>I agree with you entirely until it is my child who is more qualified (has a higher SAT and grades) who loses a spot at an institution because that spot was taken by someone who doesn't meet the strict qualifications but who is a minority.

Suppose that C student that displaces a more qualified person is George Bush (HW or W), Ted Kennedy, or JFK?

(I think I mentioned enough names to annoy all polical sprecta, but you can fill in your own names if you like)

All of them were whisked ahead of a lot more "qualified" people.

I submit that giving a striving ghetto kid with similar grades a chance rather than any one of them might have been a better investment.

I think the guy we displaced would have scraped thru life somehow and might have gotten a real job.

You pick the one!
















































>I agree with you entirely until it is my child who is more qualified (has a higher SAT and grades) who loses a spot at an institution because that spot was taken by someone who doesn't meet the strict qualifications but who is a minority. Where does my child go then? To a 2 year university or a less-prestigious university hoping that another minority doesn't jump the line? The problem is that there is not sufficient room for all and we bump those qualified in order to take a chance on those who are not. If only we could do both...

I agree that it's easier to support this stuff in principle than in practice. ("When it's your ox being gored, ...")

On the college front, in fact, I'm pretty there are enough schools and places for every kid who wants to go. That doesn't mean everyone will end up at the best school for which he or she qualifies, but to my knowledge, every kid is getting in somewhere. (And, fwiw, I've known kids with 4.0 averages, 1600 SATs and plenty of extracurriculars who were turned down by Harvard. They did just fine elsewhere (editorial comment--and were probably happier).)