<p>It frustrated me to see inflammatory language. Of course there is plenty of it to be found it such debates, but I’ve felt we’ve made the most progress in hearing each other (whatever the numbers of posters on one side of the other) when we’ve moved away from name-calling (such as labelling AA opponents as “racist”) and words that exaggerate what’s been said (AA supporters think minorities are “helpless”; admissions officers must be “racist rednecks,” etc.). </p>
<p>Touguide appears to have some valid and thought-provoking points to make so I was confused why he has peppered some posts with words that seemed so needling.</p>
<p>Sorry for the rash language, hoedown;I was trying to highlight a topic that I’ve never seen in an AA debate. Namely: while a school like Bob Jones (or many others) might have had a blatantly racist past, it seems odd that people would say schools like the Ivies, Wesleyan, Oberlin, Bates, Stanford, Michigan etc. etc. have admissions officers who would be incapable of giving minorities fair evaluations if AA guidelines weren’t present. </p>
<p>AA proponents like Poet seem to often mention how minority applicants are just as qualified as the others, and that admissions standards aren’t significantly lowered for URMs…if so, and IF the admissions folks are not racist, where does the need for AA come in?</p>
<p>AA exists for the same reason that middle class parents – even on the CC board – have to be told over and over again that going to a private college with FA is just as affordable as their state college. People assume that just because no one they know has ever gone to Wesleyan, Oberlin, Bates or Stanford that these schools are not “meant for them”.</p>
<p>The Changing Shape of the River
Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research</p>
<p>By Russell Nieli
Princeton University
Politics Department</p>
<p>Recent social science research has not been kind to supporters of affirmative
action. Though little known outside a narrow circle of specialists, over the past several
years a growing body of research by sociologists, economists, and political scientists has
been accumulating which seriously calls into question many of the most cherished
assumptions of affirmative action supporters regarding the effects of race-based
preferences in university admissions. The great irony in the matter is that much of the
research that has proved most damaging to the case for racial preferences in higher
education has come from studies sponsored by some of the very same organizations that
have been the most active in the past in their support of the affirmative action initiatives
at our nation’s leading universities and colleges.</p>
<p>yes it is interesting, and examines all aspects of AA. All AA proponents should read it. AA at college level will never cure the ‘gap’ between races. How can it narrow the gap? when the kids know that they don’t have to work hard.</p>
<p>AT UCs all the kids who are there know that they belong there.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but it is patently ridiculous to suggest that AA-admits to elite colleges think they don’t have to work hard. A 1350 SAT and a 3.7 GPA is not indicative of someone who has coasted through life. </p>
<p>Personally, what I find most intriguing about the AA-debate is that most opponents are, interestingly enough, not actually interested in attacking the root causes of the achievement gap between different races. Deny it all you want, but I’ve seen many, many more threads on CC complaining about the ills of Affirmative Action than I’ve seen threads pushing for improvements in, oh I don’t know, early childhood education. Same goes for the real world - once they strike down AA in one state, they move on to the next, without any concern for adopting measures that would increase the number of URMs that “deserve” to be admitted to a certain college. </p>
<p>I also know that some AA-opponents love to claim that they are also against legacy and developmental admits, but again, the amount of complaining about AA absolutely dwarfs those two, and I highly doubt we will ever see either of those things addressed in the media or through ballot initiatives. So even though I am against AA in principle, I can’t help but roll my eyes at many of its most fervent detractors.</p>
I disagree with this conclusion. I think if anything, it’s the people opposed to racial discrimination who want the focus to be more on the solving the root cause of the achievement gaps among people rather than a simplistic view that lowering the admission threshold for certain people based on race to allow them admission into an institution where they would otherwise have been rejected based on achievement will solve the issues that caused them to otherwise not have met the threshold in the first place. If it’s the socio-economic factors that were overcome by an individual that colleges want to accommodate, then let them review that aspect for the ‘individual’ and not make an assumption that all people of a particular race either were somehow automatically in the disadvantaged or advantaged groups. These kinds of racial generalizations are increasingly invalid. It’s time to look at the individual. </p>
<p>Solving the root issues (not an easy task) has benefits far above getting into a top tier versus a 2nd tier college or a 2nd tier rather than a 3rd tier college which some could argue has dubious benefits in the first place. It’s not doom and gloom if one ends up going to UVA versus Harvard or UCB versus Princeton or SDSU versus UCSD.</p>
<p>I definitely hear this a lot, but what ultimately made me change the stance I take in AA debates (although in truth I am not fully on either side) is that I don’t see it. The majority of AA-opponents seem to be more than willing to take steps to eliminate AA but never seem to do more than pay lip-service to initiatives to help close the achievement gap at an early age, especially since many opponents of AA are conservatives who balk at any form at government assistance to disadvantaged families. I agree that it’s far from an easy task and I wholeheartedly agree that AA will not make the problem go away, but the disconnect between those who campaign for an end to affirmative action and those who actually take steps to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds has made me reluctant to want AA to come to an immediate end.</p>
<p>Actually one could argue that the most creativity to solving the achievement gap is coming from the conservatives who you deride. Other than urging governments to spend more money on education, liberals really don’t have any creative solutions to the problem. Conservatives have pushed hard in areas like school choice and vouchers, only to have those ideas dismissed by the education establishment.</p>
<p>A couple of years ago a Michigan businessman by the name of Robert Thompson offered $200 millioin to the Detroit school district for 15 new charter high schools only to see the gift refused because the teachers union was opposed to the idea. No, there are plenty of solutions being proposed by those of us on the right. They are just solutions that the education establishment doesn’t want to consider.</p>
Perhaps because the elimination of racial bias in admissions is as simple as eliminating the race check boxes on the admissions forms but the true issues surrounding the achievement gaps are complex and not so easily or swiftly resolved. The problems can be deeper than even the government can solve through legislation.</p>
<p>My point is that AA and achievement gaps are two separate issues although they’re tied. One of the visible manifestations of the achievement gap may be the higher than the distribution in the general populace or lower than the distribution in the general populace of particular races (or gender, etc.) at a particular college but that’s only a manifestation and not the true problem and solving the manifestation or symptom doesn’t solve the real problem. One could even wonder if solving the symptom might mask the problem and shift focus away from the root cause. This is one of the concerns.</p>
This is actually one of the quicker and simpler ‘fixes’ that could help resolve some of the issues the disadvantaged have in access to the types of schools those in a more advantaged position have through private schools, living in the neighborhoods with the ‘best’ public schools, etc. Instead, the disadvantaged of every race ends up ‘stuck’ having to go to the dictated public schools in their area and have no choice whatsoever.</p>
<p>If I was in a disadvantaged position I’d be pushing hard for a voucher system so I could have my own choice on where ‘my’ (allocated to me/my kids) portion of tax money is spent on my behalf. I think many of the disadvantaged ‘are’ pushing for voucher systems but the Democrats, with the pushing of the teacher unions (large financial backers of the Dems), consistently knock it down every chance they get. The teacher unions seem to be fearful of allowing choice and having to compete as virtually every other business in the country has to. The irony is that with vouchers, there’d be an increased demand for teachers because many of the private schools will have smaller class sizes. Of course, the private schools will also be able to fire incompetent teachers so the teachers would have to perform (as in the business world). I really don’t understand this anti-voucher stance of the Dems since it seems counter to what I’d expect of them. The idea of just ‘fixing’ the public schools in the disadvantaged areas doesn’t seem to have generally solved the problems in the last 50 years or so of trying. I wonder if the stance of the party would be different if not for the huge financial support of the teacher unions.</p>
<p>Plenty of us on CC, including many that vote for the party that doesn’t support the voucher system, paid to have our kids attend private school. Many of us chose the area of the city or even country to live so our kids could attend the ‘best’ public schools. The disadvantaged tend to not have these options. The voucher system could improve that situation.</p>
<p>actually a quasi ‘voucher’ system does exist. At many places, if you are willing to provide transportation, you can pick the school of your choice.</p>
<p>I think the most fundamental problem is lack of parental interest and lack of decipline at home.</p>
<p>“I really don’t understand this anti-voucher stance of the Dems”</p>
<p>I’m all about public school choice (and equalization of funding across districts within a state, if not nationally). I think it’s outrageous that we have, in effect, publicly subsidized private schools for the very rich in suburbs where only the rich can live. But I’ve been very skeptical about the voucher plans I’ve seen because:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>They constitute a windfall to the overwhelmingly middle-class and higher population that currently sends its kids to private and parochial schools. Writing my well-off parents an annual check for $20,000 when they already had four kids in private school is an extremely poor use of government funds. (To say nothing of the millionaires who send their kids to Groton.)</p></li>
<li><p>Public voucher money would up going not just to academically focused parochial schools that attract a mix of kids (I’m thinking of St. Ignatius Prep in Chicago), but also to schools that are, essentially, yeshivas or Sunday schools that also teach some secular subjects in some fashion. I’m all for homeschoolers and private schools doing whatever they want on their own dime, but I have a big problem with government money actually paying for religious indoctrination, catechisms, etc. And there’s no way to keep the schools’ budgets separate without ridiculous and undesirable government entanglement in religious affairs (X religious lesson has secular educational value and voucher money can buy the book, Y religious lesson doesn’t, etc.).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Show me a voucher plan that avoids these pitfalls, and I’ll be for it.</p>
<p>Private schools also will pick and choose. The public schools will be left with ‘special ed’ and ‘life skill’ kids. They are the ones that cost big bucks.</p>
Right ‘now’ that’s the way it breaks down but that’s because without a voucher system, the middle-class on up are about the only ones who can afford it. </p>
<p>
‘You’ might but what does the individual want? Should you (or I) be dictating this to the parents? Let them have a choice. In reality, I think most parents will not choose some extremist ‘school’ but will instead, choose a school that provides their child what they believe is a good education. If it’s a religious school, maybe it’ll include a period of bible study or something sandwiched between Algebra and English. I’m not sure this is horrible. Non-religious parents would likely choose a different option for their kids.</p>
<p>
I agree that privates will be able to pick and choose (only to the extent that business conditions allow them to - i.e. that they continue to have ‘customers’) but I don’t think everyone will pull out of public schools and hike it to the privates. They wouldn’t be able to if they wanted to until there are enough built to handle the demand. I think those in the ‘worst’ public schools will (and should) but those presently satisfied with some of the good public schools will stay put. A key is that the ‘worst’ public schools will be forced to re-invent themselves to retain their students or go out of business as other, better options fill the gap. </p>
<p>The voucher system will help those in most need the most. The question to ask yourself is, if you were a disadvantaged person living in an area with lousy schools and perhaps surrounded by other students who don’t have the academic ethic you and your kids have, would you want to be forced to just accept the only option available to you which has been proven over decades to to fail, or would you like to have a reasonable choice and make your own decision as to where to send your child? </p>
<p>Most voucher proposals don’t take all of the money away from the publics but rather, only a portion. </p>
<p>
This is true to a limited extent in some areas but it’s quite limited. In my area, one can ‘request’ to transfer to another school within the district but it’s very difficult to transfer to one outside of the district. The top schools accept almost nobody from outside of their zoned area because there’s too much demand (great football players excepted). The logistics of traveling perhaps 10 miles cross-town to school, especially grade school, isn’t very practical - especially for those least able to afford it.</p>
<p>People like Bok and bananainpajamas seem to find it incomprehensible that people have varying ways of viewing achievement and goals. Therefore they have a tough time understanding that effort is not always 100% or whatever will get one into Harvard.</p>
<p>Part of this might come from looking at different ways to measure achievement. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say there are 3 ways to view achievement in choosing a college:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The “Restaurant” model, where the student is going to try to go to the one he likes best, and even if his top 20 options are out of the question, he will still make do with what is available. Like if you’re hungry, and your top 20 favorite restaurants are closed, remaining hungry isn’t an option, so you to to option #21.</p></li>
<li><p>The “olympic” model, where the student sort of divides the options into gold, silver, and bronze groups, and even the bronze is really good for him and in his mind separates him significantly from the mere “participants” who go to college but go to less impressive colleges.</p></li>
<li><p>The “all or nothing” (AON) types, who only want to go to one or more colleges in a group they consider the top. These are the hyp-or-bust types on college confidential, and the Olympic athletes who throw a tantrum because they just missed the gold medal and have to settle for silver. I think most of the administrators who run the elite colleges are probably in this group. They think it is incomprehensible that going to a very very elite college is not a goal for anybody who could possibly get in (and therefore can’t comprehend someone who has an olympic mindset and will be content to work hard enough for the “bronze”). They also can’t accept the concept that going to a good state school or lesser private school might get a person as much money in a lifetime, and therefore they reject the concept that any system that might result in less minorities at the elite colleges as counter to the goal of giving them an equal opportunity to succeed.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Right ‘now’ that’s the way it breaks down but that’s because without a voucher system, the middle-class on up are about the only ones who can afford it.”</p>
<p>How does this change the fact that you’re proposing that we hand hundreds of millions of tax dollars to the wealthiest families in the country?</p>
<p>“‘You’ might but what does the individual want? Should you (or I) be dictating this to the parents?”</p>
<p>Actually, when I said, “I have a big problem with…,” what I really meant was, “I believe that the First Amendment forbids…” You may not agree with current jurisprudence, but right now the law is pretty clear that if you are, say, a food bank that takes government money, you can’t use it to buy Bibles, you can’t choose to serve only those patrons who accept a Bible from you, and you have to keep the food money and the Bible money completely separate. Unless this law were abandoned – and it should not be, since government-funded proselytizing is a scary beast – then at best, you’re looking at a gigantic and expensive bureaucratic headache in parochial schools that take vouchers, and at worst, you’re going to have state officials making rules about what is or isn’t allowed to be taught in a religious school.</p>
<p>If you accept my idea that there are differing ways to view success in choosing a college, then you might also agree that even WITHIN each of these 3 approaches, there are varying standards of what is the order of preference in the restaurant mode, what colleges constitute gold, silver, and bronze in the olympic model, and what colleges are the goal in the AON model.</p>
<p>So imagine a black high school student who is into sports. Perhaps he admires Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing–considers them fine gentlemen, successful athletes and businessmen. He aspires to be like them. So for this student, colleges at the level of UNC and Georgetown might BE Gold in the olympic model; might BE their top choices in the restaurant model; and might be among the only group they will settle for in the AON approach. They DON’T aspire to Harvard, Yale, etc. So what incentive is there to study hard enough to get in Yale, if all they really aspire to is UNC?</p>
<p>So, what I’m saying is that part of the academic elite’s inability to grasp the aspects of Nieli’s article that deal with incentives and aspirations is that their choice among restaurant/olympic/AON might tend to differ from the minorities they mean to help. And even WITHIN those 3 approaches, their standards of what is acceptable might be vastly different.</p>
<p>I was a horrible high school student, and was tickled pink to get in Boston College as a transfer. My parents hadn’t graduated from ANY college, nor had their parents. So to me, I’d hit the ball out of the park. If someone had told me a little more work could have gotten me into Tufts, or even Brown, I probably wouldn’t have seen the point of it–not only did I see them as only slightly better than BC, they didn’t have the bigtime sports scene I wanted. My goal was to get a “medal” and since nobody in my family had ever been even a participant in the “olympics,” a “bronze medal was plenty good for me.” Whereas many Ivy League students and administrators wouldn’t be caught dead at a place like Boston College that’s ranked only #34 in the country by US News.</p>