player in
the classroom, you might easily get that impression. I think some of the
same artificial factors that encourage stereotypes about dumb football
players can function to encourage stereotypes about dumb blacks. I consider
the latter much more socially harmful.
You don't particularly see stereotypes developing about "dumb students whose
parents attended this college". I think that's because unlike blacks and
football players, legacy students aren't easily identifiable to other students.
So whatever problems are being caused to individuals, the social group is
not being much harmed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 232:
|
Jan 21 06:39 UTC 2003 |
On the other hand, a star UM football player became a faculty member
in Chemical Engineering at UM, served as chairman, and is now the
director of an energy research foundation.
|