<p>If we were really concerned about true diversity on college campuses we would ask students about their views on controversial issues and try to have those all reflected in the student body rather than race, parent's education or income.</p>
<p>Social mobility is, in large part, what makes the American economic system work so well. Education is more important than anything else I can think of in terms of preserving social mobility. This is why I support public education K-16 including 100% grants for need-based aid. As a symbol, at least, the most offense element of the higher education process is the legacy preference, but that is a separate debate.</p>
<p>I'm under the impression that being working-class and black has influenced my perspective of the world.</p>
<p>I'm not opposed to AA. I just realize, as does everyone else (except liberals) including the recipients, that it doesn't help the recipients as much as liberals think it does.</p>
<p>IMO
ITs not about "Helping" the recipients.
Its about the college campus more fully reflecting society- thereby enriching the education of every student- not just the ones who were given a "nod"</p>
<p>In all of my college and graduate school edcuation I can only think of a single instance in which my socio-economic background came up. I like to think my opinions are my own.</p>
<p>If we wanted college to reflect society we would recruit people of below average intelligence. We would have maximum quotas for over represented minorities. These institutions should be about intellectual excellence and intellectual diversity not racial, ethnic or economic diversity.</p>
<p>Institutions of higher learning should be about intellectual diversity which should most certainly entail ethnic and economic diversity.</p>
<p>I think I have used this analogy before-
colleges seem to be looking for students not just a "diverse" campus to put on brochures, but students who can make the most of their time there.</p>
<p>Two kids are in a 2000 meter bike race- one has a top bike- a gary Fisher- with brand new tires-the other has one that he found in the bushes, with a lopsided wheel.
They finish in a dead heat.
Is it immaterial that one had top resources to get to the finish line? ( college acceptances ;) ) You don't think that maybe given those same resources, the other rider wouldn't have pulled way ahead?</p>
<p>I don't think that colleges are about the highest test scores- whether that be IQ or SAT</p>
<p>Alchemy,</p>
<p>Intellectual diversity is what the words say. A persons ethnicity, race and socio-economic status do not define them intellectually. I hope you agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we were really concerned about true diversity on college campuses we would ask students about their views on controversial issues and try to have those all reflected in the student body rather than race, parent's education or income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You want to base college admissions on political views? </p>
<p>I dunno. That strikes me as a bit of a slippery slope.</p>
<p>I'm curious, emeraldkity, where do you stand on the legacy issue or have I asked you that before? I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up.</p>
<p>curious14,</p>
<p>Define intellectual diversity. I don't think race, socio-economic status or ethnicity define them but I do believe it influences it.</p>
<p>I think we are already on a pretty slippery slope.</p>
<p>Alchemy,</p>
<p>So do thousands of other things that don't show up in college admissions.</p>
<p>Interested Dad,</p>
<p>I'd be happy if we just focused on intellectual excellence and let the chips fall where they may on intellectual diversity. But, if its about diversity, shouldn't it be about intellectual diversity?</p>
<p>You've yet to define intellectual diversity. Give even a vague description, and I will try and prove that socio-economic factors do affect "intellectual diversity".</p>
<p>If it is diversity in political and religious ideologies(and it certain seems that way, since most proponents of "intellectual diversity" are Republicans, religious and conservative), then it is contingent upon reaching socio-economic and ethnic diversity. Maybe more so the former than the latter.</p>
<p>Something from <a href="http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/04/intellectual_di.html%5B/url%5D">http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/04/intellectual_di.html</a> I think the author has some good points....</p>
<p>Still, tempting as this tactic might seem, I think that conservatives have several good reasons to think twice before they commit.</p>
<p>(1) In most academic departments, most of the time, "intellectual diversity," understood as balance in political identification, is simply irrelevant. As Brian Leiter observes, "in the overwhelming majority of academic disciplines political identification barely matters, as compared to technical skill and ability. Consider: classics, philosophy, physical anthropology, chemistry, computer sciences, mathematics, archaeology, physics, astronomy, engineering, linguistics, biology, psychology, sociology, even (in large part) economics." While I would question at least four of the entries on Leiter's list, his basic point is right. Political identification simply doesn't (or shouldn't) matter in mathematics and the hard sciences (at least). Of course, neither does (nor should) sexual, racial or ethnic identity - but that's another story.</p>
<p>(2) In such departments and at such times as "intellectual diversity" is relevant, it is also relative to the eye of the beholder. In a discussion of political philosophy, for example, my idea of "diversity" might be to include a Christian natural law theorist, a secular traditionalist, a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, a Rawlsian liberal and a left communitarian. But to someone whose idea of "diversity" was a Leninist, a Trotskyite, a Maoist, a Frankfurt Schooler and a feminist psychoanalyst, my list would no doubt look impossibly narrow - and the feeling would be mutual. Moreover, neither of us might feel any need to include a fascist, a numerologist or an interspecific egalitarian simply to make things more "diverse." There are limits, after all. But what limits? Anyone familiar with the way philosophical arguments go will immediately recognize that there is no hope whatsoever of achieving any consensus at all on how to measure "intellectual diversity" or how to decide which forms of such "diversity" are within reasonable limits and which are not. It's irredeemably subjective. So it has to be left up to accepted judges. Traditionally, the accepted judges have been the members of self-governing academic departments. I see no way to change that tradition which does not represent an intolerable threat to academic freedom.</p>
<p>(3) Be all that as it may, "intellectual diversity" is simply the wrong label for what conservatives are really asking for here, which is a professoriat that, as Bill Clinton might say, "looks like America." And this is not a crazy demand. For better or worse, our universities and colleges, public and private alike, have become massively dependent on government funding - not only in the form of direct grants to state schools, but also through research subsidies, student financial aid, etc. The right never wanted this to happen. The left always did. The left won. Now they must face the consequences. How, after all, can people reasonably be expected to support, with their votes and their taxes, public institutions that do not serve them equally with others? The left has long appreciated the force of this point when it comes to women and African-Americans and Hispanics. It is time for them to start appreciating the force of the same point when it comes to conservatives.</p>
<p>(4) But measures like the "Academic Bill of Rights" [hereafter ABOR] are absolutely the wrong approach to take. I encourage everyone to read the full text of this document. Much as I sympathize with the sentiments it expresses, I see no way to enforce those sentiments in practice without subjecting academics to the rule of lawyers and judges. Brian Leiter, again, reports what seem like entirely legitimate concerns about academic freedom expressed by a philosophy professor and a graduate student faced with one attempt to convert the ABOR into legislation: Florida House of Representatives Bill HB 837, "Student and Faculty Academic Freedom in Postsecondary Education." But, on the other hand, if the sentiments expressed in the ABOR are not legally enforced, then what is the point?</p>
<p>No. A better approach would be to go after the public funding of higher education. Conservatives should respect the freedom of even the most extreme left-wing elements in academia to say and write what they wish, in class and out. They should support the right of academic departments to make their own personnel decisions based on their own criteria. But they should cordially decline to foot the bill. For they are under no obligation to subsidize institutions that promote the likes of Ward Churchill to positions of responsibility or to finance young people to study with such folk. It is bad enough to sell the other side the rope with which they intend to hang you. But it is even worse to pay for the rope yourself. So let them shuffle for themselves.</p>
<p>On the positive side, conservatives should do their own research, find out which institutions are the most receptive to their values and which the least, and channel their resources (and their children) accordingly. All colleges and universities are not created equal. Let the sheep be divided from the goats. And let the sheep be set on the right hand, but the goats on the left.</p>
<p>'m curious, emeraldkity, where do you stand on the legacy issue or have I asked you that before? I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up.</p>
<p>I believe in #13, I mentioned that I thought mentioning either legacy or first gen was relevant to the adcoms</p>
<p>Emeraldkity,</p>
<p>I reread that, but I can't figure out whether you personally support giving a preference for legacy status.</p>
<p>Alchemy, </p>
<p>OK, by intellectual diversity I mean diversity of opinion or diversity of approach to ideas like a scientific or a humanistic or a religious approach to knowledge. Of course ones background affects ones opionions in complex ways but all of ones background does not just ones race or ethnicity or socio-economic background. It's easy to fill a room with an ethnically, racially and economically mixed group of people and have no intellectual diversity present. Having these kind of diversity present is a very poor proxy for real intellectual diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OK, by intellectual diversity I mean diversity of opinion or diversity of approach to ideas like a scientific or a humanistic or a religious approach to knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that colleges should be forced to enroll creationists?</p>