Forcing a university to have equally x number of students from each of the following: race, ethncity, religion, geographic location, ect. is not a good argument for affirmative action because it would cause you to think about a person of a certain religion, race, or ethnicity, NOT as an individual.
I disagree. I will first say that segregation of any kind, race, religion, geographic location ect is wrong. How do we bring about integration first in universities. Now there are a certain number of universities and there are a certain number of possible students for each university. Say that there are 4 million students and 250 universities. That means that there are about 16,000 students in each university. But here’s the question. How do we ensure that the student body of 16,000 is not predominately Christian, predominately white, predominately from the North, predominately of the same though, habits, background, ect, ect. In other words, how can we ensure that the university student body is completely diverse.
I believe that people will not, (or cannot) by themselves, go out and see the world. Only through education, can people widen their experience and understanding. I don’t believe that it’s “I know about Moslems because I have many Moslem friends” That was what was said in the debate against having diversity. Every individual is unique and I agree with that but I think that there is something to having people mixed and integrated.
We have stereotyping with segregation. Is it true that we will have no stereotypes with integration? Some say yes and others say no. I would like to start the arguement with that. I hope that this gives to a good debate. Sigh. Where to begin?
If you took all applications for all unversities and randomly admited all students, what would the universities look like. Why, only with randomness, would there be diversity?
To begin with, your OP was very difficult to decipher. We’d still have sterotypes with integration and that’s unlikely to change any time soon. You can integrate schools all you want but you can’t really control what people choose to do on their own time. I see other students segregating on their own based on race, ethnicity, and other factors quite often. In the United States this is typically thought of as black and white but there are also cliques that kids belong to and that factors into things.
Universities would look quite bare. Not everyone should be going to college and it seems silly to the extreme to even suggest random acceptance of applications.
It is extreme because I want to think of it hypothetically.
I just thought of an example. There is a big difference between “Hi my name is Mark” “My name is Ann” “Where are you from?” “Cleveland.” “Do you like any sports?”
and
“Hi my name is Mark” “My name is Ann” “Where are you from” “Cleveland” (thinking back on his last name) “Are you Muslim?”
You can’t always tell if someone is of a different ethnicity, from a different country, language, culture, ect. (I didn’t know she was Indian!)It shouldn’t have no determination on your possible friendship, relationship, ect. John Rawls veil of ignorance. There is a difference between learning someone is x a few months after becoming their friend and learning they are x upon first meeting them and subsequently becoming their friend. If you had preconcieved notions of x, it would get rid of those notions if the former event happened.
I can’t make much sense of your OP. I will just make some quick points. A random admission at colleges is still going to end up with a predominantly white, Christian population. That is what the majority of Americans are.
People self-segregate like crazy. Some do it by according to their choice of schools. There are many predominantly African-American colleges. Sure, they accept white students but they are still mostly black by choice on both sides. Even if there isn’t self-segregation by schools, it almost always occurs in the form of clubs, friends, lunch tables, etc.
Education doesn’t always get rid of prejudice. I grew up in a Southern town that was roughly 50/50 white and black. By your theory, there wouldn’t have been any racial issues although there were some on both sides (not quite like people assume either). Most people have been exposed to Muslims and Jews and everyone else. It is quite possible to develop a prejudice against a population after you have gotten to know its members.
I think what you are trying to do is homogenize all cultures. I am not sure that is a good idea or even if it can be done.
Not always, no, but manner of dress, speech, etc. can be pretty good clues and although I might not know the ethnicity of the other person I’d at least know enough to realize we’re different. Any way, people in the United States tend to get ethnicity and race confused. A white man from Germany is likely to case a different reaction in many people then the black woman from Ghana.
I’m not sure I really see a big difference. I can’t tell one west African accent from another but do you think it really makes a big difference in the end?
What about Harvard. 20,000 applications, 2,000 accepted, 1,600 enrolled.
My intuition is that the 8% enrolled would be predominately white, Christian, and from the Northeast. How to deturmine what the Harvard demographics would be if you didn’t factor race, sex, religion, geographic location, ect?
The point of the OP seems to be that by stipulating some additional criterion to be selected favourably, the entrance policy becomes less meritocratic.
This is undoubtedly true, but the question is why would a purely meritocratic scheme yield a vast enrolled majority of affluent whites?
The answer is that these additional criteria have forever been selected against and so, like an unstirred drink, what started out at the bottom largely stays that way, especially in America’s increasingly static society.
In a land of equal opportunity, Harvard’s demographics would be identical to those of the US as a whole. If something is preventing this from coming to pass, from residual prejudice to unequal quality of education from an early age, then drinks do not mix themselves.
Basically this sounds passible as an argument, but when you get down to it who are the people who always resent diversity? The priviliged classes of old. It’s not really concerns of fairness that drive the argument, but the feeling “I got mine. Now stop dealing cards. No need to more fair when I’m ahead.”
The mission statement of the 2-year community college comes closer to the ideal of encouraging student diversification than the typical 4-year institution. While that is commendable on behalf of the community college system, the education and potential for future career advancement is arguably inferior in some respects to that which the 4-year college offers. Therefore the community college should not be thought of as creating a level playing field with regard to higher education. It is, however, a step in the right direction.
I believe that the first step is to establish the qualifications that should serve as the prime criteria for gaining acceptance into an establishment of higher education. The next step is to accurately measure those qualifications.
In my opinion, the potential for integrating any given curriculum into a fully realized state of enlightenment and the willingness to work toward that goal are the most important factors in determining whether a potential student deserves acceptance into any given college. (eg. If someone has the potential to be a gifted marine biologist and he/she is willing to work hard to become one, they should be given the opportunity to do so). In a perfect world, there are other qualifications that should be factored into the admission-equation as well, but quantifying many of those qualifications is impossible. (e.g. A student who is more likely to put his education to use in a manner more helpful to society as a whole should be given a few more points than a student who is not, but measuring that potential would be impossible or at least prone to error). So, you have to cut to the chase and measure only the qualifications that are of prime importance. Even that is a difficult chore.
How do you accurately measure someone’s true potential and willingness to work? Our current standardized tests and grading system, is a step in the right direction, but quite flawed in many respects. The flaws become apparent when applied to students of diversified backgrounds. Factors such as age, disability, socio-economic status, cultural background etc. very often lead to students bringing different knowledge bases and abilities to the table at the beginning of their higher education journey, making measurements of potential and willingness to work exceedingly difficult…but not necessarily impossible.
I believe a true science (i.e. the science of student admissions) should be made of accurately measuring student potential. A great emphasis of that science would be to develop accurate and fair “fudge” factors. (e.g. a student from environment X is more likely to believe Y, or to have not been given the opportunity to learn Z , so we will add or subtract X number of points here or there). It would be an arduous task, of course, but most scientific endeavors are arduous. Ideally, the scientific admission committees that develop these tests would themselves be equally represented by each subset of society.
I believe that a scientific admission policy such as this would lead to a pool of higher education students that is comprised of the most deserving students. I also believe that the ratios of diversified students in this pool would accurately mirror to the ratios of diversified peoples in our society at large.
This still means that these students will begin their higher education journey with differing knowledge bases and abilities. This too may lead to injustice down the road based solely on environmental. Perhaps, more emphasis should be placed on leveling the playing field in the first year of college. Overcoming deficiencies and nurturing strengths should be the mission statement of educating in the first year of college. Then, in the beginning of the second year, we have the most deserving students with more or less equal knowledge bases and abilities embarking on their journey together.
Idealistic? Yes, but even though this model may be too complex and impractical to bloom to total fruition, it could be viewed as a beacon to head toward.
Continuing on this hypothetical idealized admissions theme: The scientific admission committee that applies the “fudge factors” to the potential matriculating student’s profile and test scores should be the only ones in the admission department who are actually cognizant of the age, sex, ethnic/racial/cultural status of the student and the environment from which he sprang. The interface between the student and those who decide on matriculation should be double-blind, lest even repressed and subtle bigotry rear its ugly head. A thought-to-be enlightened social-conservative may still have his compass slightly magnetized toward the non-disenfranchised and the thought-to-be enlightened social-liberal may have his compass slightly demagnetized away from the class of privilege. Likewise, the student may pander in certain ways during contact with the admissions department (i.e. interviews) if the background of the admissions officers is known to him. Ultimately, the decision to matriculate a student should be based on a sterile, asexual, non-denominational, non-cultural, colorless profile that has been drawn up by the scientific admissions committee and handed to an admissions officer…my second choice is, eenie-meenie-miney-mo.
Mr. Tibbs
In continuing this discusssion, I would like to point out that the univesities are one of the “last best” hopes for the world. It is not enough for the majority of the United States and moreover the world to go to a univesity, but for those who do, they should either be at a university that is considerably far from where the grew up or close to home but of a diverse student body.
Well, if the experience of Berkley is any indication, you’d get a preponderance of Asians. In the early part of the last century, when Harvard went to a test-based meritocratic admissions system, they got more Jews than they were comfortable with - which is why they started doing interviews and “social” admissions criteria. Source: the recent book on Harvard/Yale/Princeton admissions history.
Schools adjust admissions criteria to get the kind of student body they want. Harvard could find enough minorities to provide a representative mix, but they would have to go out and recruit, which is what affirmative action is all about, really. Even if they get people not at the top (and legacy applicants aren’t either) you could consider it developing a set of alumni who would make money, donate, and send better qualified students from the next generation to Harvard.
