What can we do instead of Affirmative Action?

[soomoo]

<p>You can disagree with it, but universities have a social agenda as well as an academic one. By enrolling a certain percentage of blacks and hispanics even if they are not all low income, they are benefiting these communities, and therefore society as a whole.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Consider a nationally-administered, merit system based on the National Hispanic Recognition Program. I’d add a generous financial reward to the NHRP (using federal matching grants to the colleges), open it to other URMs, and add income-based criteria. Qualifying merit test scores would work like the National Merit system (with varying cut-offs per state but also for income). </p>

<p>This approach would add uniformity and transparency compared to the current practice of using URM status as a “hook” on a mysterious college-by-college basis. Each school would commit to accepting N National Minority Recognition Program scholars per year (either a fixed number or a percentage). The federal government would pony up matching money accordingly. If a school failed to meet its target, the balance of matching funds would revert to a pool. Pooled funds would be redistributed in a bidding system for schools willing to raise their targets by accepting wait-listed NMRP scholars.</p>

[nil_desperandum]

<p>

Is that the current legacy admit rate? I was under the impression that legacy acceptance rates were dropping everywhere (and faster than the drop in overall admissions rates). I, personally, have never seen an unqualified person get into a top school because of the legacy factor. I have, however, seen quite a few perfectly qualified kids turned away from top privates (Duke especially, where my parents went and know several classmates with college-bound kids). So in my experience, at least, the boost isn’t really there. "

</p>

<ol>
<li>Just because you don’t necessarily see a legacy boost, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.</li>
<li><p>If legacies are so qualified then legacy has no place. Why are we helping people who don’t need it?</p></li>
<li><p>My opinion: First,from examining all the arguments I think that neither socioeconomic AA nor AA would fix the problem.
What we need is transparency. Colleges should post a huge authoritative list of all the things they look for, all the things that make a candidate a definite admit including Sat scores and extracurrics (like winning Intel). Socioeconomic AA should be built into the system(I suspect it already is). Colleges could assign a point value to the intangibles and if one amasses a certain amount of points- one should get into the college.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Next, 12,000 schools produce more than half of all the drop outs in the nation. Instead of giving free money to all schools including schools in nice suburbs, we should target these 12,000 aggressively with mentoring and such so that these students can meet the requirements for the top schools or at least go to college. </p>

<p>As for legacy admit status, it shouldn’t even be a question. It should be gone,long gone. It is a waste of time. For us as a society, there must be a cataclysmic shift. African Americans (esp. boys) are expected to do one of three things

1. play basketball
2. rap
3. go to jail
   Society shares a significant amount of the blame for making black boys symbols instead of actual people. </p>

<p>Now, for AA’s in affluent neighborhoods- this might/might not hurt them.</p>

<p>I see a couple of scenarios. </p>

<ol>
<li>AA’s in affluent neighborhoods are hurt because they achieve to lower standards than their white/Asian counter parts.</li>
<li>AA’s in affluent neighborhoods are hurt because for a long time, at least until the system kicks in there isn’t any diversity at top colleges and they refuse to go to elite colleges preferring Howard/Spellman and Morehouse over HYP. ( If such happens all predominately white colleges would suffer as talented AA’s got to HBCUs and those HBCUs rise in status,rivaling top 30 colleges)</li>
</ol>

<p>anyway, I’ll think about it more and refine my ideas later.</p>

[glassesarechic]

<p>]

1. Just because you don’t necessarily see a legacy boost, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
2. If legacies are so qualified then legacy has no place. Why are we helping people who don’t need it?

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Of course. But I do think the legacy boost is dropping: I remember one poster noted that the Penn legacy admit rate used to be about 60% and has since dropped to 30%. Compare that 30% to the admit rate of legacies at other top schools, who are likely to have attended top high schools and have top scores, and I bet the boost is pretty small. </p></li>
<li><p>…But none of that’s to say that the legacy boost should exist. I agree with you on that.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

What we need is transparency. Colleges should post a huge authoritative list of all the things they look for, all the things that make a candidate a definite admit including Sat scores and extracurrics (like winning Intel). Socioeconomic AA should be built into the system(I suspect it already is). Colleges could assign a point value to the intangibles and if one amasses a certain amount of points- one should get into the college.

</p>

<p>That violates the principle of holistic admissions. There aren’t certain things that make anyone a sure admit. Individuals aren’t evaluated on individual merit so much as a piece of a bigger puzzle. (Besides which, assigning a point value to race is illegal.)</p>

<p>I do think, though, that more transparent admissions process would be better for everyone, but I think that comes from publishing admissions results for different SAT scores, GPAs, geographic regions, sexes, races, etc after the fact, not from making the process itself more straightforward.</p>