> The article is biased and full of negative stereotypes and a thinly veiled attack at ... dare I say, racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves.
Could you give an example of how this author could have criticized the practice of affirmative action without attacking racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves? I agree that the author clearly has an axe to grind, but I see nothing in the text which attacks a minority. Honestly, it seems like you're accusing him of racism based only off the fact that he opposes affirmative action.
ADDED:
>SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality. Most other measures (GPA, high school research experience) are going to be strongly effected by where the student is from. Nowhere does the author suggest that research experience shouldn't be considered. And, in fact, using this measure would benefit the rich, white, and privileged students, as they are much more likely to have such research opportunities than poor minorities.
>Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life.
The data as you describe only confirms that well-known fact that top-tier schools add negligible value to the professional prospect of its students. That is, after controlling for SATs, familiy income, etc., future success doesn't depend on what school you attend. (I can pull the study if you want.) That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics. And, as you say, their grades are weak both in high school and college.
>Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society.
This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
>Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession?
No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
>"Minding the Campus readers probably need little instruction on the corrupting effects of the racial balancing game played by almost all our elite universities"
Racial balancing is somehow corrupting? If I am making a claim like that I would definitely like to back it up with some facts.
>" The typical African- American and Latino student who gets admitted to the most elite colleges and universities in the U.S...."
What is a typical African-American student? Can I meet him? Racial stereotypes are loaded, and the authors throws them around like bad puns.
>"a requirement often interpreted to mean that if there is a male lacrosse, soccer, water polo, volleyball, cross-country, or fencing team there must be a female equivalent"
And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
I don't think the author is racist or sexist, I am sure he is a perfectly nice person to meet. However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
> And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
What's the definition of "female equivalent"?
Doesn't the validity of your assumed "should" depend on the definition we're using?
> However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
Author's words not mine. I should have put quotes around "female equivalent". I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
>Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
No. Some of them might have failed spectacularly and deserve criticism. But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
> I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
Why should they be "given attention" and by whom? What about folks who don't provide said equal attention? (While the majority favor male sports, there are folks who favor female sports. Surely both are in need of correction.)
For example, why shouldn't womens' preference be given some weight?
I note that women are less likely to attend women's sports than men are to attend men's sports. Heck - women are more likely to attend men's sports than they are to attend men's sports.
Be careful - the "provides valuable diversity" argument requires differences (in aggregate). If there are differences, then exact duplicate treatment is inappropriate.
> But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
Is it? The SAT folks claim that SATs correlate somewhat with college achievement, and the college folks seem to agree (otherwise they wouldn't use it).
What do you think that the goal of college admissions is?
You ask a nice question - why no female fencing team? Well if a) there are students who want to form it and b) they will be good enough competitors for similar teams ok, but imposing it just because a male fencing team exist is stupid.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
>Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
See, here lies the problem. Define: excellence. As I have maintained, excellence is not tied well with SAT scores or GRE scores or papers or citation counts. I think excellence is very personal. If I am a economically disadvantaged student, but held my own in a violent high school in a bad neighborhood, worked a job but still scored good grades; much better than my peers. Did well in SATs without having any money for extra SAT training. If I resisted peer pressure to join a gang while focusing on my studies, I would think I did a pretty excellent job at my life. To compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair.
>There are bright people, there are dumb people.
In your mind which likes to simplify things. Not in the world there aren't. If you think you are smart because you are really good at Math, I would like to introduce you to my friend who is an exceptional soprano.
>Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition.
There are no natural repartitions. Only artificial ones imposed by the complex societies. I am not blaming the society, just saying that we could improve it to be much fairer and to aspire for anything less would be unfortunate.
>To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
We agree, just not on the definition of excellence.
> compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair
It sure is. But life itself is unfair. If you resisted all the pitfalls that society or the environment put in front of you, good for you, but I'm sorry it is not what matters.
What can you produce ? Can you outcompete others who do not have had such obstacles ? If you can, then yes I call that excellence, if you can't that personal growth/karma/name it the way you want.
As you said - "much better than my peers" - that's good, but we are all in a big pond called mankind. The way I see it, some people think they deserve something just for the randomness of their birthplace, or for not screwing up.
Sorry they don't. There are a lot of people on this earth who may have surpassed even greater problems, yet did not make it.
Trying to improve or fix society means making the situation even more complex, with artificial restriction - thus even more unfair in the end.
Bright people come in all shapes and colors. A soprano, a sport pro, a math wiz - bright people in different areas. They all reach for excellence.
I don't believe I'm smart. I just believe I'm doing my best to become excellent in one specific domain, and I don't want to be judged on anything but my performance.
None of the quotes you list suggest that the author is attacking any minorities, only that he is criticizing these programs. I'm not saying the author isn't an angry person, I'm just taking issue with you saying he is attacking minorities.
Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
>Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
>The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality.
I wouldn't agree with this point. Though this claim has traditionally been accepted by academia but plenty of literature exists to make a claim otherwise too. I never took the SATs but did take the GREs and my anecdotal experience would say that standardized test are only a good measure of test-taking abilities.
>This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
The author tries to paint an idyllic picture of Universities of the 40s and 50s. He builds upon this premise and makes a claim that the quality of the Universities has gone down and ties it to the introduction to the Affirmative Action and rise of sports. I am attacking this very premise in my comment.
>No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
An obsession of being very good at something (be it sports or academics) brings with itself an inherent penalty of not being very good at other things. Though I am not saying that its impossible to excel at both sports and academics but to treat sporting excellence as a skill not as valuable as being good at academics is something I take exception at. In addition, considering that good sporting skills is how many racially and economically disadvantaged students make it to college is also not lost in the author's arguments.
>That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics.
I haven't read the study, only Malcolm Gladwell's book on which I've based my argument. The books talks about the study done on Michigan alumni. I don't know if we are talking about the same study. Would like to read about both (or the singular) studies before making any further comment.
Could you give an example of how this author could have criticized the practice of affirmative action without attacking racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves? I agree that the author clearly has an axe to grind, but I see nothing in the text which attacks a minority. Honestly, it seems like you're accusing him of racism based only off the fact that he opposes affirmative action.
ADDED:
>SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality. Most other measures (GPA, high school research experience) are going to be strongly effected by where the student is from. Nowhere does the author suggest that research experience shouldn't be considered. And, in fact, using this measure would benefit the rich, white, and privileged students, as they are much more likely to have such research opportunities than poor minorities.
>Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life.
The data as you describe only confirms that well-known fact that top-tier schools add negligible value to the professional prospect of its students. That is, after controlling for SATs, familiy income, etc., future success doesn't depend on what school you attend. (I can pull the study if you want.) That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics. And, as you say, their grades are weak both in high school and college.
>Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society.
This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
>Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession?
No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.