dilksy

At least on the surface, this appears to be much better than the old system. Instead of just blindly giving insane boosts/scholarships to URMs of any background to "increase diversity" (at least statistically), they're actually trying to account for socioeconomic status so intelligent but less privileged applicants get the opportunity they deserve. I'm sure this system will have some problems/misidentifications, but I don't see them being nearly as egregious as problems with the current system. In any case, it's a step in the right direction.

fabrizio

Kenshinhan (剑心饭),

Your claim that some here desire all-white schools is not only unfounded but also outrageous.

Your rhetorical question, "How can you not take race and ethnicity as a factor at all when you make a class?" actually has a very definite answer. As Chicago's Graduate School of Business says, they are factors irrelevant to participation in the programs of the University.

We're not for segregation. Your baseless claims don't help your argument.

We'll be happy when this nation stops paying lip service to minorities and starts treating them equally.

Research by Dr. Richard Sander has shown that in the case of law schools, Blacks benefit immensely from race-neutral admissions. They are more likely to graduate, pass the bar on their first try, and become lawyers. What's more, the jobs they land have higher salaries.

The only problem? The increase in confident and talented Black lawyers would be offset by massive unemployment as the NAACP, BAMN, and "Offices of Diversity" would no longer have a reason to exist.

Take your pick. Do you want more Americans living our nation's dream, or do you want to listen to a bunch of elitists tout grievances that don't really affect their supposed constituents?

I'll pick the first option any day of the week.

hoedown

Is the law school using descriptor plus? I was not aware of this. I am not terribly familiar with Sanders except for his notoriety in that one of his initially-touted papers was published in a non-peer-reviewed law journal. Are you citing from that one?

When discussing affirmative action before the Supreme Court, the law school pointed out that black students are more likely than their white peers to take jobs that help underserved populations. This was being discussed as a public good.

High salaries are a nice measure of "success" but it can have some less-positive aspects, too. Might it not also represent that these black students are joining their white peers in the larger trend of abandoning service for corporate jobs?

It's just some food for thought.

My only other comment is that I think it's curious (and perhaps insupportable) to lump BAMN with diversity offices. BAMN has had an antagonistic relationship with U-M from the get-go.

Kenshinsan

The point is minorities aren't being treated equally. Where are people getting the idea that things are equal, they are far from equal. When you have people like my white friends dad openly admitting that they wont hire black people, and he doesn't, why don't you think that there are people like this in the adcoms offices. Its just nowadays because it is less socially accepted, they arent as foward about it. That doesn't mean that they aren't prevalent. Something must be done to help those that are underpriveledged(not always minorities), and underrepresented, to combat people like those in a position of power. Be that AA or the new system implemented by UM.

fabrizio

hoedown,

I doubt most law schools use Descriptor Plus. I had never heard of it mentioned before until this thread became a featured discussion.

The conclusions I've referred to come from "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools," which was published in the Stanford Law Review, a journal I assume is peer-reviewed.

Dr. Sander has responded to his critics, namely Professor Kidder and Dr. Ho.

Maybe. I've always read that this trend came from the ever-increasing costs of higher education. Many idealistic young lawyers are faced with the reality that service careers won't pay the bills.

BAMN likes to make stuff up to get people to vote against civil rights initiatives. According to them, ending affirmative action is tantamount to supporting resegregation, racism, sexism, and a slew of other undesirables.

"Offices of Diversity" are only interested in diversity of skin color. Scratch that. Diversity of certain skin colors.

hoedown

Stanford law review is not peer-reviewed. Most law reviews aren't, which is of some concern when they are used to disseminate findings based on statistical analysis.

And yet some of them make this choice regardless. What would be interesting to explore is why some do and some don't, and whether we should take "These grads make more money" with a grain of salt. It's like medical school--sure, everyone thinks it's great to hear that grads of Med school X make more money, but what if that higher salary simply means they're all avoiding family practice? Is this a "better" outcome?

That was my point: "higher salaries" doesn't always mean that graduates are better or better off, or that society is a better place. Yes, generally speaking, higher salaries at a particular institution can mean that students get recruited by better firms...but keep in mind that we're looking at a population which has been shown to be willing to take lower-paying but still-critically-important jobs outside of that realm. We can't know that these graduates are considered better by law firms--it might simply be that they are making different choices.

BAMN has proven themselves to be strident and (IMHO) disrespectful in their advocacy. I suspect they do more harm than good for the cause they claim to support.

fabrizio

hoedown,

Thanks for mentioning that Stanford Law Review is not peer reviewed. I did not know that.

I'll agree with you. Just having higher salaries does not necessarily mean that either the graduates or society is better off.

Having more graduates who earned higher grades during their education and passed the bar more comfortably, however, does mean that we can have better-off graduates and a better-off society. How? Race-neutral admissions.

I'll stop poking fun at BAMN; we've got common ground there.

impala17

Its good to hear that Universities have a way of avoiding the negative impact states have made by fighting affirmative action. I read several posts that said it's stereotyping but that isn't the case, it's taking into account the fact that a student was able to ignore socioeconomic factors that usually hinder the learning process and still achieve. It's placing an * on an applicants gpa that may be lower.

oracle1

This might be the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen. If U-Mich wants to help socio-economic disadvataed students with low GPA's, THEN HOW ABOUT ASKING THEM IF THEY ARE POOR?????

This Discriptor Plus is nothing more than a way to stonewall the voters of Michigan (who give their tax dollars to fund the school). The voters in Michigan (just like those in the ultra-liberal state of California) have made it quite clear that they don't want racist adcoms to continue racial discrimination in college admissions.

hoedown

Our adcoms are racists? Nice.

They do ask about socioeconomic status, by the way. Look at the application.

oracle1

If they know how poor you are, then why do they need to know how poor your neighbordhood is?

notredamebrother

There's different levels of poverty. Also, you can be poor but still reside in middle income neighborhood.

hoedown

I think it is reprehensible that one would take the articulated public institutional values of a university and twist them around to impugn the moral character of the university's employees. I would bet a significant amount of money that you've never met or talked to a single admissions counselor or reader at U-M. You don't know anything about them. I am left wondering why, on a message board, you would elect to smear them.

I will follow up to your question, however. Perhaps the media did an inadequate job describing the University's use of Descriptor Plus. I think it's important for informed people to realize that you cannot trust a newspaper article to give you the full view of any situation. That is a pretty important lesson to keep in mind when considering this and any issue (politics, public policy, news) you will encounter in your future life as a citizen, voter, advocate, and informed participant in society. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but I see it time and time again (and I confess I fall victim to it, too). You forget that journalists are humans too, with their own biases and--perhaps more importantly--limited time to devote to each of the many topics they are expected to cover. There is not sufficient time to learn everything there is to know about the topic they write about. And not sufficient column space to tell the whole story, either. So keep in mind that whatever you're reading, you've getting a condensed version, filtered by a human being with limitations.

The University doesn't just use Descriptor Plus to determine how poor your neighborhood (or school) is, but also whether people from your kind of neighborhood (or your kind of school) are underrepresented at the University. If you come from a type of background that isn't typically found attending the university, then that's of greater interest to a University concerned about access and diversity. So it's not just about helping kids in inner city neighborhoods (for example) but also those living in rural areas and small towns.

notredamebrother

I completely agree with hoedown.

jxu613

What high school students fail to realize is that what they learn is not strictly through instructional material. The environment and the interactions that result from that environment play a crucial role in who one is.

As such, universities and colleges realize this too, which has resulted in a strive for diversity. In diversifying their classrooms, universities and colleges are instilling a wide pool of ideas and opinions into their students from person to person interactions.

Yet, in looking to diversify their student bodies, race inevitably becomes an issue. As colleges and universities look to facilitate diversity, they favor students who bring uniqueness to their campuses. Of the many facets of uniqueness, race is one of the most accessible. As a result, secondary schools often pay special attention to minority students in their mission statements.

In doing so, however, some of these minority student have noticeably lower grand point averages and test scores than other students. Yet, what few fail to realize is that athletes, musicians, alumni students, students who are committed to volunteering, and students who have overcome obstacles, sometimes too have lower grade point averages and standardized test scores.

What?s important to realize is that race is only one part of college admissions. And though it is a primary part of the admissions process, it does not guarantee nor deny admissions. Ultimately, colleges and universities look for students who are well-rounded in various facets of education.

Ultimately, it’s important to understand these programs aren't meant to intentionally hurt anyone. And even though I wasn't born a minority, I’m more than content with my parents’ tax money going toward universities and colleges that aim to prepare us for the real world, rather than keeping us in a bubble filled with trite ideas and opinions.