<p>Again, this is wrong. You need to read the Code of Federal Regulations in question. The whole reason for the exemption is that some things can’t be easily quantified or measured on an individual basis. Age, therefore, can be used as an approximation of those factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guess is that it can be reasonably argued that, in our society, age is considered an approximation of maturity for a wide variety of things - driving, alcohol and tobacco consumption, voting, etc., and thus age is a legitimate proxy for maturity in a profession that requires a high degree of sensitivity and maturity in dealing with deeply personal issues.</p>
<p>For the purpose of this discussion, her other qualifications are irrelevant. The question was asked if age should be a factor in admissions. The answer is no, according to federal law. The issue is age, not experience. The issue is age, not maturity. Yes, admissions are subjective and into that peculiar alchemy go myriad intangibles, experience and maturity among them, but age is not intangible. Age is not a subjective metric; moreover, age itself is not a reasonable proxy for experience. The university cited age and discriminated in so doing. Had it only cited experience and/or maturity and not mentioned age at all, then the university would not have illegally discriminated. It’s that simple.</p>
<p>The fact is that federal law expressly allows using age as a qualification factor in educational situations where someone’s age is a legitimate factor in their ability to participate in the particular program in question. I’ve posted the pertinent section of the Code of Federal Regulations twice now and you seem to want to pretend it doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Polarscribe, I have read all over the internet some of your comments about this case. What is your particular interest in it and why are you so passionate trying to convince the readers that you are the one that is right? Do you have any ulterior motive? Just asking…</p>
<p>“All over the Internet.” By that, of course, you mean… in two places: here, and on the original article’s comment thread. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, you magically appear on this forum for no other purpose than to defend the article’s author, and start making unsupported insinuations about people questioning her claims.</p>
<p>Do you have an ulterior motive for defending her? Just asking…</p>
<p>I don’t see what the big deal is about this. For many of the masters programs I’ve looked into (albeit, it’s Public Health not clinical psychology) they required x years of practical experience before being even considered for admissions. </p>
<p>And bringing the mother to meet the director? WHAT? I’m 20, a third year in undergraduate school, and my parents would NEVER even consider doing that. And I have great parents, but they knew that I had to be independent- and I thank them for that. April, frankly I’m disgusted by the fact that you think that parents other than helicopter parents are sperm donors. These parents are doing a disservice to their child. And yes she’s a child. Sorry. </p>
<p>She got denied to graduate school. Suck it up, get some life experience, and move on. She sounds like a 2 year old having a temper tantrum because she didn’t get what she wanted.</p>
<p>Something I have been thinking about…she was an undergrad at UIUC, and applied to the same program for grad school. The professors were very well acquainted with her. Could they have felt that, while her academic work was worthy of excellent grades, that she lacked the maturity expected of graduate students in other respects?</p>
<p>My understanding is that UIUC has a very well respected clinical psych grad program, and I am sure that they receive a large number of applications from well-qualified applicants. Lots of applicants with grades and scores just like this girl’s. And very few slots available in the program.</p>
<p>They are looking to admit the very best/seeking reasons to disqualify lots of applicants just because of the nature of the numbers game.</p>
<p>This girl’s qualifications maybe put her in the running for consideration but perhaps other applicants brought more to the table?</p>
<p>I do not have any ulterior motives, but it seems that you are too involved in this case.
I do not know if she was or if she wasn’t discriminated, however I would give her the benefit of the doubt, no like many other. It appears by some of the comments I read in this forum that many consider that it was okay for her to be denied admission because she was too young. If that was the case, that is discrimination and discrimination is never okay.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate that amicable efforts to discuss age discrimination have devolved to this state. Silence connotes neither agreement nor disagreement, it conveys neither knowledge nor ignorance, yet one user insists otherwise. His/her fruitless attempts at baiting via ad hominems, unfounded allegations, and faulty assumptions about the scope of others’ reading and experience would make it appear that he/she is unable to make his/her point without personally belittling and berating other users. Continued abusive conduct such as his/hers is in direct violation of the CC Terms of Use and will be reported.</p>
<p>Now, back to the discussion:
Were there a bona fide complaint filed by the student, UIUC could use whatever defense it wishes, it could use whatever interpretation it can find for a “reasonable” proxy, and ultimately OCR would investigate. No assertion is made here as to the merits or the expected outcome of such a potential complaint beyond the simple fact that grounds exist for a complaint to be made. In the case decided earlier this year, OCR made specific requirements of the offending university, and OCR’s determination was considered precedent setting. This was only three months ago. In addition to requiring specific acts of remediation to the student, OCR has established multiple requirements to prevent future violations of that student’s civil rights or those of other students at that university, on the basis of age.</p>
<p>Doyle, I am not sure who that first paragraph was directed towards. I am happy to see someone so new to CC, someone who clearly joined for the sole purpose of participating in this thread, making such an effort to police behavior on the site.</p>
<p>I am also not sure to which recent case of OCR’s you are referring. Please provide a reference so that we may all be as well-read as you are.</p>
<p>I do not know what standards OCR has for opening an investigation, but they may well be low enough that they have been met. I hope that if they do perform an investigation that the results are well-publicized, whichever way they go. All I have seen so far as evidence is concerned is an oped written by a disgruntled young woman and a few comments by some people who claim to know her and think highly of her. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence, or any statements by anyone actually involved on the university side of the equation. What I have seen so far has not impressed me with her case, and I am concerned that she is rapidly digging herself into an academic and professional hole that she may never escape from.</p>
<p>Thanks, cosmicfish, though only my current handle is new around here. A thorough reading of the thread readily reveals the perpetrator of inappropriate conduct. The guilty party knows who he/she is. Your support and participation in maintaining a civil discussion are appreciated.</p>
<p>With respect for the privacy of the student involved (a minor) in the recent OCR ruling, I am not at liberty to divulge identifying information, much as I wish I could. In the case of the UIUC student, I completely agree that there are other concerns beyond that of age alone, and for the purpose of answering this thread’s original question (should age be a factor in admissions), I’ve purposely dealt only with age as it is a protected class. </p>
<p>What we have here instead are discussions of multiple facets being treated as one discussion, which really muddy the water. The discussion of age discrimination is quickly conflated with analyses of and suppositions about her other qualifications and much speculation about her personal attributes, apart from the year of her birth. Indeed, some of the most troubling aspects of her story are that her profs apparently didn’t want her, for whatever reason, and that her parents were involved to such a degree. It may well be that her application simply was not competitive enough. But to read in this thread that age is a “reasonable” proxy for experience but that ‘quantifying experience is impossible’ is flatly absurd. When applying to college, students must meet certain admissions criteria. Three years of English is quantified experience. Likewise, when applying for a job, minimum requirements are stated in years of experience. Quantified and quantifiable. </p>
<p>It is possible for a younger-than-usual student to meet or exceed those quantities of experience that are expected of older students. We do not know if she meets them. On the basis of what we do know, which isn’t much, I frankly am not impressed and I tend to agree with you that she may be shooting herself in the foot. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t discriminated against on the basis of her age. She was – again, assuming that the attributed quotes are accurate – and on that basis alone she has grounds for a complaint.</p>
<p>DoyleOwl, once again, not everything is quantified or quantifiable.</p>
<p>Yes, many schools have expressed minimums of test scores, GPA, etc. - but they are just that - a minimal baseline. Far more applicants meet those minimums than can be accommodated in any given program. Beyond that, the selection process is inherently subjective and is based on a wide array of factors that simply cannot be boiled down to sets of numbers.</p>
<p>Graduate admissions are complex and qualitative.</p>
<p>April, I think discrimination as a basis of age has been duly discussed in this thread - there is a federal act against it, and if there is a basis for discrimination then the 17 year old should file with that agency. The subsequent talk has been about whether or not that filing would hold up in court and is speculation until and unless the girl files and the outcome becomes a reality (think Schrodinger’s cat, or a coin hovering up in the air, waiting to fall and reveal heads or tails). Just saying “it is discrimination it is illegal” is not furthering the evidence on your side.</p>
<p>Beyond that, I think the best conclusion that has been made has been the poster who said that she has closed the door to admittance a few years from now all by herself by publishing this article. It is like that mom who sued the preschool for ruining her 2 year old’s chances at the Ivy League.</p>
<p>I was hoping there would be a clinical psychologist who would add to the discussion, affirming or denying that experiences beyond undergraduate work are necessary for the graduate degree. April, what do you think about the scenarios I proposed earlier - accepting a candidate into a school administration program when they have no teaching experience and their job search will be impossible? Do you think that it would be age discrimination if they rejected a candidate straight out of undergrad?</p>
<p>I hope this girl has figured out something to do with the next year, because until this all blows over she’s not getting an acceptance anywhere. I was just thinking about when I was 17, and I was the only person not re-accepted into my high school’s audition choir. About two weeks later the director told me that he should have put me and 2 other girls in, but one of them had not joined the choir when we all auditioned (the other auditioned like me). I still am bitter about this unfair experience, even though I joined an amazing group in college (and singing with them has been one of the best experiences in my life). I hope that the 17 year old girl can move past her anger in the coming years. For instance, she will need recommendations from these professors and they will likely include this news article with every recommendation that they send. Talk about self sabotage…</p>
<p>Like others, I am aghast that her mother attended the meeting to discuss why she was rejected. This speaks volumes about the applicant’s maturity and continuing reliance on her parents. </p>
<p>I’m not sure age discrimination laws are relevant to a minor. After all, there are many jobs closed to those under 21 for legal, safety, and emotional stress reasons. This young woman, as impressive as her accomplishments are, is not a legal adult. As others have noted, she cannot yet vote or drink and doesn’t have the full set of rights that adult citizens have. Even her signature on a contract is not binding without the co-signature of a parent. The question is, where does the protection for age discrimination begin? If it begins at 17, what about 16, 15, or even 10? </p>
<p>Clinical psychology programs are indeed different from those in, say, physics, math, or English.</p>
<p>Yeesh. My parents weren’t even involved in the college admissions process and I went to college interviews, organized myself, and moved myself into dorms hundreds of miles away at 16-17. Also knew several classmates who started college as young as 14…or even 10 who had enough maturity to realize that bringing one’s parents in a situation ostensibly between two adults is a big red flag telegraphing one’s lack of maturity. </p>
<p>Annoying enough that an increasing number of parents are involving themselves in areas once considered the exclusive preserve of undergrad students back in the '90s and before such as class registration and grade disputes*. Bringing a parent in for a meeting pertaining to grad school is beyond the pale in comparison. If you want to prove you’re mature enough for grad school/employment…please…leave the parents at home. </p>
<ul>
<li>Seen firsthand and heard countless accounts from friends who teach/TA at various elite universities.</li>
</ul>
To the extent that this ruling affects anything, it must to some extent be public. If the court was concerned about the plaintiff’s status then his/her identity will already be concealed in the court documents, and if not then I see no reason why a matter of public record should be concealed here. Understanding the issue from a legal standpoint is key to understanding what her position in this truly is.</p>
<p>
I have been part of these discussions, and I think these are all valid points.</p>
<p>Whether or not age was explicitly mentioned is known to us only by the plaintiff’s statements (since she obtained no actual record and included only a highly biased witness) and was presented without context that would allow us to know in what manner they intended it. Further, polarscribe has posted some of the legal text covering age discrimination, and it does appear that the law left open the idea that certain non-protected and un-measurable hiring/enrollment factors (like maturity) may legally be approximated by age in certain circumstances. As such, we have only the aggrieved party’s statement that age was even explicitly mentioned, and no certainty that if they did so that it was illegal.</p>
<p>The issue with her parents’ involvement is an issue I have been raising, and one that I think is valid. While I have no problem with her parents being involved in her life, if her intent is to prove that she is mature (a subjective measure), involving her non-lawyer parents in what should be an adult conversation is going to bias the argument against her. If I had been that admissions director and a prospective grad student brought their parent to a meeting, I would have been very concerned that he or she lacked the maturity to be in the program, regardless of age. Direct parental involvement (unless they are lawyers) at this stage implies that the student is incapable of emotionally handling the issue on her own, and that is a major concern.</p>
<p>Likewise, the fact that she lacked advocates among the faculty is also a major concern. Assuming that she was at least minimally competitive on paper (which is to say, neither her gpa, her gre score, nor her undergraduate field of study were a concern), the remaining issue required for her admission is that at least a single professor step forward and indicate that (based on anything not legally prohibited) they would take her on as their student. On the HuffPo site, a previous TA chimed in to indicate that they thought her sufficiently mature for grad study, but the evidence suggests that none of her equally familiar professors felt the same way. </p>
<p>Incidentally, I have experienced this side of grad admissions firsthand. When applying to PhD programs in 2006 (with an unusual academic record), I was heavily courted by my home program but initially rejected by another. After I convinced that other department that I was “basically” qualified, I was still informed that my admission would be dependent upon obtaining the support of a professor willing to be my advisor (I did so, although I eventually rejected the school). I have never heard of a professor who wanted to take on a “basically” qualified grad student but was denied by the department - that is generally considered their decision.</p>
<p>I would also argue that quantifying experience is in fact impossible. Experience is simply used to determine whether or not the applicant is ready for grad study, a subjective measure. One applicant may demonstrate this readiness (as reflected in letters of recommendation) in a very short period of intense and successful work, while others may demonstrate a lack of readiness despite years of effort. Put another way, 3 years of cleaning the lab is nowhere near as good as 3 months of solid independent research, which is why experience is subjective and not really quantifiable.</p>
<p>
It also does not mean that she WAS discriminated against on the basis of her age. We have only her opinion that the attributed quotes are accurate, and the fact that she is trying her case in the newspapers rather than with the OCR makes me highly suspicious. She may have met the minimum requirements to lodge a complaint (I have not heard any indication that she has done so), but proving that complaint requires a much higher standard that I do not think she can meet. In her article she is not asking for a legal opinion, she is asking for public support, and based on the issues discussed here I cannot give her mine.</p>
Actually, thats not correct in the current admissions climate. The huffpost article does not pass the smell test to me. Many, if not most of the APA approved Clinical Psych Graduate programs (of which UIUC is one) now want the applicants to have some work experience under their belts before they will consider their application for grad school. The programs are extremely competitive, and many candidates without work and/or comprehensive research experience in the field will rarely make it past the first cut, no matter how strong a student they are. Thats just the way it is right now. Not believing she was told to "backpack " for a few years. She would be encouraged to find a job in the field or get research experience, etc. Not go “find herself” (as it were). </p>
<p>Also, there is not typically an “admissions director” in these grad programs. There are usually training directors, chairmen of the department, and admissions committees, though there may be a chairperson of the admissions committee, and as the article’s author was a current undergrad at UIUC, perhaps she met with this person. </p>
<p>I am a bit surprised to see a Huffpost article linked (especially by Roger) though it appears to be an article, not a blog…</p>