<p>Thedad, doesn't some of the UCs use his model?</p>
<p>I thought his essay was incoherent, filled more with veiled diatribe than logic, lacking in supporting evidence, and full of straw men. Had I received that from one of my students in my community college classes, I would have given it a "C" and told him to rewrite it.</p>
<p>Sowell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute and has more than two dozen books to his credit and a dozens of articles in scholarly magazines. He'll probably survive you C mini. Sowell received his bachelors degree in economics (magna cum laude) from Harvard in 1958, his masters degree in economics from Columbia University in 1959, and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. </p>
<p>Besides the article is from a syndicated column. Newspapers hate white space but seldom allocate enough space to a columnist to write a fully documented and supported arguement.</p>
<p>I know who Sowell is. And it's still no better than a C and a rewrite. (I've got Williams, Oxford University, and the University of Chicago after my name, have a dozen books to my name, and edited more than 120).</p>
<p>A piece of work should stand on its own. It should not be necessary to state where the writer went to school. It's either good or bad.</p>
<p>I think the BS in '58 might be the key. Perhaps he's senile. Do you give AARP members a break on grades, Mini?</p>
<p>Maybe at Harvard it would have been a "B". (I tend to be a little tougher. ;))</p>
<p>Good for you - but suspect you haven't sold as many as Sowell. In the great market place of ideas those of us with obscure barber colleges and trade schools vote with our pocketbooks. In that forum Dr Sowell is doing pretty well.</p>
<p>Look - my criticism is not of the "politics" of the article, but the fact that it doesn't articulate a clear idea. He didn't quite argue that admissions should be a pure meritocracy at private colleges (if he did, Harvard would lose a huge portion of their legacies and developmental admits and football players, etc.), he didn't make the case that objective measures actually exist (what would they be - class rank? there go the Exeter kiddies; GPAs? he knows enough about SATs to know that they don't cut it); he considers the actions of admissions offices "notions" and "fetishes" and "voodoo" without a shred of evidence that they are not, in fact, carrying out the institution's mission (as set by the President and Board of Trustees); he sets up as a straw man an article (author unammed) in the Chronicle of Higher Education that suggests random admissions, yet provides not a single example of any college or university anywhere actually using it! (the usual argument for meritocracy is that admissions currently are NOT random, and favor one group or the other - isn't that actually his own complaint? didn't he just argue that, far from being random, admissions officers are attached to "notions", "fetish", and "voodoo"?); he draws an analogy with General Patton without any reference to substantial numbers of folks who were last or next-to-last in their classes at West Point who turned out to be the best generals, and the analogy is poor because it points to experiences later in life than college (would you pull Harvard down in rank because it produces progressively fewer Fortune 500 executives, or Yale fewer doctors and lawyers?); and he believes (again without any evidence) that the best colleges are admitting second-rate people.</p>
<p>Now, mind you, I could have made his argument for him. As I've noted before, I think the argument made by Harvard that they select "the best candidates" is circular, i.e. the best people get into Harvard, we know they are the best people because they got into Harvard. He could have argued that the institutional mission of Harvard (or elsewhere) as administered by the admissions office is off-kilter, which is why Harvard is going down hill. He could have suggested that the Harvard rejects with 1600 board scores are more likely to do better in life even when they end up at Podunk.</p>
<p>But he did none of the above. On second thought, C minus.</p>
<p>Dstark, no. UC admissions are complex...either "bump" this or drop me a PM...I've got company coming for dinner in less than two hours and, in the words of Jane Paul Jones, "I have not yet begun to straighten up!"</p>
<p>TheDad, enjoy dinner.
Mini, I agree with you. My politics tend to be of the right of center type, and I can't find a coherent idea in this essay. I was wondering if there was something wrong with my reading skills (a la Emperors new clothing. Only this would be the Emperor's new essay.)</p>
<p>mardad & mini, thank you. I was not going to say anything for fear of being the only one who could make no sense of the article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thedad, doesn't some of the UCs use his model?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not Berkeley. I think it was two falls ago (Fall 2003) one or more regents flipped their wigs when they learned that some number of kids with low SATs were admitted. I can't remember the parameters, might have been lower than 1100 or something. The admissions office at Berkeley gave a simple response. </p>
<p>They went public with a stripped down, anonymous profile for each of the 40-odd students who fit into that category. Grades, SATs, information about high school perfomance, and life circumstances. All had stellar grades. It was the latter that blew me away. Kids who worked 30 hours a week to support their families, kids who were homeless, kids without parents at all, kids who spent a year in the hospital recovering from car accidents, etc. It sounded like a Lifetime channel movie lineup, but I didn't question that every one of those students deserved the chance they'd gotten.</p>
<p>Hoedown, when I saw the same list, I came to the same conclusion. Those kids deserved to go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>I thought UCLA took a percentage of kids strictly on academics, and a certain amount by looking at the whole kid. I guess I am mistaken.</p>
<p>Just out of curiousity how does thw kid working 30 hours a week to support the family manage to pay his tuition? He isn't eligible for need based aid because he is expected to spend whatever he makes on school per the federal rules.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He isn't eligible for need based aid because he is expected to spend whatever he makes on school per the federal rules.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He enrolled, so something must have been worked out. I'd be surprised if a college refused to make adjustments to the aid package of a student whose wages had gone for rent, utilities and groceries for his siblings.</p>
<p>"Just out of curiousity how does thw kid working 30 hours a week to support the family manage to pay his tuition? He isn't eligible for need based aid because he is expected to spend whatever he makes on school per the federal rules."</p>
<p>Almost right, but not quite. Per federal rules, the student is supposed to contribute a certain percentage of her SAVINGS toward tuition, not income. (Yes, I know - it means that a kid can earn $100,000 and put a down payment on a Lamborghini - hey, I don't make the rules.)</p>
<p>At prestigious private colleges (notably the Ivies), this has been a sticking point, as some, including Princeton, have required work-study as meeting part of tuition. Even though the Princeton no-loan policy is very generous (and has increased aid per student attending by some 20%, putting Princeton close,. if not quite into, the top 10), the policy benefits middle-income students more than low-income ones, who still need to figure out how to get money to their families. Ruth Simmons at Brown got it right: by abolishing work requirements for first years on financial aid, students could still work, and send the money home if needed.</p>
<p>But the main discrimination against the 30-hour/week working student is in admissions, not financial aid. Very limited ECs to speak of.</p>
<p>It is a third of any money in the childs name each year that he/she is expected to contribute even if the money is in a trust and earmarked by the terms of the trust for other uses. But I was pretty sure the kids earnings counted as well. I know that there is a minimum $2700? the kid is expected to contribute from work earning whether he has them or not.</p>
<p>Anyway for any of you working stiffs out there with high school freshmen and sophomores now is the time to move any money in the kids name into yours unless you want to give it to the college of your choice. The socialist nomenclatura that run or institutions of higher social conciousness despise any of the quaint values of yesteryear like "A dollar saved is a dollar earned" That sort of financial independence undermines the state and your subjection to its benefices. The FA office will ravage as thoroughly as any Mongol Horde evr sacked a city. Those huge mansions college presidents live in, the manors of the robber barons of old don't come cheap and the heating bills are hell. Somebody has to pay these and the other "costs" of your childs education. </p>
<p>When you fill out the FAFSA and CSS senior year the school will ask for the previous (junior year) tax return. Your savings are treated much more favorably than your childs. So it is better to have that money in your name than the kids. It may not be a good lesson in thrift for the kid but possible the first accurate civics lesson he will recieve.</p>
<p>"The socialist nomenclatura that run or institutions of higher social conciousness despise any of the quaint values of yesteryear like "A dollar saved is a dollar earned""</p>
<p>Stop trying to make that Sowell essay look better.</p>
<p>I'll have you know I earned all my gentlemans Cs in college and the other less distinguished grades as well!</p>