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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

response 62 of 232:

Jan 18 19:45 UTC 2003

If everyone admitted actually attended, fewer would be admitted.  

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.

response 66 of 232:

Jan 19 06:09 UTC 2003

..that mindless gnat is sure persistent.

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.