Bush says Michigan State shouldn't accept Blacks over Whites anymore.

Great Debates
81

december, there is no “coding” in my responses. I simply note that race gets significantly more attention than the other factors that go into college admissions.

For example, the same students who were denied admission at U-M would surely have better chances getting in if, instead of abolishing its program of awarding points to underrepresented minorities, they stopped giving so many places to out-of-state students. Nonresident students take up many, MANY more spaces in the class than do underrepresented minorities.

I am not using some elaborate sneaky code for saying they are “racist.” I am just noting that race is a more sensitive issue.

Is that clear?

I know I don’t post in GD much, but I can guarantee you I tend to say what I mean and mean what I say. No one needs to bring interpretation to my posts.

82

I agree with Apos re the Yale legacies. 1) I have no doubt that Yale graduates value their childrens’ educations more than the average member of the general public, and therefore are more likely to drive their children to get good grades; 2) Yale graduates per se know what it takes to get into Yale and therefore are likely to be able to help their children to do the same things they did to get into Yale; 3) If the Yale system is at all like the Michigan one, the number of ‘points’ added is small in the overall total, indicating that it is only at the margin that the legacy status comes into play. Giving a bump to a legacy on the border helps the school by maintaining a strong base of loyal alums who give money to the school, without whom the school would have to charge much higher tuition and/or reduce scholarships and financial aid. 4) Anti-discrimination laws deal with race, gender, religion, age etc, not legacy status. Even if the school was discriminatory in the past, that does not mean that a particular person would not or would have been admitted in the absence of that discrimination, and therefore it is difficult, at least in my mind, to see the entire legacy system as being race tainted.

Having said all that, it wouldn’t bother me to see the legacy drop out of the point system, though I think it could be seen as a compelling state interest to maintain that loyal alumin base.

83

Apos: as JM points out, you haven’t demonstrated that those legacy applicants wouldn’t have gotten in but for their legacy connection. While some surely do, I suspect most legacy applicants are competitive on their own. That certainly shows up in the numbers at Michigan – legacies are given a relatively small point bump, while minorities get a huge kicker.

Plus, a small quantity of otherwise-unqualified legacy admissions might be justifiable on fundraising grounds. Say you’re Yale and you’re looking to field the most competitive mix of students. Among the applicants is C. Montgomery Burns’ long lost son, and he’s dumb as a post. But Mr. Burns offers to buy a new science building, complete with state of the art labs, observatory, the whole nine yards, if you admit junior. Now, junior’s admission definitely waters down the quality of the student body, but only by a very small amount. And the new building might substantially improve the education of every other student (and future students as well). So what do you do? In this extreme case, you probably admit. Obviously, you can’t do it too much or you weaken the student body too much. But in small doses, it might be beneficial.

84

Yes, and those are the people that are the supporters of affirmative action. Leftists are the real racists in this country now.

85

Er, that would be John and now Dewey with whom I agree, sorry Apos

must. get. coffee.

86

Beef:

I’m glad you brought that up about “reverse discrimination”. I’ve never understood why people use that term. I, too, take it as some how implying that it is “natural” for whites to discriminate, but not “natural” for whites to be discriminated against. Funny how terms like that creep into our lexicon.

I’m not a huge fan of the SAT, but those who are blasting it as a “one shot deal”, “arbitrary”, etc. forget that many students take the SAT 2 or 3 times. If you’re a hard working person thinking about college, take the SAT as a junior, get an idea of what it’s all about, and then take it again as a senior (and again if you have to). You can bitch and moan all you want about it, but the fact is the SAT is used as an indicator of success. No, it’s not perfect, but you can’t tell me it’s “arbitrary”. And guess what-- when you get out in the real working world, you’re going to find there are a lot more “arbitrary” markers of success than the SAT.

87

by BURNER

There’s much to be said for well-roundedness. I’ve known many people who do nothing but go home after school and study. Sure, they get all A’s, but they also miss out on learning how to interact with other people, doing community service, developing leadership skills, picking up valuble work experience, and asserting themselves in non-academic pursuits like music and art. It takes more than getting good grades and SAT scores to succeed in life; colleges should look for those things and select for them.

Not necessarily. If the person with the high GPA did nothing in school but work for good grades, then that doesn’t really indicate that they are very well-rounded or have much to contribute to a college community. All that it suggest is that they have no life outside of their books. That isn’t impressive.

Neither are grades or SAT scores. That’s why you can’t just go off one criteria, but consider several.

Not really. The rich tend to do better on that test than the poor. Does this mean the rich inherently are smarter? Or does it mean that A) the rich have better access to expensive SAT prep courses such as Kaplan and Princeton review and B) have better schools to begin with?

But some people’s chances are more equal than other’s.

88

I think the whole “extra curricular” thing clouds the issue. Comparing extra points on admission for football or work to extra points for skin color is, franky, ridiculous. No matter what you think about football, at least the guy DID something. I know that in hiring college grads, I surely look at outside activities in addition to grades.

I think a better use of money to address the whole “people left behind” deal is to target schools in poor and/or poor performing areas, and put counceling and tutoring programs in place. The former to identify qualified individuals who are willing to put in some extra work, and the latter to something about it. This is what I call “leveling the playing field”. AA supporters of programs like the one at U of M don’t what a level playing field, they want to move the starting line. There’s a BIG difference.

89

Plus, you need to remember that at schools like U of M (speaking as a proud alum of the law school) we’re not talking about admitting dumb as a post black guy over smart as a whip white guy. We’re talking about differentiating at the far end of the bell curve. I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday who absolutely got in to U-M law school in part due to AA. He’s a white guy from the sticks- first generation college student, and from an underrepresented geographic area. Since clearly grades are not uniform- one school’s A does not equal another’s, and clearly there are some cultural biases in the LSAT, I think that increasing the diversity of the student body is a good thing.

As an aside, it strains the bounds of credulity for this particular president to come out against AA. Further can only be expressed by me in the Pit.

90

Blanx:

Can you define what you mean by diversity? Suppose you see to groups of guys. One group has 5 guys who appear to be white and the other has 3 guys that appear white and 2 that appear black. Which group is more diverse?

91

Blanx I am not following you here, how did your friend benefit from AA? Are you saying he got in because he was from a rural area? I don’t think anyone here would have a problem with that, (see discussion on page one of the proper consideration of socio-economic background). The problem I, and many others, have is with using race per se as a factor in admissions.

92

Look- I’m not crazy about race per se as a factor for admissions- I acknowledge that what it tends to do is benefit the wealthy minorities, and not have much impact on any of the real inequity out there in this country. However, I still think that at this point in time race per se is not inappropriate as something to consider.

Here’s why- I’m a white guy. Brown hair, blue eyes.

When I go out looking for jobs in the legal world, there is kind of a built-in safety net for me. Most of the hiring partners look like me. (certainly more than the general population should reflect).

Because I come from a white middle-class upbringing, I’ve got a better chance of having family/friend connections in these jobs than someone from an urban/ lower socieoeconomic class background.

Yet, most of your professional connections come from your school. A lot of doors open for me because it sez U-M law on my degree. I got in because of test scores, and grades. (plus, my good looks and charm didn’t hurt).

In an ideal world there’d be no need for the artificial race-based bump. This is not that world. It’s easier for me professionally, in part because of where I went to school, and in part because I’m white. We can only remedy one of those things.

I believe that at this point, the State of Michigan, and by extension the law school has an obligation to give a hand up to minority students so that they can build a professional network. I have no interest in this program continuing forever. If it were up to me, we’d spend the money to fix the schools in the inner cities and in poorer areas. That money isn’t forthcoming, so this is a band-aid.

YMMV.

remember- we’re talking about the extreme end of the bell curve either way. If I remember correctly, the plaintiff in this particular suit against the law school didn’t have the greatest numbers in the world, and probably would not have gotten in anyway.

blanx

93

Blanx:

Sounds like we’re not really that far apart on this. I’m still a bit confused, though, on your bell curve comment. If you knowt he avg pts and std dev of students accepted, then you can compare the 20 pts minorities get and then talk about the bell curve. From what I hear, students who have 100 pts are generally accepted. I’d guess, don’t have data, that the std dev is > 20%, so we’re talking about a pretty big shift here, not working at the 3 sigma pts. Having said that, I hate the whole numbers argument on this. I’d be just as much against it if it were 1 pt we were talking about as I am for 20 pts.

94

Oops. I meant to write std dev is ~ 20%, not > 20%. Sorry.

95

I thought that going to college was to get an education. What does being “well rounded” have to do with learning facts and figures? That would be like telling an employer that they should hire me because I like to knit and not take into consideration whether or not I can actualy do the job at hand.

96

BURNER:

You’re supposed to go to college to learn. You learn from your professors and you learn from your peers. How will you learn from your peers if all they can do is recite back what they’ve been taught, with nothing of their own to contribute because they lack depth and experience?

There’s a lot more to college than classes, and there’s a lot more to life than just math and english lit. If you can’t function in the world because all you know how to do is get a good grade, and you come out of school not knowing how to work well with other people or lead groups or pick your head out of book for more than a few hours so you can appreciate the larger issues facing the planet or even just to have fun…then how much do you really know?

97

I apologize for assuming something you didn’t mean, Cranky.

98

BURNER

Are you in college right now? Out of College? If the former I understand why you ask this question. I happen to teach at a college - not a professor though - and there are many things that go into the admissions process. And I will say valedictorian’s do not necessarily go to the school of their choice. Well rounded people are accepted for things like future ambition, drive, and ability to tactfully express themselves. Colleges and Universities vary with their enrollment criteria but grades alone will most likely not get you in.
It is unfortunate for the Michigan woman who did not get into law school because of her race, becase that is essentially what happened. However, she was a resident of Ann Arbor ‘I think’. Most people who get this kind of rejection can go to another school just as esteemed and apply and get in.
I am lucky to teach at a liberal arts college so our entrance criteria differ greatly than say a Notre Dame or Duke…

99

If The New York Times can be trusted , the Bush Administration’s position on this thing was a little more bold in the press release than in the brief actually submitted. Here is the news analysis piece in a free registration site:

Here is a brief excerpt from the story:

"So by the time his solicitor general, Theodore B. Olson, actually submitted the administration’s briefs late tonight as the clock approached a midnight filing deadline at the court, the briefs were a fading second-day story and there was hardly anyone still on duty — certainly not the television news anchors — to notice that the reality of its legal argument diverged substantially from the rhetoric of the president’s prime-time statement.
“True to his promise, the briefs did ask the court to declare unconstitutional the undergraduate and law school admissions programs in dispute. But it did so by means of a legal analysis that, far from insisting that any consideration of race was impermissible, did not even ask the justices to overturn the Bakke decision, the 1978 landmark ruling that by allowing race to be used as a “plus factor” ushered in a generation of affirmative action in public and private college admissions.”

The problem, of course is that the Michigan system was explicitly and pains takingly constructed to conform to the guidelines in the US Sup Ct’s badly split decision in the Bakke case. While I have not read the brief or even a synopsis of the brief, it appears that the D of J is arguing that Bakke is good law but that the Michigan system doesn’t pass the Bakke test.

This is starting to smell like posturing for the peanut gallery.

100

Yes, but I think UM went way over the line.

Right, or at least the administration brief didn’t say that Bakke was bad law.

I agree. What I find surprising is that the posturing isn’t in the opposite direction. Why did Bush portray his position as harsher than it really is?