Princeton Study: Ending AA would only help Asians not Whites

Parents Forum
81

<p>


</p>

<p>Getting a degree from 4-year college or university is better than a drop out of a top tier college. However, the focus here is only on undergraduate degree. I believe graduate school, especially engineering, is wide open for anyone, there is a shortage of graduate students that is why university has to admit a lot of international students to fill the slot, there are fewer people want to continue their education after 4-year, so I disagree with the "underrepresentation of some ethnicities" totally. You and a lot of people focus very narrowly on just 4-year as if it makes or break anyone if that person did not get into top tier college.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
You and a lot of people focus very narrowly on just 4-year as if it makes or break anyone if that person did not get into top tier college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, in fact, I haven't shared with you my views about what makes or break people vis a vis their undergraduate education. I think you're prematurely lumping me and a lot of unnamed people in together, crediting us with viewpoints we may or may not hold or share.</p>

<p>I wasn't talking about graduate education, either. Sorry for any confusion.</p>

<p>Generally this discussion has turned so many times I'm not even sure we're addressing the same points! LOL So let me make sure I understand.</p>

<p>In saying the following:

[quote]

Getting a degree from 4-year college or university is better than a drop out of a top tier college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By this, do you mean that African-American students (for example) graduate at higher rates at less selective schools, or schools without affirmative action? Do you also have a good handle on how many of those non-graduates of top-tier schools are, in fact, true drop-outs, instead of transfers?</p>

83

<p>My question for you when you said

What part of the education were you refer to in the underrepresentation? Do you assume it's 4-year?
I'm too not really sure what you're saying sometimes but I too have enough of this discussion(LOL).</p>

84

<p>hoedown, its not african americans or any other minority per se, but persons whose academic quality does not match his respective institution, resulting in a greatler likelihood for his nongraduation. </p>

<p>Though I do not know how many transfer or drop out, I did find in a NY times article that "Almost one in three Americans in their mid-20's " drop out of college, or simply do not graduate. So, there likely is a sizable portion of dropouts, but it is pointless to conjecture. Is there any hard data on this?</p>

<p>With regard to CC, many of the CC students do not transfer, either stopping after 2 years or just hanging around CC without progressing. I had a driving instructor who said that he went to CC for 6 years at night and then just stopped.</p>

<p>The goal of public universities is to equip citizens with the skills necessary to grow the economy, at least according to one editorial I read.</p>

85

<p>Susie: I mean that at the "best" 4-year institutions, certain ethnic groups were underrepresented.</p>

<p>Ashernm:</p>

<p>Well, institution-based graduation rates will always present an "incomplete" picture of outcomes because they don't account for transfers. No way around that, but it's pretty objectionable to me when people assume ALL non-graduates are dropouts. So many do, and that's just wrong. </p>

<p>People are working to get more hard data on it, one fabulous tool is the National Student Clearinghouse. More and more institutions are using it to track where their former students end up. However, there is no formal system for reporting those findings. The Dept of Ed is also proposing a Unit Record Data system that would track students wherever they enrolled (so you could calculate a graduation rate for a cohort of students, not a specific entering class at a single place), but it has some very controversial elements and its unclear whether this will be put into operation. Suffice it to say that where research has been done, it usually reveals that some number of those who do not graduate from their first institutions are transfers to other institutions. At elite institutions especially.</p>

<p>It hasn't been convincingly demonstrated to me that Affirmative Action results in students being "mismatched" academically to an institution. It would make little sense for an institution to purposely admit a student who wasn't qualified. Sure, affirmative action may means that students of certain ethnicities and genders may be admitted ahead of other students with some higher academic qualifications, but that's not the same thing as saying those admittees are "mismatched" or incapable of doing the work. That's another ready fallacy--that lower measures on some qualifications = unqualified.</p>

<p>I also want proof before I believe that a lower graduation rate among a group means members of that group were 'wrongly' admitted (i.e. they left because they failed out and/or couldn't do the work), and that those students would have had a different (better) outcome at a less-selective or less-rigorous institution. I had thought, in fact, that there was some data suggesting otherwise, but the book I'm thinking of which summarized this was recently lent to a colleague. I was hopeful that Susie (or others) would provide me some leads to the research that contradicts this and supports their assertions here.</p>

86

<p>I find several things extremely interesting. First, when talking about AA, conversation soon involves comments specifically about African Americans.</p>

<p>Second, while people are concerned about AA graduation rates because they may be in the bottom quartile of students academically, most suscribe the the proposition that their students should apply and attend reach colleges if admitted. That graduation concern seems to apply only to AA admittees. </p>

<p>People rail against AA because of meritocracy concerns but express no such concern about admission preferences associated with legacy status, athletic ability, or famous family.</p>

<p>This seem to go along with an attitude arising from a statewide debate about public school funding a while back. The state wanted to direct more state aid to needy districts where expenditures/student lagged more affluent districts. Well we know what happened. "Throwing more money at failing schools won't improve their performance". A few years later the legislature proposed capping public school expenditures/student as a way of controlling property taxes. Guess what, the affluent districts screamed bloody murder arguing that limiting spending would have an adverse impact on the quality of their districts' education. Anybody notice the hypocrisy there??</p>

<p>I sense the some hypocrisy in the debate about AA admissions too, tinged with a small dose of bigotry.</p>

87

<p>hoedown, I normally stay away from thread like this because there are always 2 camps, those who do and those who don't, therefore here is my last post on this thread.
I was drawing to the fray because of your some of your comments above that I thought were ridiculous when it comes to public institution, where every taxpayer is supporting the system through their tax money. I think California does give all students equal access to the top tiered UCs. Therefore your statement that under the current system, there has been a marked underrepresentation of some ethnicities at the top tier of educationese institutions is not valid, because it does, if you didn't go to the right high school to get the right grades, because of whatever reason, you do have a second chance to go to top UCs through the 2-year CC transfer route. The difference is whether you go to top tier UC as a freshman or as a junior. So the opportunity is there for everyone who wants to to go to top tier UCs.
as for


</p>

<p>I'm sorry, you must provide the proof, I don't have to and don't want to because I did not make that assertion.
But you must agree that all institutions have their fair share of drop outs, transfer and left because they couldn't do the work.</p>

88

<p>hoedown, please do not play a semantics game. Two people can both be qualified, but one can be MORE qualified than the other. This is often the case with AA, both in college admissions and other milieus like employment. If there are two applicants to some top school, and looking solely at SATs, one has a 1400 and the other has a 1600. They are both qualified, but one is obviously moreso. Same for any job. Both are qualified, by having a college degree, but one has a higher GPA. You are likely correct, in your statement that they are qualified in that sense. But why not choose the MORE qualified candidate anyway? And a "qualified" status, as you used it, presupposes a set of minimum requirements that one must pass.</p>

<p>Don't you think schools cater to their students, in terms of setting the difficulty of the classes according to the ability of the students? Most, if not all, do. Now, if your credentials/abilites are substantially lower than the general student population, chances are you will find classes difficult and perform less well than the general student population. According to Thomas Sowell, at the University of Texas, black students averaged a 1.97 GPA while whites averaged a 2.45. </p>

<p>Sowell showed, in one statistic, where AA did not play much of a role in admissions, graduation rates were nearly identical. At the University of Colorado Denver, the average difference in SAT scores between blacks and whites was 30 points, a meager difference. The grad rates, respectively, were 48% and 50%, again a meager difference.</p>

<p>This argument can be applied to any student with substandard academic credentials.</p>

<p>original:
African Americans were the main and intended beneficiaries of AA.</p>

<p>Your second statement is quite true: going to a reach school and going to a school with the help of AA are pretty similar: You will likely perform worse than the general student body. Therefore, it may not be a wise decision to go to a school that is a reach in terms of its academic strength relative to yours.</p>

<p>The fact that other special admits do not recieve nearly as much attention is also interesting to me. Here are my conjectures as to why: AA is government sanctioned, while those are not. In terms of government regulation, I doubt the government really has the power to legislate such cases as legacy and athlete acceptances. It likely could legislate against AA though. Also, AA is a practice based on controversial principle as you can see from this discussion. Those other practices are not.</p>

89

<p>"I doubt the government really has the power to legislate such cases as legacy and athlete acceptances."</p>

<p>More importantly, legacy and athlete acceptances bring down the curve, so we normal admits won't complain :)</p>

<p>There will always be "below average" people at a college, so long as the students continue to be different from each other. Discouraging the "reach" people from going to the school only results in pushing the average up, turning more people into "reach" people who get pushed out, etc.</p>

90

<p>From ashernm: "The fact that other special admits do not recieve nearly as much attention is also interesting to me. Here are my conjectures as to why: AA is government sanctioned, while those are not. In terms of government regulation, I doubt the government really has the power to legislate such cases as legacy and athlete acceptances."</p>

<p>From tanonev: "More importantly, legacy and athlete acceptances bring down the curve, so we normal admits won't complain".</p>

<hr>

<p>Legacy admits are not as controversial because many people understand that legacies help pay for the nice buildings, famous professors, and scholarships for the poor; let in one legacy and he makes room for the three other non-legacy kids you really want in future generations (where do you think those billion-dollar endowments come from?). That's why college presidents, whose main job is to raise money, say the politically correct things in front of mass audiences about special opportunities for disadvantaged applicants, but talk about the value of legacies in alumni magazines. Eventually, I think they will have what I call their "Chirac moment", when their rhetoric will catch up to their imperatives, but that's another story.</p>

<p>The benefits of athletes to a college are also quite tangible. Although only a small number of colleges actually make money from their athletic programs -- most lose money -- and of all the sports, only a few make money -- most teams lose money -- for many colleges, athletics serves as a powerful binding force for "college spirit" that eventually develops into strong alumni loyalty, and that's good for the endowment. So college administrators may complain what they want about athletics, but sports will stay.</p>

<p>The benefits of academic and artistic stars are obvious; they bring prestige to the college, and help to recruit other desirable students and top faculty; they also serve as powerful talking points in donation solicitations. </p>

<p>By comparison, the benefits of AA to a college are not as direct. As Sandra Day O'Connor said, AA is a matter of "compelling national interest." As such, AA is only supported by a college to the extent it reflects the current social values of the institution; there is no "compelling endowment interest." Until such connection to the institution's self-interest becomes as compelling, over the long term AA may be vulnerable, its durability at risk.</p>

<p>By the way, tanovev's sentiments are not as unusual as some may think. When students have a choice, many do size up the profile of the class to determine who makes up "the bottom half" of the class, and decide accordingly. A class heavy with Asians will impose different pace and workload from one that isn't.</p>

<p>Finally, do not assume that legacies are academically behind. Some university presidents have looked into this and found that legacies in their institutions have higher GPAs than the rest of the population. Read Levitt's Freakonomics and you will understand why just having books around the house -- without even reading them -- improves grades.</p>

91

<br>


<br>

<p>Believe me, people rail against lthe effect of legacy, athletes and famous families on the admissions chances!</p>

92

<p>Asher: I'm sorry you think it's a semantics game. I disagree, and it's not my intention. </p>

<p>My point stands: Affirmative Action * as I have seen it practiced in admissions* involves institutions with a surplus of qualified applicants who must therefore make choices among them. In affirmative action (as with other institutional prioroties) these choices ignore some measures of ability and aptitude in favor of characteristics the institution also values. Does this mean that some students who appear "more qualified" get passed over? You bet. That's no semantics game.</p>

<p>Institutions make all kinds of choices that leapfrog some candidates over others. They don't always take the "most qualified" vis a vis test score and GPAs.</p>

<p>Other people have said or intimated that AA admits can't hack it, don't deserve to be there, or aren't qualified. I disagree, and my disagreement is not part of some "semantics game."</p>

<p>I will confess that my knowledge of affirmative action isn't as broad as some, but what I have seen does not lead me to believe that the assertions made about UNqualified students are correct. Perhaps our personal experiences with AA are different.</p>

93

<p>Susie:

[quote]
I was drawing to the fray because of your some of your comments above that I thought were ridiculous when it comes to public institution, where every taxpayer is supporting the system through their tax money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I realize that some taxpayers have a very specific view of what public higher education is for. I disagree with their view. It is not just about jobs and a short-term view of the economy. Better people than me have eloquently described the purpose of higher education, from Thomas Jefferson to Clark Kerr (whose UC ties are pretty firm). I understand your viewpoint as a taxpayer and consumer, but people who have a broader view of public higher education aren't "ridiculous."</p>

<p>Incidentally, if I've said something that encouraged this sort of disparaging tone in what it otherwise a pretty interesting discussion, I sure regret it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't have to and don't want to because I did not make that assertion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It seemed to me you did. You said in post #81 (and I paraphrase): it's better for minorities to graduate from a less-selective institution than drop out of an elite institution. This is how I read that: students who dropped out of Berkeley never get a degree, whereas if they'd gone to Cal State-Fullerton (for example) they would have gotten the degree. Did I read that wrong? There was some confusion about "top-tier" so maybe I read that wholly incorrectly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But you must agree that all institutions have their fair share of drop outs, transfer and left because they couldn't do the work.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, it's hard to ascertain what "fair share" is, but it's true that every institution from Harvard to Blue Ridge Community college has students who leave because they couldn't do the work. I balk at assigning affirmative action the major blame for that, just as I balk at supposing that the dropout rate is the inverse of the graduation rate.</p>

94

<p>White women have been the prime benificiaries of AA.</p>

95

<p>As long as Harvard has AA every URM from a group that recieves preferential admittance will be looked on as second rate and that is what the real problem with AA is. The degree will always have a little star after it - BA<em>, PhD</em>, etc. It is the graduates equivelent of Tufts' Syndrome. So you hit 70 homers on steroids - who cares. You're still not Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or even Reggie Jackson. You don't quite measure up. You had a world class time in the 100 but you only ran 90 of those yards.</p>

96

<p>Funny. Since they've had AA for the white, rich, and powerful for so long, and preferential treatment for them for some 10 generations, I guess it is only fair to think of them (and the school itself) as second-rate.</p>

<p>26th.</p>

<p>But to be fair, AA at the private schools is really a minor matter, not particularly germane to what happens in the larger society. AA is illegal in both California and Washington State, and a bunch of other places, so what is it exactly that we're talking about? ;)</p>

97

<p>4th floor, your reasons seem quite reasonable and explanatory.</p>

<p>"My point stands: Affirmative Action as I have seen it practiced in admissions involves institutions with a surplus of qualified applicants who must therefore make choices among them. In affirmative action (as with other institutional prioroties) these choices ignore some measures of ability and aptitude in favor of characteristics the institution also values. Does this mean that some students who appear "more qualified" get passed over? You bet. That's no semantics game.
"</p>

<p>These "characteristics" you mention being race, correct?</p>

<p>"Institutions make all kinds of choices that leapfrog some candidates over others. They don't always take the "most qualified" vis a vis test score and GPAs."</p>

<p>I personally disagree with this tactic too. Afterall, isn't the whole point of college academics? So why not look mostly for academic ability in applicants? This is another matter though.</p>

<p>"Other people have said or intimated that AA admits can't hack it, don't deserve to be there, or aren't qualified."</p>

<p>Aren't AA admits less qualified by definition of AA? The AA admits can "hack" it, but they will have a harder time than others, because their academic ability is lower than that of other, nonspecial, admits.
Your point, in my view, boils down to this: AA admits are less qualified, but colleges dont always look for the most qualified applicant anyway.</p>

<p>AA students are qualified, by some arbitrary measure, for if they were not, they would not be admitted.
You do admit though, that AA admits are, to some degree, less qualified. We are not really arguing then.</p>

<p>mini, Harvard still had a portion of its students admitted on merit, like Jews. It seems also that ivies admit legacies more readily because they seek to propagate a lifestyle, replete with the ivy league educated status, from generation to generation.</p>

98

<p>"mini, Harvard still had a portion of its students admitted on merit, like Jews. It seems also that ivies admit legacies more readily because they seek to propagate a lifestyle, replete with the ivy league educated status, from generation to generation."</p>

<p>Got it. Sounds like AA to me. (not just legacies either) Less qualified. Wouldn't get in (at least at that rate) if it wasn't for their race, class, and finances. </p>

<p>But where are these AA admits in public universities we are talking about? Not in California. Not in Washington. Where, exactly?</p>

99

<p>We abolished slavery in this country before they abolished serfdom in Russia. Ten generations of white privillege? Not for my Irish Catholic family. We were barred by law from colleges, disenfranchisedm dispossessed, drive from the land to make way for sheep and starved by the millions. </p>

<p>Nothing particularly unusual about that. The story is repeated for dozeens of other "white" ethnic groups as well as for persons of color in the last ten generations. Indeed even those who got off the boat at Plymouth Rock were fleeing persecution. But if you cannot let the past go you will be condemned to live in it - take a look at Northern Ireland today and you will see exactly the same social pathologies that are afflicting Black America. History isn't destiny it is an excuse.</p>

100

<p>"History isn't destiny it is an excuse."</p>

<p>Don't you think you'd be better off telling that to prestige colleges and universities? I mean they're the one providing AA to the rich (mostly white) folks.</p>

<p>But I still don't know where you are talking about. AA is illegal in California in university admissions. It is illegal in my state, and a host of others. So where exactly are you referring to?</p>