Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2008-05-08 03:09 pm
l33tminion) wrote2008-05-08 03:09 pm
On Affirmative Action for Colleges
A conversation I had this afternoon inspired the following thoughts:
The basic argument against affirmative action for colleges is as follows:
1. If a "less qualified" minority student is accepted and a "more qualified" non-minority student is rejected, this is racial discrimination, which is wrong.
2. A student with lower test scores, worse grades, fewer extra-curricular activities, less "intelligence", etc. is "less qualified".
The weakness in this position is not the logical argument in point one. When selecting applicants for a job, one should (both morally and pragmatically) pick the most qualified candidates. If college admissions is analogous to this process, the "job" of students is learning.
Rather, I would contest the second point of the argument. A student with more room for improvement may be in a better position to learn than someone ostensibly "more qualified". Likewise, the "more qualified" student is not necessarily better at learning, they may simply be better at the games of memorization and regurgitation, manipulating teachers, and managing standardized tests. Deciding which student is in fact better qualified is difficult, so I would expect admissions departments to make mistakes. Thus, the knee-jerk accusations of "reverse racism" seem suspiciously hasty and certain.
A college must also consider interactions between students when selecting a student body. Diversity of perspectives is an advantage in many team-based tasks, and education is an exemplary case.
One could argue that education is not the job of colleges, that they are a business like any other, with profit as their sole objective. In that case, schools would certainly be wise to favor wealthy students (less need to pay aid, more family wealth to give) and to look for qualifications which predict success after graduation. Whether those students learn doesn't matter, as the college can list them as alumni and receive their tuition and donations either way. That might make the matter of who is "more qualified" as obvious as people seem to think... or closer to it, anyways.
Certainly the simplicity of this perspective must be tempting for college administrators, and even benevolent administrators want to attract donations (think how much educational good could be done with all that money). Still, I hope that colleges will not become mired in that perspective. Doing so means becoming pure reputation brokers, without that reputation being the side effect of an actual productive activity. During my college search, I asked the head of one of the departments at MIT what made the school better than its competitors, and she stated (paraphrased): "Our good name attracts the best students, those students ensure our good name." This left me with a sour taste in my mouth, as I had been hoping to hear at least something about academics.
The basic argument against affirmative action for colleges is as follows:
1. If a "less qualified" minority student is accepted and a "more qualified" non-minority student is rejected, this is racial discrimination, which is wrong.
2. A student with lower test scores, worse grades, fewer extra-curricular activities, less "intelligence", etc. is "less qualified".
The weakness in this position is not the logical argument in point one. When selecting applicants for a job, one should (both morally and pragmatically) pick the most qualified candidates. If college admissions is analogous to this process, the "job" of students is learning.
Rather, I would contest the second point of the argument. A student with more room for improvement may be in a better position to learn than someone ostensibly "more qualified". Likewise, the "more qualified" student is not necessarily better at learning, they may simply be better at the games of memorization and regurgitation, manipulating teachers, and managing standardized tests. Deciding which student is in fact better qualified is difficult, so I would expect admissions departments to make mistakes. Thus, the knee-jerk accusations of "reverse racism" seem suspiciously hasty and certain.
A college must also consider interactions between students when selecting a student body. Diversity of perspectives is an advantage in many team-based tasks, and education is an exemplary case.
One could argue that education is not the job of colleges, that they are a business like any other, with profit as their sole objective. In that case, schools would certainly be wise to favor wealthy students (less need to pay aid, more family wealth to give) and to look for qualifications which predict success after graduation. Whether those students learn doesn't matter, as the college can list them as alumni and receive their tuition and donations either way. That might make the matter of who is "more qualified" as obvious as people seem to think... or closer to it, anyways.
Certainly the simplicity of this perspective must be tempting for college administrators, and even benevolent administrators want to attract donations (think how much educational good could be done with all that money). Still, I hope that colleges will not become mired in that perspective. Doing so means becoming pure reputation brokers, without that reputation being the side effect of an actual productive activity. During my college search, I asked the head of one of the departments at MIT what made the school better than its competitors, and she stated (paraphrased): "Our good name attracts the best students, those students ensure our good name." This left me with a sour taste in my mouth, as I had been hoping to hear at least something about academics.