I’m not so sure Hillsdale is the model we’re looking for here. Larry Arnn is the president of Hillsdale College.
http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/07/common_core_hearing_sidetracke.html
I’m not looking for it at all, I’m largely good with the protests we’ve been discussing, with the exception of what may have happened at Dartmouth with some of the protesters. But a fairly common post in the various threads on these has been “well I’m crossing this school off my kid’s list now”.
My question is really…what schools are staying on the list for those who see “demands” and this level of protest, or the subject of the protest (building names, etc) as problematic, and what are they specifically doing that is making them stay on “the list”?
I think I am OK with this. But I heeard of this before: Not all low-income kids are equal in term of their academic capabilities. Even if we give kids from the families with the same low-income with the equal break, it is likely that some ethnic groups could still be behind sone other ethnic groups, after the family income factor is controlled. When/If this happen, do you think those who are still “behind” will complain again?
“Are you ok with that, no matter what the resulting racial mix ends up being?”
I’m not. High SES black kids are still black, they still face racist assumptions about their abilities throughout their educations, and they still have important perspectives to offer any community that purports to produce educated Americans. (All of this is true of American Indians as well, though fewer of them are high SES.) Switching to SES-only affirmative action produces a lot less racial diversity in a student body. We need all of these strategies to create academic communities that purport to produce educated Americans.
They will face a lot of assumptions about their abilities if they admitted to an explicit quota.
“At my alma mater, there is a Ford Center for engineering students. It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that Jewish students haven’t protested that the Ford name be taken off because Henry Ford was anti-Semitic?”
why stop at that take his name off the company—recall all ford vehicles ever made and rip the name off every part of the vehicles.(for those lacking the ability to understand sarcasm…that was sarcasm)
Like taking Washington off the dollar bill because he owned slaves. This is a fool’s errand, and a distraction from actual racist acts by people alive today.
341 "My question is really...what schools are staying on the list for those who see "demands" and this level of protest, or the subject of the protest (building names, etc) as problematic, and what are they specifically doing that is making them stay on "the list"?"
Technical schools have, so far, avoided the SJW morass. So, if a kid plans to study math, science, or engineering, then universities that are specifically technical (Caltech, MIT, RPI, WPI, CMU, …) are probably better choices right now than are Ivies and LACs that have decent STEM programs. That is, I believe that there is a higher probability that the SJW conflicts will emerge at LACs and Ivies than at these technical schools.
No kidding. Many Black students already struggle with the academic rigor. For example, for Tufts as a whole, only 8% of students fail to graduate in 6 years. But for Blacks, it is double that:
http://provost.tufts.edu/institutionalresearch/tuci/student-outcomes/graduation-rates/
And this is with black students making up about 4% of Tufts students, meaning Tufts still largely emphasizing academic readiness as opposed to filling a quota. If you have every selective university admit black students at the percentage of the population, the failure to graduate rate will explode nationwide.
How is this good for anyone?
They couldn’t possibly mean that. Maybe they’re just suggesting spending a larger portion of the endowment on them, much like other CC posters have advocated.
Spending a larger portion of the endowment to subsidize many students is only possible for a handful of universities. All of the HYPSMs could right now, and perhaps a few LACs (e.g. Amherst, Swarthmore). Outside of that, it quickly becomes infeasible.
People often forget that when it comes to the premier institutions, the real cost is higher than the tuition (star professors are paid well), and the endowment is already financing part of a student’s cost.
Adding an entire new set of fully subsidized students is only possible for these institutions as long as market returns remain favorable, which is not how endowment spending should be planned.
What you imply here seems to be that in general the kids who are into STEM are less inclined to become “social activists” on campus who are enthusiastic about these “big” problems.
If this is what you meant to say, I do not feel very comfortable about this: STEM kids shall be neither higher or lower in their “status” on campus in the ideal world.
There is actually a joke that goes like this: The first generation of immigrants major in engineering. The second generation major in science. Then, social science. Then humanity majors. And then some art majors.
With this said, what we really do not want to see is what an intern from a certain (more religious) college somewhere in the US told me at one time: If a dude is in some certain major, almost no girl wants to date him because of the real or perceived lack of promising career prospect. (In my opinion, the sizes of many such majors should be reduced significantly and these majors should only attract the most capable students, instead of becoming the default “safe space” of many students of no or low ambitions and/or capabilities.
But if a student is from an “elite” family, the major does not matter. He or she only needs to graduate from any major (even as a “gentleman C”) and could still do very well after graduation.
Tech schools haven’t just avoided this by some kind of luck or other focus. Mudd, for example, has an Office of Institutional Diversity within their Division of Student Affairs. They have two assistant deans of student diversity for a school of ~800 students. As discussed in the Yale thread, a flyer was sent to students in early October this year with suggestions for how to evaluate how others might perceive and be impacted by Halloween costume choices. They are proactive.
I think the reason that the technical universities don’t have as much of a race problem is that their admissions policy is much more merit based than the Ivies and LACs. CalTech is still race-blind I believe. MIT doesn’t give legacies any benefit in the admissions process.
In other words, if you are admitted to CalTech or MIT, you are there because you can handle the work, not because of the color of your skin or because your mom or dad attended. You know it, and all your peers know it. Why would there be a race problem?
Re #351
No, I believe that STEM kids can be very socially aware and want to make the world a better place. I believe that they are also generally respectful of authority, are analytical and will listen to all sides in a debate, and are more inclined to accept compromise, rather than to make demands. Maybe it’s a left-brain, right-brain thing.
I could be wrong, but these perceptions conform with my life-long experiences with scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
^ I guess it helps the college like Mudd (especially in certain majors) because it gives their students maybe twice as heavy work loads as students at some other college/majors might have. The professors in the STEM majors also tend to not give any students any break if the students are actively involved with something not related to their courses, no matter what.
Out of my curiosity: What are the majors of these students who take over the President’s office? I had the impression that some tough science majors at Princeton are pretty demanding if the students want to secure mostly As. How many of such activist students are in such a major and still excel on it?
^ Yes, and at the toughest STEM schools (I’m sorry @intparent that I left out HMC, which clearly belongs in the list) there is a sense of “we’re all in this together.” So, these schools have a strong community and more cooperation, rather than an “us vs them” mentality.
I think there are schools a) with a less problematic legacy with which to contend and b) that have been having these conversations all along.
This doesn’t make these schools somehow more virtuous or mean they’re immune to racism, but I do think it helps to diffuse the kind of racial tensions that have exploded on many college campuses of late.
My kids’ college admitted black students from the start and two buildings are named for black alumni and another for the first woman graduate. Unlike places like Princeton it hasn’t graduated a tremendous number of people famous in the public forum, and because it was never segregated was probably less likely in the past to attract administrators (like Wilson) with strong negative attitudes toward minorities and very public records. It recently hosted a multi-school conference on race in academia.
According to my kids there have been small, peaceful demonstrations on campus, but they haven’t been directed at the school itself. The one story I’ve seen in the school newspaper is [in shortened version] below. Of note-the demonstration was directed outward, and it was joined by faculty and members of the school administration, including the college president. The (white) football coach encouraged his players to join the demonstration, which was delayed so as not to coincide with the team’s away game.
“They will face a lot of assumptions about their abilities if they admitted to an explicit quota.”
They get that anyway and everywhere. My priority is ensuring that at least they get in the door. Haters gonna hate.
Hanna,
It has nothing to do with hate. You can be against both racism and affirmative actions/quotas at the same time.