response 118 of 217:

Feb 4 02:36 UTC 2003

The argument made in the article linked to in resp:114 is similar to one
I've made many times here.  I consider the argument plausible, and think it is
one that needs to be considered seriously, but I have never seen anyone pull
together sufficient evidence to prove it.

If convincing evidence for this exists, then my "solution" would not be to
eliminate affirmative action admissions.  It'd be to provide the information
to students who are being given a prefered admission.  Tell them that they
have been accepted, but that their GPA/SAT scores are significantly below
those of most students at the institution, and that students admitted with
such scores tend to have higher drop-out rates and lower grades.  To succeed,
they will probably have to work harder than most other students on campus,
studying while other students are partying.

Are you substantially more motivated, more willing to work, than other
students you know who are as smart as you?  Are you prepared to sustain this
level of work for four years, while seeing others around you succeed with
less effort?  If you are prepared for that challenge, then we welcome you.
If not, you may want to consider the alternative of attending a college where
you can be accepted without preferment, where you will be on a level field
with other students.

My point is that for some students a preferment is a real boon.  It depends
on how big the preferment is, but mostly it depends on the student.  For
bright-but-lazy types (like me), or for easily discouraged types, it isn't.
Either way, the student should know what they are getting into.  They should
take some time to contemplate the pluses and minuses, not just grab for the
most prestigious school that accepts them.