Using the University of Michigan undergraduate point evaluation system as an example, minority students get an automatic 20 points out of a possible 150 total when being considered for admission to that university. Should those who are beneficiaries of affirmative action getting into a university also get a bonus on their grades in their individual classes once in that university?
The same values used for admission (20 out of 150) would be like adding over 13% to their scores, so let’s say an affirmative action student had a numerical class score of an 81 (B grade) out of 100 for all tests, homework assignments, group projects, papers, etc. But, before the final class grade is determined, the professor would add on 13 points and give the student a 94 or an “A” for the class.
If the concept of adding points for being a minority is used for admission to the university then shouldn’t it be used for grading as well?
Description of Michigan’s Policy from Newsweek:
(as a sidebar - I haven’t seen this particular question asked or discussed recently and searching didn’t pull up anything similar. If it has been discussed to death already then I’m sorry for bringing it up again.)
The admission points are (supposedly) given to even the playing field to those who are considered at a disadvantaged in getting into college because of past instutionalized racism.
But if that institution racism is in the past, why should certain minorities receive a benefit in the present?
There are two possible cases:
Racism is rampant in higher education. The admissions boards are composed of highly racist individuals, so affirmative action must exist, otherwise minorities would rarely if ever be accepted. Since this racism is so rampant, it follows that professors are also racist, or there is a huge cultural bias in the material taught, so the minority students, who were only accepted because of affirmative action, should recieve some sort of compensating benefit.
Racism is not rampant in higher education. While racism exist, it is limited to ignorant individuals and extremist fringe groups. The admissions boards fairly evaluate students based on grades, test scores, recommendations, and personal essays, so there is no need for affirmative action or compensating grades for minority students.
When one considers the fact that certain minorities, particularily asians, suffer because of affirmative action, the former case seems highly unlikely.
Personally, I feel affirmative action does more harm than good. If a student is only admitted because of their race, what will happen? Either academic standards must be lowered so that student can compete with the students who meet the admissions standards, or that student will not succeed, and possibly drop out and suffer self-esteem problems.
That was what the supposedly was for. There are a bunch of threads about AA where the posters there are debating whether AA is a good idea or not. The question I was answering here is whether AA students should get extra points in class.
I think this is historically true, but by now, ISTM that racial diversity is a goal in itself. That’s true for big corporations as well as universities. It makes sense, since lack of racial diversity is apt to be punished in various ways.
Whatever the value of racial diversity is, note that the less qualified minority students are being admitted to UM not for their own sake, but for the sake of a more diverse campus, which presumably serves everyone. Admission to UM may not serve them personally. I believe it tends to hurt them.
Those students who were accepted only because of bonus points have to cope with a university where they have realtively weak backgrounds. That’s a real problem for them and for the school. To some degree, the backgrounds can be made up by remedial courses. But, that’s often not enough.
Adding points to minorities’ scores would be an insult and would never fly. That would insinuate that minorities are not as smart or capable of performing well in classes as other (white) students.
I don’t think that tjblack’s extremes (racism is rampant in higher education OR racism is limited to ignorant fools) are the only scenarios. The fact is that racism, while not necessarily rampant amongst admissions boards, does exist, and affirmative action is designed to help counteract that fact.
My impression was that most admissions boards would, if anything, bend over backwards to recruit minority candidates. You say that non-rampant racism among admissions boards is a “fact.” What’s your evidence?
Avery: "Adding points to minorities’ scores would be an insult and would never fly. That would insinuate that minorities are not as smart or capable of performing well in classes as other (white) students. "
So how is giving them extra “points” for admission not the same insult and implication? I think H8_2_W8 has exposed a clear dilemma here. OF COURSE you wouldn’t give these students extra points in class. It’s ab initio ridiculous… But I think only because we haven’t been acclimated to it for 25 years. Awarding excess admissions points is NO DIFFERENT, so why don’t we find it just as absurd?
I oppose Affirmative Action in principle but I don’t necessarily buy into this statement. For the U-M case, it is possible that the competition is so fierce that many qualified applicants of all races are turned away. It may be true that minority candidates less than 20 points above the cutoff score will not be as highly qualified as most of their classmates, but they may well be fully qualified for the program to which they were admitted. Being at the low end of the admitted point scale does not necessarily mean that you need remedial education.
I didn’t say that. The only “fact” I stated was that certain minorities, especially asians, suffer due to affirmative action. Therefore, affirmative action does not exist to “level the playing field” due to the highly racist atmosphere of university campuses.
But, since I don’t have any citations or statistics to quote, I will retract that statement as a “fact,” and instead call it a general observation that is highly likely but as yet unproven.
I think DrLizardo hit upon the basic point I was trying to make. If it’s okay to give certain minorities an advantage on admissions, doesn’t it follow logically that they should be given an advantage on grades?
If you don’t think they should get the latter advantage, how can you defend the former?
If this is your definition of “racism” on admissions boards, then they are also sexist, classist, nationalist, and whatever word you can come up with for “statist.” And I’m okay with all those attributes given how admissions works, although I find the words somewhat pejorative.
And yes, for the record, U-M turns away many well-qualified students. We don’t have as many spaces as there are good students who apply.
Because the former is just giving someone the chance to play the game, while the latter would be a patronizing attempt to “let” them win regardless of their actual abilities.
Actually, the lawsuit that propagated the whole UM debate was over Law School admissions. So where does the “game” end and begin? Shouldn’t we give minorities a “grade boost” in undergrad so they can “get into the game” for grad school…
But wait, when you leave grad school your job prospects (particularly vis a vis law school) are extremely dependent on your placement in the class, so shouldn’t we give grade inflation to minorities in Law School to ensure they’ll be “in the game” when it comes time to get a job?
Oh, but wait, high school is a key to getting into college in the first place. Grade school is a key to getting into high school. And let’s not even get into the “game” of the workplace…
There is NO WAY you can make any of these programs make sense. They ARE discrimination pure and simple. Simply because you feel it’s okay to discriminate in favor of one group versus another does not make it anything different.
The arguments about “fairness” and “a shot at playing the game” are nonsensical. You might as well just grant an automatic six-figure income to these people and leave it at that. Because, in the end, it’s not about a fair shot at playing the game, it’s about anything not involving guaranteed victory in the game being slapped with the label of “unfair” or “racist.”
If that were true then the current practice of not granting minority students a bonus on their grades would be considered unfair and racist because it’s not a “guaranteed victory”, and it is not. I’ve never heard anyone other than the OP even describe such a system of intentionally boosting grades based on race alone, and I don’t think s/he is actually suggesting it be adopted.