<p>concoll,</p>
<p>really? come on bud, if we are going to argue on affirmative action grounds, let’s not play softball. </p>
<p>article 1) deals exclusively with law school admission, whose aff am practices are not the same as ugrad aff am practices. in a sense there ought to be more volatility in ugrad aff am because there is less to base a decision on when students apply. if we did a similar measure of who is most likely to drop out of ugrad school, yes those that fall under underrepresented groups would be most likely. as it even states the mismatch effect is a hypothesis for why students fail out and not a definitive conclusion. things such as stereotype threat may be far more pervasive in leading to lower numbers. to say that it hurts minorities is not a reasonable statement. rather the conditional is almost always used - it could or may hurt minorities and it is unclear if it does. this is, however, pop sociology. the generally held belief is that affirmative action is not only beneficial to the individuals and communities supported, but for society as a whole. though more of a primer, this from the APA is a good start. [Affirmative</a> Action: Who Benefits?](<a href=“http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html]Affirmative”>http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html)</p>
<p>article 2) again law school, and the same guy from the first article. i don’t think he is saying things that are terribly off, but again the mismatch effect has not been proven to be the true cause of students doing worse. he does however include mention that over the years Ivies and other top schools have worked to improve retention rates of underrepresented students. further for those of you who argue for socioeconomically based aff am as a “compromise” it should be noted that similar retention problems exist for all low-income populations regardless of race. race and income, however, compound the problem. i am not sure if retention should be the ultimate concern in admissions; getting students who can finish. you are essentially admitting rough stones and hoping they sharpen up. you don’t know what happens when a student finds alcohol for the first time, or when they face that first chemistry exam. i think most universities have realized that having sound advising and support systems reduce attrition and increase diversity across disciplines. </p>
<p>article 3) newsmax is well known for its conservative viewpoints, so let’s just be wary about it here. second, CATO foundation is well known for its anti-affam view points. third Thomas Sowell tries to make an anti-affam statement along the lines of stereotype threat as a reason why blacks should not be admitted, which is an absurd idea unto itself. and the ratchet effect itself means that the top minority applicants are being siphoned off, yes, this is a real effect that is well documented in higher ed circles; but ultimately that doesn’t mean that columbia’s minority population is any less prepared. it just suggests that perhaps the problem isn’t at the ivy league, but somewhere else.</p>
<p>a study once mentioned on here from princeton argues that ending aff am would devastate minority populations. but help east and south asian populations. certainly this is where the politics becomes difficult. i think that concoll and others who feel that the bar is raised for them certainly have concerns. the counter argument is that ‘overrepresented’ groups, however talented, may not offer something new and unique - that at a certain point it no longer behooves a university to select a student who will succeed over someone who may take full advantage of the opportunity.</p>
<p>but i think an important idea is this quote from the APA report.</p>
<p>"Critics of affirmative action usually believe that people should be selected for positions based on merit alone.</p>
<p>The reality is that most, if not all, hiring decisions involve some sort of unspoken preferential treatment. Sometimes the decision is based on a personal connection or relationship; sometimes it is based on likability or comfort level (Wilson, 1995). In fact, the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) confirmed that white men tend to be more comfortable with, and therefore more likely to hire and promote, other white men, thus revealing the prevalence of racial- and gender-based preferential treatment."</p>
<p>and also:</p>
<p>"Many people argue that affirmative action has caused reverse discrimination against Whites.</p>
<p>However, a 1995 analysis by the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims by Whites. In fact, a high proportion of such claims filed were found to lack merit. The analysis found that fewer than 100 out of 3,000 discrimination cases filed actually involved reverse discrimination, and in only six cases were such claims substantiated (Wilson, 1995)."</p>
<p>In the end aff/am policies are imperfect. I think though to say they do not help minority individuals is a complete fallacy. It is hunting for a rationale by looking at data. To think concretely on the subject: underrepresented students of color from varying economic standards may indeed perform poorly on standardized testing, but it is not to say that their promise is any less than a student who does better.</p>
<p>we could extrapolate that to athletes as well. being a student athlete is not solely about the activity, but it is in many ways an incredible opportunity to gain an education and have a very open future. without either population, well, we would have a thousand CalTechs. if you find this compelling? well there is a school out there for you. but in the end universities need to have a variety of perspectives to add difference and conflict to the school. there need to be b and c students as well, there need to be students who completely change in college, and there need to be room for students to find themselves. there is nothing interesting about finding cookie cutters. in the 1970s baseball tried building cookie cutter ballparks and they turned into the ugliest things that man had ever created. uniqueness, difference and complexity are values that universities like people all appreciate.</p>