Okay, the University has lost in court, and it plans to appeal, all the way
to the supreme court if required.  

Seems like giving preference to minorities in the Michigan Law School is
illegal according to the judge.

Me, I agree with the decision.  On the other hand, most people on grex will
disagree.  Discuss

96 responses total.

(not having read the decision [and going off of what I heard on NPR], I
also agree with the decision.  but no one has to discuss why I agree.)  ;)

I favor admitting the top X % (as needed to complete an entering class)
of each high school in the state, independent of race, but with some
consideration for grades, participation in school activities, leadership,
etc, in each school. (I know this does not address out-of-state students,
but that is a different issue.)

This is not a racially-based admission policy, and would tend to
provide an advanced education to students from every sector of society.

I agree with the decision.  And I've thought that AA was unconstitutional in
the first place.  

I believe strongly that racial diversity benefits everyone in a 
university setting. I am not sure Affirmative Action programs are the 
*best* way to go about accomplishing that but it is one of the few 
things a university can do. 

One thing universities can do is give scholorships based on need only. 
Since more minorities are needy, this certainly would benefit minorities 
without making people feel that they have been treated unfairly. The 
only other thing I can think of that universities can do is to try to 
recruit qualified minority students. 

i think um should recruit more appalachians


fuckin bigots.

Having had to deal with a student who was admitted under AA-like policies,
was totally unequipped to keep pace at MIT, and relied on the "I'm a minority,
it looks bad for you if you fail me" theory to pass classes, I'm all in 
favor of admission based on merit alone.  If you take AA to this logical
extreme, you're going to wind up with a stereotype of "African-American and
Hispanic lawyers aren't as competent as white or Asian ones" and perpetuate
the discrimination problem.  (er, that should have been propagate, not 
perpetuate.)

Hmmm. . . I work for an attorney who happens to be black, Brown and Harvard
educated and smart as shit.  What about the people who just need to get in
the door in order to prove themselves?

Re #7: Are you suggesting that only minorities have that problem?

Re #6: you make an incorrect assumption and then argue with it. Anyone
admitted must be clearly informed that they are just admitted, and
must succeed by their own hard work. This all needs to be clear and
"up front". I have observed the problem you describe - on the average
minority students in my engineering classes seemed to have to struggle
more and got lower grades - but this is no criticism of their "minority"
status, and is also not a judgement of competency. It is more a judgement
on poorer prior schooling and circumstances. But how is that going to
be corrected unless people from all communities have equal chances to
succeed? 

Lynne - it is not true that more minorities are "needy" when you look at
 the population as a whole. When you look *within* a minority
population,  you may find that the population has a higher level of
"needy" members  than society as a whole, but the majority of "needy"
people in most  societies (including this one) are from the majority
group. That is to  say, most "needy" Americans are white.

When I was at UM Law School, every minority student in my section had 
gone to a more prestigious undergraduate institution than I had. Most 
came from families that were significantly wealthier than mine. For the 
most part, they were not kids from bad neighborhoods with inferior 
schools.

The fear for UM Law School, in losing the ability to include race as a 
factor in admissions, is that it will lose its minority enrollment. It 
is not that UM would not be accepting minority applicants - but as long 
as law schools at schools like Harvard and Yale can look to minority 
status while UM cannot, those highly qualified candidates are likely to 
also receive offers from elite private institutions. Many students 
already opt for even (slightly) lesser ranked private institutions over 
UM. It could be very difficult for UM to maintain minority enrollment. 

There are currently some efferts underway (by at least one major university,
among others) to replace the SAT with something fairer.  Statistically, white
students and higher-income students get higher scores (I think I can find a
cite, if somebody demands it), while the scores themselves don't seem to have
much relevance to whether an individual actually gets good grades and
graduates.

Re 11.  Wrong question.  The LSAT, as I keep repeating, does not predict
grade point average.  It does predict the likelihood that a person will
flunk out of law school.  I assume the stats on the SAT are similar.

Moreover, ANY test like this will be "biased" in the sense that students
from more affluent backgrounds and with better educated parents will tend
to get higher scores.  People from those backgrounds get far more support
and encouragement for developing verbal and mathematical skills than
people from less affluent backgrounds, and (what experts say is critical) 
get far more intellectual stimulation during early stages of brain
development while they are babies and toddlers. 

Head Start and similar programs are an attempt to address this inequality,
and proved that it is possible to make a lasting difference, but such
efforts are always under attack.

Re #12: People from more affluent backgrounds can also afford test prep 
courses, which seem to make a big difference.

re #9:  I think you misunderstand my point, actually--it's not so much
that this student was underqualified in the first place, but that (s)he
had learned that because of race, other people were willing to bend over
backward in order to not allow a failing grade--and come to expect that
as his/her right.  This was not an entry-level or lack-of-background
problem--this occurred in a senior-level class.  Showed up for labwork
once for under an hour (average required time to do the experiments was
15 h), didn't show up for the oral exam, wanted private tutoring for a
month before the makeup exam, when we refused to do more than 2 hours the
student didn't show up for the makeup exam either.  I went to give the
grade we'd determined to the class professor.  He wanted to quadruple it,
because he didn't want the responsibility of failing a minority student.
It has been my experience with high-level schools that once you get in,
it's very difficult to flunk out.  If this is the case, then preferential
admissions policies leads to the risk of turning out under- or un-qualified
graduates.  By the time you get to law school, you've been on your own
for four years and presumably your records reflect work habits, etc., and
differential background/preparation is no longer an issue.

I was actually responding to the *other* Lynne - SLynne. Sorry for the 
confusion. In specific response to your example, all I would do is point
 out that your sample size is too small to form a basis for any 
meaningful conclusions.

She wasnt talking to you, aaron. duh

BTW, Yes most needy people are white but I would be willing to bet that 
scholorships based on need would certainly help schools deal with 
diversity issues. I would bet that while most poor people are white (as 
most people in this country are white), there is a higher concentration 
of minorities in the poorer socio-economic groups so providing need 
based scholorships would favor minorities to some degree. Not to the 
degree that affirmative action benefits them though, which is probably 
why affirmative action was the program chosen to bring diversity to the 
University in the first place. 

Re #5:  Actually, that's the best argument I've heard against the U of M's
version of affirmative action.  There are plenty of disadvantaged groups
(Arabs, Eastern Europeans, Appalachians, etc.) who aren't favored.  Even if
you do believe in levelling the playing field artificially, this was still
an unfair policy.

(Also, aren't Appalachians the mountains themselves?)

Re #2:  Admitting the "top X%" from each high school is grossly
unfair and wastes resources.  Suppose that I'm 72 out of a class of
350 in a high school where standards are very high.  My SAT score is
1310, I've taken AP courses; I'm more than good enough to handle the
work at U-M, but they're only taking the top 12% of the graduating
class so I can't get admitted.  Yet the kid from some lousy school
with crappy standards who gets 400 on the SAT math but ranks 27 out
of his class of 300 gets in easily.  The bill for remedial classes
goes through the roof.  Is that a sensible way to run things?  No.

It also makes it easy to game the system.  For my senior year, I
just transfer to a crappy school.  I graduate 1st in my class
because I've already taken the material in their toughest math,
science and english courses, and I'm used to working while I'm
competing with slackers.  I get into U-M, while the girl ahead
of me who stayed in my old HS gets rejected.  Is that fair?  No.

Doing stupid things like admitting the top X fraction of all HS
classes only rewards lousy schools and careless parents.  It
waters down the educational system as a whole.  What we need are
uniform standards which actually measure what students have
learned and the work they can do.  We have them:  the SAT and ACT,
and I assume the LSAT and GRE.  Let's use them.

Could someone remind me how to link an item to another conference?  I just
remembered I am fw of the diversity conference.

Re #18: spoken like someone that has all the advantages and wishes
to exercise them at the expense of others. In order to change things,
one has to change things. Admitting the top X % of all schools will
tend to force the poorer schools to improve. (I do NOT suggest that
colleges offer remedial program - students could get them on their
own if they wish, in summer school, etc, but all students should
be treated, taught, and examined with equality.)

To clarity, I mean *offering* admission to the top X % in all schools.

If you want to transfer to a poorer school to improve your chances of
being admitted, that will improve the poorer school too. In a way, you get
advanced by helping to advance others. Not a bad trade.

  re #20:  since Russ has long-since passed the years of his formal
  schooling and does not (at least as far as I'm aware) have any offspring
  whose societally priveleged status he wishes to preserve, isn't it a 
  little weak to accuse him of holding his view only out of self-interest?

Not at all - I read #20 as an expression of remembered self-interest,
being extended to others.

I don't think that admitting the top X% is going to do anything to force the
poorer schools to improve--the students have severed all meaningful ties with
their high schools by the time they figure out they're not prepared/equipped
to deal with university life.   A student transferring just to improve his
class standing doesn't necessarily improve the poorer school either, because
it's a transient change and may not have any effect on the school at all.
Someone who transfers for those reasons is hardly likely to be the type to
dig in and get involved with improving the school (s)he transfers to.

Students from an excellent school that aren't in the top 10% but have
fantastic credentials will wind up getting admitted anyway, just not with the
automatic admission.  They're not talking about restricting admission to
*only* the top 10%.  

Standardized tests are useless, if you ask me.

there is a *diversity conference*?


        *farts*


><
--

Re #20:  What McNally said in #21.  Plus:

Thanks for making my point about prejudice being the basis of PC
thought, Rane.  While you're chewing on that, also tell me:

-       What's the point of "offering admission" to someone whose
        scholastic abilities aren't sufficient for them to succeed
        at the institution?  Do you turn them down, flunk them out,
        or water down the curriculum so anyone can succeed?  If you
        turn them down, what's the difference between offering and
        not offering?

-       How guaranteed anything forces a school to improve?  "Guaranteed"
        means you don't have to work for it, you know...  (do you?)

-       How my hypothetical transfer to a poorer school would help
        that school, when I've done all my real learning outside it?

That last is the big one.  Transferring a great teacher, sure... but one
student?  Will the curriculum get re-written to take advantage of one star
pupil's possible influence on a classroom of 30?  Not likely.  Especially
not likely when it's the extracurricular reading, classes at other
schools, and other things far outside those classrooms that makes the
biggest differences.  The only way you can do that is to replace everybody's
parents, and we seem to have a national problem with such measures. ;-)

The thing that would truly address this issue is for everyone to stop
accepting excuses for second-rate schoolwork.  This means firing our
incompetent teachers, paying the rest like professionals, and cutting
75% out of the corps of bureaucrats in the school systems.  It means
parents not giving their kids a pass for failing to study, for any reason.
It means everyone heading for college takes math, science and english
comp every year through 12th grade so nobody needs remedial anything.

Would this problem of minority under-achievement exist if all parents
showed their kids, by word and example, that school is *important* and
it deserves their best efforts?  If they weren't facing incompetent
bumblers at the head of the room?  If it did, it would be a lot smaller.
Unfortunately, we've accepted shoddiness at both ends ("the soft bigotry
of low expectations"); we're reaping the predictable results.

What does "paying the rest like professionals" mean?

Re #22:  Figures that you would.

Re #24:  The problem isn't the top achievers not getting in, it's the
lowest achievers forcing the system to waste resources in remediation.
There are a number of classes at Michigan which cover things like
basic writing skills which are essential for further study, and *should*
have been taken (and passed) by every high-school graduate, not just
those on the college prep track.  Yet they exist, and presumably count
for credit.  They should be abolished, and the "almost ready" students
should go to summer school or community college to cover these bare
spots in their preparation.  I spent time at WCC myself; it wasn't so bad.

If you're looking for ways to shame schools into improving, calling
their graduates incompetent is good.  Showing how poorly they perform
on standard tests works well for that.  Even the University of Michgan
isn't exempt; I've seen questions from the general-knowledge section
of the education college's exit exam and it amazes me that anyone
who could fail that test is allowed *in*, let alone passed through
enough classes to graduate.

(Yes, I am a Michigan alumnus.  The U embarrasses me regularly.)

Re #26: - it is actually true that academic performance in high school
is not a universally true indicator of academic performance in college.
However, if they do not meet the standards of the college they should,
of course, be flunked out.
        - I said nothing about guaranteed anything, so you must be
responding to something else you read somwhere.
        - By a) challenging the system in place at the poorer school,
and b) by setting a good example for the other students that really
want to succeed. However, you would have to be more humble about yourself
to make this work. 

I would expect if your ruse for admission will work, not just one student,
but many students, would engage in it. 


I agree completely with your last two paragraphs.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure remedial classes don't count for
anything more than elective credit at the U of M.  Of course, this depends
on your definition of "remedial".  Any freshman English class I've ever seen
or heard of has sounded pretty much like "remedial English" to me.  (Of
course, the same was true at the University of Chicago.  I think it's
probably true at any college.)  But pre-calculus math, for instance, won't
count for real math credit.

Re #28: Universities are businesses.  (Being a conservative, you should 
see this as a good thing.)  If they flunk someone out, they make no 
further money off them.  If they give them a remedial class, they not 
only can continue to take their money, they get *more* money because the 
person is taking more credits overall.

At Michigan Tech most classes that were truely considered 'remedial' 
didn't count towards any degree requirements, except for the 'total 
number of credit hours' one.

Re: #19
In diversity, the command "link agora 35" should work.  Please let me
know if you have any problems, Sindi.

Re: #31
EXACTLY.  The place to attack the problem of warm-body admission &
remedial classes is MegaUniversity, Inc.'s revenue stream.  The ill-
prepared kids can get remedial instruction far cheaper at a local 
community college, and it'd be easy to bus 'em there from campus.
If 10% remedial classes meant a 10% cut in state support, 10%-short
Federal money, etc. for MegaU (with a nasty bait-&-switch penalty
if MegaU just tried to hit up the students & families for the lost
funding), things could improve in a hurry.

Universities are businesses, yes, but they are famously *bad* businesses.
Very few of them actually make money.  Yes, they probably lose money if a
student flunks out, but it may cost more than you think to organize and
offer remedial classes.

Soneone recently told me that Syracuse will guarantee you a diploma if you
pay for four yesrs of school up front.  I've not had time to look into that,
anyone know if that's true?

I don't know if there's any truth to that rumor or not.  I've seen it 
represented that way in our school paper, but that was as a comic, so 
I'm not sure.  If it is true, I've never seen any official mention of 
it.

Re #33: In my experience, remedial classes are often taught by TAs, 
which make next to nothing.

re #36:  er, thank you for referring to us as inanimate objects...
TAs take home very little of their pay, but it actually costs the university
a great deal to have us because they're not only supporting us, but also
paying our tuition.  I believe that good universities spend about $40,000
per year per grad student just in terms of stipend and tuition, not counting
administrative costs and other overhead.  Also, though I have no experience
with remedial classes, I have never seen a TA be wholly responsible for a 
class:  for discussion sections, yes, but not a class.  Finally, TAs tend
to have fairly small sections--generally on the order of 10-30.  Based on a
statistic I recall that each class costs you and your parents about $30 per
session, you would need at least 16 people in a class just to pay for the
TA's stipend and tuition for a semester.  Throw in a professor's time and
I think you're already showing a deficit.

When I was a TA I was almost wholly responsible for the class - the only
thing I didn't have to do was write the midterm and final exam.

Odd.  The professor didn't lecture at all?  I've never been on either end
of a situation like that, nor do I know of anyone else.  Possibly a 
difference in schools or changing times--do we have other former TAs from UM
here somewhere?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss