Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so everybody in the end gets some form of preferential treatment in the admission process.
Not exactly, but the formula is not as cut and dried as higher grades/SATs equal better student equal admittance. Admissions people don't simply take the highest scores and call it a day, race or no race... well at least not at MOST schools. There are a few like that. But it's the belief by some that all schools SHOULD that's the problem.
For instance, at one top school I worked, students applied directly to the major they wanted. It was not uncommon to have, say,:
Kid 1 - applying to the Chemistry major with a B+/A- GPA and moderately high SATs, but a great essay about how they used to mix "formulas" since they were 6 years old, their best Christmas was when they got a Chemistry set, and they started a Scientists club at their school
Kid 2 - applying to the Chem major with an A++ GPA and near perfect SATs, who wants to be a doctor to "help people" and is captain of the soccer team and holds an office in student government on top of that.
Kid 1 would get in. Kid 2 wouldn't necessarily, even with the perfect grades. Why? Kid 2 is a dime a dozen. They all want to be doctors and the are all captain of a sports team. LOL Kid 1 is a good student that loves Chemistry. That kid has a passion of that major. That kid is rarer, so while some Kid 2's will make it, way more of the Kid 1s will.
First, have to say this has been one of the more intelligent threads I've read on P&oC, so thanks to the OP and other posters for keeping it engaging.
My question: if the focus shifted from race to solely SES, what are the criteria and how would they be assessed?
For generations, blacks have been disproportionately disadvantaged economically and educationally, as well as having nowhere near the social mobility possibilities of whites. It's only been relatively recent that you could say there was a semblance of equal opportunity. So the focus of AA to correct that naturally would have begun as race-based. And it's easy for universities to identify who to assist if it's race-based. If you're black, you've always been black, but the same isn't true for lower economic status.
So what would be looked at? Strictly current family income? Income over n years? What if for most of the student's life the family had been comfortably middle-class but had fallen on hard times, so currently they qualified as low SES? Would the school look at where the student lives or what schools they attended? Number of family members who went to college (with fewer giving a higher score)? Whether the family had been on public assistance?
And are schools willing to spend the time and resources to verify the claims? Again, it's easy to verify race, but would require more effort to verify low SES unless income was the major deciding factor.
I don't mean this as an argument against SES being the core qualifier, but I'm just curious how it would work.
I'm of the opinion that the race and name of applicants shouldn't even be available to admissions officers. SES should only be taken into account for financial aid and certain scholarships that are available to that particular socioeconomic demographic.
I'm also of the opinion that those who believe that minorities are somehow getting a free ride have a particuraly degenerate pattern of thinking. The only thing that I've ever gotten for being a minority is slurs and stones hurled at me while growing up.
For generations, blacks have been disproportionately disadvantaged economically and educationally, as well as having nowhere near the social mobility possibilities of whites. It's only been relatively recent that you say there was a semblance of equal opportunity. So the focus of AA to correct that naturally would have begun as race-based. And it's easy for universities to identify who to assist if it's race-based. If you're black, you've always been black, but the same isn't true for lower economic status.
Well what I was trying to point out was that if you want to correct the problem, you focus on the problem itself, not the correlations that lead you to it. If you want to help blacks, focusing on a problem that is disproportionate within their ranks will have virtually the same effect as focusing on their race.
The argument is that black people are disproportionately disadvantaged. And being disadvantaged is obviously a problem. So why not directly attack that problem? Why use a loose correlation like race? Makes no sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo
And are schools willing to spend the time and resources to verify the claims? Again, it's easy to verify race, but would require more effort to verify low SES unless income was the major deciding factor.
Well, the reason it's easy to verify by race is that race is a much more stereotypical and therefore less accurate factor on which to judge economic status, right?
Well, the reason it's easy to verify by race is that race is a much more stereotypical and therefore less accurate factor on which to judge economic status, right?
I wasn't writing of verifying need by identifying race ("verify by race"), but rather the ease of verifying one's claimed race (which usually is obvious) versus verifying one's claimed low SES.
I wasn't writing of verifying need by identifying race ("verify by race"), but rather the ease of verifying one's claimed race (which usually is obvious) versus verifying one's claimed low SES.
I know that. What I'm saying is that if the intention here is indeed to help disadvantaged kids, by looking at race rather than other factors, you are essentially stereotyping and therefore will be much less accurate in identifying who is actually disadvantaged. I know what you mean, it was just an extension of what I was saying earlier (not to you).
Well what I was trying to point out was that if you want to correct the problem, you focus on the problem itself, not the correlations that lead you to it. If you want to help blacks, focusing on a problem that is disproportionate within their ranks will have virtually the same effect as focusing on their race.
The argument is that black people are disproportionately disadvantaged. And being disadvantaged is obviously a problem. So why not directly attack that problem? Why use a loose correlation like race? Makes no sense to me.
I think that maybe you are trying to be fair, but if you looked at the statistics, you'd find that using income as a determining factor for admissions would not help achieve the desired racial balance. And that ultimately is the goal here for the Left. Studies have already been done that showed that if universities disregarded race and ethnicity and just gave a leg up to poor students, Asians and Whites would be the primary benefactors from that policy. Poor Whites and Asians outperform poor Blacks and Hispanics so they'd have the competitive edge in gaining admissions. In fact, poor Whites and Asians are the groups hurt most by racial affirmative action school policies.
Many on the Left are well aware of this and that's why they promote race based affirmative action over income based affirmative action.
That's nice to say. But if you're a kid who had the misfortune of being born to a young mother and are smart, but can't do the tutoring, the enrichment, I have no problem with SES being used as a factor in admissions.
Are you one of those people that have it pretty well and don't realize that others may not be as privileged as you?
I was one of those people who didn't have it pretty well and I certainly realize that some (like me) are not privileged. However I'm completely opposed to having different criteria for different races or people of different SES. It serves no good purpose to lower standards, especially for schools of law and medicine where excellence has always been important (with good reason). I don't have a problem with allowing contingency admissions to general college/university and providing remedial help, with the understanding that the student needs to make strong progress over one year in order to remain in the school. If he/she cannot catch up in that period of time and perform at a level of a standard admission student, then he/she should be dismissed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
