Affirmative Action at Work: Go Blue!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Two high school students, both good friends of mine, applied to the University of Michigan. One had around a 3.9, captain of 2 sports teams, student council president, etc. and failed to get into the university. Another friend had a 3.6ish GPA, played no sports, was once a student council representative, and got a full ride into the university.

What the hell? Can anyone find any positives with this stupid law? Am I completely missing something?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Am I completely missing something?

Yes -- what you're missing is the fact that, because he was black, he had no control over his GPA. Because of our white-centric racist society, blacks are incapable of doing well in high school. But if we put them in college, somehow they will excel and make everything better in the next generation.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Yes -- what you're missing is the fact that, because he was black, he had no control over his GPA. Because of our white-centric racist society, blacks are incapable of doing well in high school. But if we put them in college, somehow they will excel and make everything better in the next generation.

Ah, I knew it was something along those lines.

[tinybear]

But what happens to the white guy who failed to get into college? Would everything be better for him in the next generation?

[SteveA]

They don't go far enough with affirmative action. Has anyone noticed also that students with low GPAs in High School don't have a large representation in college? That must be discrimination.

A perfect system that wouldn't discriminate on anything would be to put names in a hat for college admission and then run it like a lottery. You could do this with housing, incomes etc. and have a system that won't discriminate on anything. Noone would have to study or work or build homes etc. because your odds of achieving anything would be nonexistant, just like everyone elses. Now that's equality.

[kubedawg]

It all depends on the will to be at college. It has nothing to do with race..... Anyone can go to college, to the best in the world. They just have to apply themselves better. The people who try to play the system regardless of race/religion/political status, will not only regret that in their later lives but also struggle either mentally or phsycologically.

And a gpa doesn't mean shit. It means you are competent enough to read/write, and comprehend sentences/simple equations. Standardized tests are complete bullshit as a hands on environment will succeed in most cases.

There is more than one underlying issue here and I can garuntee the main issue is not racial.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Two high school students, both good friends of mine, applied to the University of Michigan. One had around a 3.9, captain of 2 sports teams, student council president, etc. and failed to get into the university. Another friend had a 3.6ish GPA, played no sports, was once a student council representative, and got a full ride into the university. What the hell? Can anyone find any positives with this stupid law? Am I completely missing something?

Acceptance to university has numerous other factors which go with it. Nearly all universities require an interview and if you can impress in an interview you can swing the chanses of getting in over other, perhaps more qualified candidates.

You also don't just apply to a university you apply to a department. For example some departments require better grades than others. The departments can also be full, so no matter how good you are, if you don't get in early enough you get rejected.

These were two common examples of rejection I remember from when people were applying to uni when I was in sixth form.

There are lots of reasons that this person could have been rejected while the other person was not.

[tivodan1116]

Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003 (against the University of Michigan) eliminated the University's program of Affirmative Action as unconstitutional, so this wasn't affirmative action.

Just so you know. :)

[belverron]

Quote by: Gratz v. Bollinger For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. Bollinger, post, at 327-333, the Court has today rejected petitioners' argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest.

Quote by: Sandra Day O'Connor's Concurring Opinion in Gratz v. Bollinger For these reasons, the record before us does not support the conclusion that the University's admissions program for its College of Literature, Science, and the Arts-to the extent that it considers race-provides the necessary individualized consideration. The University, of course, remains free to modify its system so that it does so. Cf. Grutter v. Bollinger, post, p. 306. But the current system, as I understand it, is a nonindividualized, mechanical one. As a result, I join the Court's opinion reversing the decision of the District Court. (emphasis mine)

Quote by: University of Michigan Undergraduate Review Process (2004-2005) Race and Ethnicity Reviewers should consider the applicant’s race and ethnicity, as identified by the applicant, with special attention to members of a racial or ethnic group that is underrepresented on the U-M Ann Arbor campus (at the present time, these groups include African-Americans/Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Native Americans or Alaskans). Race is one of many factors that contribute to a diverse learning environment for all students. The University will continue to seek a critical mass of students from these underrepresented groups as one aspect of its overall effort to provide opportunities for all students to receive educational benefits from interactions with peers who are broadly diverse with regard to the full range of personal characteristics and backgrounds. As with all of the other personal characteristics and attributes taken into account, race will be considered in a flexible, non-mechanical way, and shall not be treated as the defining feature of any application. As discussed above under “Educational Environment,” reviewers should also consider applicants—regardless of their race or ethnicity—who are educated in high schools serving populations that are predominantly comprised of students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups. (emphasis mine)

The University of Michigan, like ... I do believe most ... state schools, does in fact still practice affirmative action. It simply does it in a means more narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of cultural diversity.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: belverron The University of Michigan, like ... I do believe most ... state schools, does in fact still practice affirmative action. It simply does it in a means more narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of cultural diversity.

I agree that they might practice some kind of flexible AA according to their own literature and the decision. What the Court eliminated in Gratz was their point system that gave specific and concrete advantages to minorities.

I should have been more specific in my first reply - This particular admissions decision was not the result of a numerical quota system, but a system of considering many factors, of which race is likely one, but GPA, activities, SAT's, and other factors are also considered.

While I am still uncomfortable with race signifying anything in particular in relation to college admissions other than making a campus "look" a certain way (more a public relations/PC consideration than an academic one), I am more comfortable with this "Grutter" style system than the one overturned in Gratz (and Bakke, etc).
I support Thomas' dissent in Grutter when he says that the only thing gained by placing race as a factor is "asethetics", in other words, how a person looks is not necessarily a factor in their culture.
(which, I have to add, puts my opinion not only in a Supreme Court minority, but a super-minority of students' opinions at my liberal, NY public law school - to hear the grumbling when I espoused this position in class)

[Zhavric]

Sorry, but I have to post this. I'm sure it has something to do with what they put int he water here in Columbus:

[belverron]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I agree that they might practice some kind of flexible AA according to their own literature and the decision. What the Court eliminated in Gratz was their point system that gave specific and concrete advantages to minorities. I should have been more specific in my first reply - This particular admissions decision was not the result of a numerical quota system, but a system of considering many factors, of which race is likely one, but GPA, activities, SAT's, and other factors are also considered.

So, you're saying that you were completely off-base in your assertion, Mr. I'm-going-to-pull-out-a-Supreme-Court-case-on-your-ass. Smarter, indeed.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: kubedawg It all depends on the will to be at college. It has nothing to do with race..... Anyone can go to college, to the best in the world. They just have to apply themselves better. The people who try to play the system regardless of race/religion/political status, will not only regret that in their later lives but also struggle either mentally or phsycologically. And a gpa doesn't mean shit. It means you are competent enough to read/write, and comprehend sentences/simple equations. Standardized tests are complete bullshit as a hands on environment will succeed in most cases. There is more than one underlying issue here and I can garuntee the main issue is not racial.

Then care to elaborate to give some credential to your point?

And what would you replace standardized tests with? How will colleges know whom to choose?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Acceptance to university has numerous other factors which go with it. Nearly all universities require an interview and if you can impress in an interview you can swing the chanses of getting in over other, perhaps more qualified candidates. You also don't just apply to a university you apply to a department. For example some departments require better grades than others. The departments can also be full, so no matter how good you are, if you don't get in early enough you get rejected. These were two common examples of rejection I remember from when people were applying to uni when I was in sixth form. There are lots of reasons that this person could have been rejected while the other person was not.

They were both applying into the business department and no interviews were involved.

But really, Chris, a full ride?!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: belverron The University of Michigan, like ... I do believe most ... state schools, does in fact still practice affirmative action. It simply does it in a means more narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of cultural diversity.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I can't believe they value diversity over competence and all other educational attributes from what I've seen.

[belverron]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I can't believe they value diversity over competence and all other educational attributes from what I've seen.

I tend to agree.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Quote by: kubedawg It all depends on the will to be at college. It has nothing to do with race..... Anyone can go to college, to the best in the world. They just have to apply themselves better. The people who try to play the system regardless of race/religion/political status, will not only regret that in their later lives but also struggle either mentally or phsycologically. And a gpa doesn't mean shit. It means you are competent enough to read/write, and comprehend sentences/simple equations. Standardized tests are complete bullshit as a hands on environment will succeed in most cases. There is more than one underlying issue here and I can garuntee the main issue is not racial. Then care to elaborate to give some credential to your point? And what would you replace standardized tests with? How will colleges know whom to choose?

For instance, showing what the person is capable of. Just because one passes a test doesn't mean they know what they are doing, and quite the opposite, just because someone fails the test, doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing.

You could guess on the whole test and get a passing grade. And lots of people are bad test takers. This does not mean they won't succeed in that subject, it just means they can't sit through a whole test and be able to concentrate and focus, even if they slept well the previous night and had a good breakfast... Standardized tests are in the past. An example. I'm taking Web Site Design at a vocational school, and my grade isn't(for the most part) based on written or verbal tests. My grade is based on how well I can create a web site, with the current standards as well as adding my own unique feel to the site, while still attracting the audience of the site. Reading about these things is very important, but to be tested, which would be more successful?

Taking a written test on what I've read in a book?
or
Creating a web site based on what I've read in the same book?

I'd certainly choose the latter, and that's the way most businesses look at it as well.

And regarding my first statement, you can't just go around waiting for an opportunity to arise, you must create the opportunity yourself to really succeed in this life. Yes, some people will get that opportunity, but this is one case. People work hard to achieve greatness. And if the white guy really wanted to get into that college, he could have tried harder. But, he accepted failure, and is probably going toa school that's almost just as good. Oh well, survival of the fittest.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: kubedawg For instance, showing what the person is capable of. Just because one passes a test doesn't mean they know what they are doing, and quite the opposite, just because someone fails the test, doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing.

But in many subjects, it is a very good indicator.

You could guess on the whole test and get a passing grade.

Statistically speaking, this is highly unlikely. Truly randomized guessing will not result in a passing grade. Most students pick up SOMETHING from a class and therefore are not randomly guessing, so their passing or failing is based on their learning in class and is again, a good indicator.

And lots of people are bad test takers. This does not mean they won't succeed in that subject, it just means they can't sit through a whole test and be able to concentrate and focus, even if they slept well the previous night and had a good breakfast...

Thank you for pointing out that tests have a broad-reaching implication beyond the answers. Being a "bad test taker" is just an excuse for having other problems outside of the test - inability to concentrate and focus is one you pointed out. Others are various forms of ADD, poor ability to manage stress, etc. Poor test scores are a symptom of other, larger problems that testing helps expose, preventing schools from granting entry to people who cannot handle certain aspects of their program.

An example. I'm taking Web Site Design at a vocational school, and my grade isn't(for the most part) based on written or verbal tests. My grade is based on how well I can create a web site, with the current standards as well as adding my own unique feel to the site, while still attracting the audience of the site. Reading about these things is very important, but to be tested, which would be more successful? Taking a written test on what I've read in a book? or Creating a web site based on what I've read in the same book? I'd certainly choose the latter, and that's the way most businesses look at it as well.

Most business might look at it that way for that subject, but most people don't take those subjects as a core class in high school. We're talking about college admissions.
Furthermore, your approach falls flat in many subject areas. Just because in your one vocational class written tests are not a good indicator of performance does not invalidate the hundreds of subject areas where written tests are an excellent indicator of performance.

By the way, look at your school's catalog. Vocational schools are made up nearly exclusively of hands-on subject areas that are a poor fit with written tests. That is the DEFINITION of a vocational school.

And if the white guy really wanted to get into that college, he could have tried harder. But, he accepted failure, and is probably going toa school that's almost just as good. Oh well, survival of the fittest.

But it's not survival of the fittest (or "social statics" as it is called in this application). Survival of the fittest would be to come up with a mathematical formula that resulted in a single "rank" based on a combination of whatever academic factors are important in that department without regard to "soft" factors such as race, and admit the top "ranked" persons without regard to race, sex, etc.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: kubedawg For instance, showing what the person is capable of. Just because one passes a test doesn't mean they know what they are doing, and quite the opposite, just because someone fails the test, doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. You could guess on the whole test and get a passing grade. And lots of people are bad test takers. This does not mean they won't succeed in that subject, it just means they can't sit through a whole test and be able to concentrate and focus, even if they slept well the previous night and had a good breakfast... Standardized tests are in the past. An example. I'm taking Web Site Design at a vocational school, and my grade isn't(for the most part) based on written or verbal tests. My grade is based on how well I can create a web site, with the current standards as well as adding my own unique feel to the site, while still attracting the audience of the site. Reading about these things is very important, but to be tested, which would be more successful? Taking a written test on what I've read in a book? or Creating a web site based on what I've read in the same book? I'd certainly choose the latter, and that's the way most businesses look at it as well. And regarding my first statement, you can't just go around waiting for an opportunity to arise, you must create the opportunity yourself to really succeed in this life. Yes, some people will get that opportunity, but this is one case. People work hard to achieve greatness. And if the white guy really wanted to get into that college, he could have tried harder. But, he accepted failure, and is probably going toa school that's almost just as good. Oh well, survival of the fittest.

For one, I agree with your points against standardized tests. I have a great GPA but I'm a bad test taker as well. But the part that you never answered was what do we replace reading, math, social studies, science, and english tests with that meet good requirements?

Second, the white guy did try hard. How can you say he didn't try hard when he was the captain of two sports and had a great GPA? He was even a good test taker. What did he not try hard at? Accepted failure? So he should have petitioned them or something? And what did my black friend do that was so much better? Even he thinks he got in over my other friend because of affirmative action.

[xyzer]

It simply does it in a means more narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of cultural diversity.

I'm puzzled by this term compelling state interest of cultural diversity? What do those words really mean? Are there several subcultures in the USA that differ enough that the rest of the population needs to be made aware of them in the education process? I think not! I think that this nonsensical, illogical, term is a cover up for retaining the roots of affirmative action based on skin color or ethnicity. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me...how does having a negro or mexican indian sitting in ones math class instill cultural diversity in the math mix? If they are americans what do they have to offer that's culturally diverse? The argument is illogical and I'm suprised academe tries to provide such a transparent excuse for having its selfish way about retaining affirmative action.
We have long absorbed many cultures in this society and in the process the main aspects of those societies have been absorbed into a single culture..assimilated along with those populations.

The descendents of the black slave populations have lived in this culture for upwards of 250 years. Why do we now claim they have a different cultural base? Why do those we call the educational elites claim any native american should have preference based on a non existant cultural difference?