I see this is similar to the immigration issue for you. 0 to grumpy in 60 seconds. And yes I do think students from deprived backgrounds should be weighted to their benefit.
>So in order to gain admission, all students should demonstrate 'undeveloped potential' by showing a lack of initiative and drive and commitment? Given a group of C students from all backgrounds. Which would gain admittance? It is obvious. The problem is that there is not a better alternative.
>
>
>
>>Some universities here are becoming more aware that the top grade students from top schools my be running flat out and have been expertly taught to get to their grades and a less achieving student from a poorer background may have more undeveloped potential. So sorting people initially on grades may not tbe the best way forward.
>>
>>
>>>Great example. However, many other examples do not fall into the same situation. The student in your article was definitely qualified, but lacked the social status and contacts as well as the financial means to compete outside of affirmative action. His A grades and SAT scores demonstrate he was committed to an education earlier on and worked at it. Those are the students who should indeed benefit from the program. In my experience, I have seen many C students who blew off high school gain positions in local universities over others who worked hard during highschool to get good grades and get into college - all made it in over their counterparts due to affirmative action. In those cases, I think a couple of years in a two-year college or less prestigious instition should be the first step, not taking the slot over a more qualified and dedicated student.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The only problem I have ever had with affirmative action is that it does not guarantee equal opportunity. While the intention is admirable, it does not apply correctly. To me, affirmative action should mean: two people of different race or ethnicity receive equal consideration and opportunity. In reality that does not happen. The individual from a minority with fewer skills, training, or abilities will take the position over the non-minority with greater skills, training, or abilities and almost never the reverse. Especially when it comes to higher education slots. I hope I didn't open a can of worms...
>>>>
>>>>In fact, what the phrase "affirmative action" is supposed to mean is casting a wider net to find qualified applicants, not just relying on the same old channels for the reasons in my earlier message.
>>>>
>>>>In education, there's an interesting question. The top schools receive applications from several times the number of qualified students they have room for. (For example, for Nathaniel's class at Yale, the acceptance rate was 9% of applicants.) In that situation, does it make sense to somehow quantify "most qualified" and simply take the top or should you look at the whole pool of qualified applicants and select a diverse group.
>>>>
>>>>If you believe that educating young people in a diverse environment is a good thing (and I do and have chosen to live in a diverse community for that reason), then the latter approach makes more sense. Again, the idea isn't that you take the unqualified over the qualified, but that you pick and choose among the qualified to build a diverse student body.
>>>>
>>>>On a related note, Solomon told me an interesting story for this year's graduating class at Amherst (his alma mater). One of the top students in the class, chosen by his classmates at a student speaker for commencement, was a young man who wouldn't have been considered qualified by traditional standards, but the college took a chance on him.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/education/27grad.html?ex=1184472000&en=b22a502f7a534960&ei=5070>>>>
>>>>To me, this is affirmative action at its best.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
