Hmmmm.... This is a decent argument for limited Affirmative Action.

[Ben E Lou]

Bet you thought you'd never see me post a thread with that title, huh? I read an AJC editorial this morning that got my attention. I'm still very much against quotas of any kind, but this is a decent argument for case-by-case individualized decisions where "disadvantage" is taken into consideration. Of course, the liberal editorial board at the AJC is trying to paint the picture that every black student in Georgia is disadvantaged, and every white student is privileged, but I expect that from them. However, read on...

Originally Posted by AJC Editorial Board

Scales need balance

Judging students on 'merit' should require looking at what they have accomplished and overcome

One University of Georgia sophomore, reacting to the news Wednesday that UGA plans to resume using race as an admissions factor, voiced a common and understandable view: Entry to the state's flagship campus should be "strictly merit-based."

But how is merit measured? By what you have achieved, or by what you have overcome? More specifically, does the presence of thousands of middle- and upper-class white students at UGA reflect merit, or prior advantage?

In recent years, UGA's growing prestige has attracted more and more children of privilege and affluence, students who have had every opportunity and in most cases done well with it. Many are products of high-per-

forming suburban schools, summer enrichment programs and $600 SAT prep classes to push their scores from 1100 to 1200.

Under race-neutral admissions, those advantaged applicants are deemed more meritorious than African-American students from low-performing schools who excelled without access to academic summer camps or Princeton Review classes.

Because a federal appeals court in 2001 ruled that UGA's affirmative action admissions policy was unconstitutional, the school had to stop giving potential students any extra points because of race. (UGA also gave an edge to students whose parents had attended UGA, which basically translated to affirmative action for some white students, since black Georgians were denied admittance to UGA until 1961.)

Rather than challenge the court decision, UGA committed to search for ways to ensure that Athens did not become a white enclave. In the meantime, African-American enrollment fell. Today's UGA freshman class of 4,500 has only 200 African-Americans, partly because of admissions practices and partly because black students have not felt welcome at Athens.

Now, the university is proposing a broader effort to increase diversity, taking into account a prospective student's race or ethnicity, where a student is from, whether the student speaks a foreign language and whether the student has a talent that would benefit the university. By making race one of many factors considered for admission, the policy meets the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The high court said that while universities cannot place sole emphasis on an applicant's race, they can consider it as a factor.

It's hard to see how Georgians could argue against weighing the accomplishments of UGA applicants against the opportunities or obstacles they have encountered.

Consider two applicants who both made the honor roll throughout high school. One is from an affluent family and was raised from birth on flashcards, piano lessons and science camps. That student scored a 1250 on the SAT. The other candidate is a striving student from a poor family in rural Georgia, raised in a home where the only reading material was the phone book. That student scored 1150 on the SAT.

Whose accomplishments represent greater merit?

[Ben E Lou]

The final paragraph does make sense to me. Of course, what if the 1250 student is my nephew, and the 1150 student is a white kid from a poor family in rural Georgia? A little about my nephew (Jeff)...


My brother has been over the six-figure income line for all of my nephew's 16 years. My sister-in-law is a teacher-turned-stay-at-home mom. She quit teaching a couple of months before Jeff was born. Jeff has therefore had constant attention from his mother, (a qualified teacher) SAT prep classes, academic enrichment courses, etc. etc. etc. When my brother made the decision to move his family to metro Atlanta this past fall, my sister-in-law went on the internet, checked the test scores of all the high schools in metro Atlanta, then further checked for the very best concert and marching band programs in the city, as Jeff is a very good bass clarinet player, probably college band scholarship material. She also had Jeff's youth-minister-connected-to-the-local-high-school-scene uncle check into various matters regarding the high schools that she narrowed it down to. All of this was done secure in the knowledge that they could afford to move into any school district in metro Atlanta, and if none of the government schools offered exactly what they were looking for, then private school was an option as well. I'm not sure what Jeff's SAT scores are, but it would be an absolute travesty if he got *any* special considerations at UGA because of his race. On the other hand, if "Fred" (not his real name), a white kid I know with one parent with a GED, and the other didn't finish HS, never sees dad, low income, etc. etc. etc. had worked hard enough to score 1150 on the SAT with a strong GPA, and Jeff had the identical SAT score and similar GPA, it would be clear to me that Fred would be more deserving of admission.

[Franklinnoble]

You should use single-letter abbreviations for peoples names when you tell a story like that.

[Celeval]

I have no issue in taking background into consideration. I do not believe race means priviliged/under-priv'd, or should have any bearing. Personally.

[Franklinnoble]

dola... while unrealistic... why should race be a factor when not all poor people are black?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Celeval

I have no issue in taking background into consideration. I do not believe race means priviliged/under-priv'd, or should have any bearing. Personally.

You sank my dola...

[Chubby]

The only affirmative action that I think should be used in colleges is in regards to money. If you come from a poor school district then you should get some leeway with your scores/grades regardless of whether you are black/white/purple or polka dotted.

[Solecismic]

I think people get too caught up in the prestige factor of attending a certain name university. There are plenty of decent schools out there without elite admissions standards. Schools better able to offer the right remedial courses, better used to smart kids from poorer areas needing the remedial courses.

A university should select only on merit. Interviews, essays and careful analysis of a student's record do a lot to expose the privileged kids who maybe aren't as smart.

But the tests have a high correlation to success in college. What's the advantage of admitting someone who simply isn't going to benefit from what makes Georgia better? When he has a higher chance of failing, dropping out and missing the benefits of a four-year college. Instead, he can go to Georgia Southern (off the top of my head, don't know anything about it), stand out, maybe transfer later into his speciality, and come out of college far better prepared to succeed.

I think race-based admissions policies and affirmative action do minorities a huge disservice. They underscore the stereotype of quotas and tokens, fostering the belief that minorities are damaged little children who can't survive without the man's help. We're never going to reach the point where one man can look at another without first thinking "white or black" until we see the absurdity of these policies.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think people get too caught up in the prestige factor of attending a certain name university. There are plenty of decent schools out there without elite admissions standards. Schools better able to offer the right remedial courses, better used to smart kids from poorer areas needing the remedial courses.

That's a very good point that I hadn't considered, concerning the remedial courses.

Interviews, essays and careful analysis of a student's record do a lot to expose the privileged kids who maybe aren't as smart.

To put it bluntly, I've never been that impressed with Jeff's intelligence as compared to other kids his age, but I know he has a high GPA at one of the top schools in the state, and given the classes and preparation he's had and is going to have, he'll probably get a strong SAT score.

But the tests have a high correlation to success in college. What's the advantage of admitting someone who simply isn't going to benefit from what makes Georgia better? When he has a higher chance of failing, dropping out and missing the benefits of a four-year college. Instead, he can go to Georgia Southern (off the top of my head, don't know anything about it), stand out, maybe transfer later into his speciality, and come out of college far better prepared to succeed.

Georgia Southern is a perfect example there, fyi. There's also the social/fitting-in aspect to consider. One of my wife's cousins is a sophomore at UGA right now. We were talking with her at Thanksgiving about the school and she, who is definitely a country-club-daughter-of-privilege type, was even commenting on feeling second-tier on the social ladder in Athens because of all the Atlanta old-money types who are there now. Her impression is that there are very few kids there who aren't quite bright and aren't from medium-to-upper income homes. I can't imagine how "Fred" would survive in that type of environment.

I think race-based admissions policies and affirmative action do minorities a huge disservice. They underscore the stereotype of quotas and tokens, fostering the belief that minorities are damaged little children who can't survive without the man's help. We're never going to reach the point where one man can look at another without first thinking "white or black" until we see the absurdity of these policies.

I couldn't agree with you more on this paragraph. I've always viewed AA as, "Here you are, you poor little Negro. I know you can't do it on your own, so here's some help."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jane, you ignorant slut

While I'll grant you that this is a better argument than a lot of the tired old "poor pitiful me/us/them" crap that gets trotted out on this subject by some camps, I still see little more than yet another b.s. excuse to offer extra credit based on skin color.

But how is merit measured? By what you have achieved, or by what you have overcome?

The sad fact that this question is even asked in an apparently serious fashion probably says more about the AJC editorial board than anything else.

Look, if a one-armed, one-legged, blind midget averages 8 ppg, 2 apg, 1 spg, and 2 rpg in Division I hoops, I'm incredibly impressed by that. But if I've also got a 6'10" guy who is the offspring of an Olympic wrestler & an Olympic gymnast, who averages 15 ppg, 3 apg, 2 spg, 2 bpg, and 8 rpg ... I know which one of them is going to start every night, impressed by "overcoming obstacles" be damned, "prior advantage" does not diminish the reality of the accomplishments nor the productivity.

Whose accomplishments represent greater merit?

Again, it alternately saddens & sickens me that there's even a question to be asked on that one. Lemme see here, 1350 > 1250. Damn, looks like I got it in one.

And on a side note, I love the way the AJC just convienently overlooks other factors (which have been documented in their own paper over the past few years) that influence what schools students even apply to. (Hard to get admitted if you don't apply)

Those familiar with Georgia geography know the racial geography of the state pretty well -- UGA sits amidst some of the whitest counties in the state, in what seems likely to be the 2nd-whitest region in the state (depending upon how you want to divide the state into regions). For some non-white students, UGA isn't as geographically desirable as other schools. Let's also not forget the presence of a number of "legacy" HBC's in Atlanta, surely those are still attracting quite a few black college-bound students as well.

But it's easier for the AJC to push their agenda if they just ignore those factors and others, and focus on the narrow bits that further their goals.

{edited to add/clarify} For those who aren't familiar with the various demographic clusters in Georgia, it might be worth pointing out that this sentence "For some non-white students, UGA isn't as geographically desirable as other schools." does not apply strictly to black students. One of the state's largest Hispanic communities is located in the NW part of the state & is significantly closer to schools in both TN & AL than to Athens, GA.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think people get too caught up in the prestige factor of attending a certain name university. There are plenty of decent schools out there without elite admissions standards. Schools better able to offer the right remedial courses, better used to smart kids from poorer areas needing the remedial courses.

A university should select only on merit. Interviews, essays and careful analysis of a student's record do a lot to expose the privileged kids who maybe aren't as smart.

But the tests have a high correlation to success in college. What's the advantage of admitting someone who simply isn't going to benefit from what makes Georgia better? When he has a higher chance of failing, dropping out and missing the benefits of a four-year college. Instead, he can go to Georgia Southern (off the top of my head, don't know anything about it), stand out, maybe transfer later into his speciality, and come out of college far better prepared to succeed.

I think race-based admissions policies and affirmative action do minorities a huge disservice. They underscore the stereotype of quotas and tokens, fostering the belief that minorities are damaged little children who can't survive without the man's help. We're never going to reach the point where one man can look at another without first thinking "white or black" until we see the absurdity of these policies.

I agre. There are a ton of colleges in the US. Every school for all kinds of niche students. Ultimately, I think it does students a hell of a lot more good to go someplace where 1) they are wanted 2) where they will have people help them to succeed and 3) where they'll graduate and actually have got something out of the experience.

While everyone wants to go to a name school, it's not really about that and we really pump that into the heads of kids. And it's bigger than that.

That being said, I've always been opposed to affirmative action in government policy. But if a private institution wants to discriminate - and yes, that even means if they want to choose white kids over others - I'm okay with that. It's not my business and I'd rather know their intentions up front.

I dunno..just my .02

[rexallllsc]

The best idea I've heard is giving less weight to the SAT, and more weight to class rank. You know, how someone performs vs. their peers. I think that's a great way, and it will include those who come from disadvantaged areas.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

The best idea I've heard is giving less weight to the SAT, and more weight to class rank. You know, how someone performs vs. their peers. I think that's a great way, and it will include those who come from disadvantaged areas.

I'd just ask that you consider this -- valedictorian of the local public high school a few years ago, #1 in her class, spends two years in remdial courses at UGA before flunking out. Salutatorian, #2 in the same class, didn't last quite that long before suffering a similar fate.

The only way I see class rank being a significant factor is if you can adequately normalize for grade inflation (something that is being looked at in Georgia right now) as well as the incredible disparity in class size in Georgia (Some of the smallest HS here have under 100 students in grades 9-12, while the largest are in the 4,000 to 5,000 range).

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I got a much better education for my 2 years at 26th out of my class of 519 in Houston than my 1 out of 77. If I had stayed at the smaller school, I would have gotten killed when I got through college. You have to account for that somewhat.

SI

[Solecismic]

I graduated 27th out of 43 from a prep school. I had the test scores, the extracurriculars (a lot of sports participation, and my first attempts at running a software company) and I think I did very well on interviews from the comments I received.

The result: I was turned down flat by Harvard, deferred at Yale (good luck getting in off of that list) and got in everywhere else I applied (Rochester, Northwestern, Michigan).

I think it was a fair result. There were better students who demonstrated intelligence and versatility without dropping from an A average to a B average. I would have hated for it to be decided by something out of my control, like race.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The sad fact that this question is even asked in an apparently serious fashion probably says more about the AJC editorial board than anything else.

Look, if a one-armed, one-legged, blind midget averages 8 ppg, 2 apg, 1 spg, and 2 rpg in Division I hoops, I'm incredibly impressed by that. But if I've also got a 6'10" guy who is the offspring of an Olympic wrestler & an Olympic gymnast, who averages 15 ppg, 3 apg, 2 spg, 2 bpg, and 8 rpg ... I know which one of them is going to start every night, impressed by "overcoming obstacles" be damned, "prior advantage" does not diminish the reality of the accomplishments nor the productivity.

Apples and oranges Jon. What is important in basketball is winning - clearly the 6'10" athlete is going to give the team the better chance of winning than the 1-armed, 1-legged blind midget. Doesn't matter that the midget's accomplishment is far more impressive.

What we're talking about here though is who benefits the most from their education, and who will best take advantage of their education and contribute to society. And once you get to college, the advantages of wealth and involved parents are minimized in comparison to H.S. and college-prep testing.

In the hypothetical example posited by the AJC, it's pretty clear (to me) that the low-income student (example B) with the 1150 SAT score is probably a better student than the affluent student (example A) with all the prep classes and attentive parents that scored the 1250. Ask yourself - if the roles had been reversed and B had all the resources that A did, how would they have fared? Don't you suppose the low-income student with no built-in advantages would've done more than 100 points better on the SAT than his counterpart? If you do, then it seems pretty clear that student B has a better chance of making the most of their opportunity at a UGA education than student A. If you don't, then I'd be curious to hear why you don't think those advantages student A had don't account for more than the 100-point SAT difference.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

dola... while unrealistic... why should race be a factor when not all poor people are black?

Ding! This is the key part where the article goes wrong. Great, make the challenges they had to overcome part of the "merit" of a student, but they should be using factors other than race to judge this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Apples and oranges Jon. What is important in basketball is winning -

What is important is what is accomplished, something that continues to be given diminished importance in our society.

In the hypothetical example posited by the AJC, it's pretty clear (to me) that the low-income student (example B) with the 1150 SAT score is probably a better student than the affluent student (example A) with all the prep classes and attentive parents that scored the 1250.

"Better" ... hmm ... perhaps in some ways.
But not more successful. Nor more deserving.

If you don't, then I'd be curious to hear why you don't think those advantages student A had don't account for more than the 100-point SAT difference.

Pretty simple really -- I don't ultimately care why there's a 100-point difference ... the decisive factor here is that the 100-point difference exists.
I applaud the effort of the low-income student, but they came up short of the mark (in this two-way competition scenario).

Notice something else too -- the hypothetical that we're talking about now suddenly reverts to a high-income vs low-income scenario ... when the bulk of the editorial placed focus on black vs white.

Take the same income-based scenario, and make the economically disadvantaged student white, and you'd suddenly hear the cries from the AJC
from coast-to-coast about how white students were getting preferential treatment. At least I'm consistent with my position, I couldn't care less if
the kid is purple, if he's got higher scores (and an overall advantage in the elements that factor into admissions), he's the one that earned the slot.
But race, gender, ethnicity, et al should have absolutely zero influence on those admission factors -- anything else is a gimme, and an insistence that those recipient is somehow inferior to others.

[QuikSand]

Without getting into the merits of the argument itself, I don't think this is necessarily cause to be "conflicted" about affirmative action. In fact, agreeing with this principle seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way to bolster opposition to basic AA programs.

Here, you're arguing that the specifics of this student's circumstances could justify his inclusion or acceptance, even if some of the more basic, context-independent measures, might not. To me, this seems like exactly the thinking that a sensible AA-opponent might want to harbor -- yes, of course, we want to get in deserving kids from all circumstances. To the extent that the traditional ham-fisted measures of student achievement sometimes don't tell the whole story, sure -- we'd want the real story, and to go against the grain from time to time as appropriate.

The traditional thinking behind many AA programs is that you use broad classes of people, and assign quotas or bonuses based on those broad classes. And that's exactly where the systems fall apart -- in the effort to promote deserving students/applicants of a certain class, we end up doing so by proxy -- a decidedly imprefect proxy -- and end up benefitting some people who don't merit the consideration.

While I'm not sure it would come out this way in a political discussion -- from a practical perspective, I'd think that a lot of traditional AA advocates might be inclined to embrace a policy like this. And, a lot of traditional AA opponents ought to as well.

[Crapshoot]

Well Jon, the question is that if you want to grant admission to the person that you think is smarter- shouldnt you take circumstances into account ? I detest race based affirmative action, but I think socio-economic affirmative action has its place. Ben's example about the rich black kid vs the poor white kid is exactly what I had in mind.

If the poorer kid is smarter but didnt get the chance to take the SAT 3 times (which the Rich Kid can do) - surely that is an unfair comparison. To take your basketball comparison further, you have the guy scoring 20 points a game, but who has Jason Kidd as a point guard. On the other hand, you have the guy scoring 15 points a game, but who has Antoine Walker on his team- he sees the ball so little that he's doing more with his opportunities than the20 ppg guy and is quite probably a better scorer - I shouldnt ignore that.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What is important is what is accomplished, something that continues to be given diminished importance in our society.

I agree - where we differ is acknowledging that context plays a part in a rigorous examination of what has been accomplished.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Better" ... hmm ... perhaps in some ways.
But not more successful. Nor more deserving.

Well, obviously we disagree. If one student has every advantage in terms of educational supplements, from active, involved, supportive and helpful parents to any number of tutoring options outside of school, and another has none of these advantages, I think it matters to consider these differences in context when looking at their accomplishments - in the AJC example, I find the student with none of these advantages scoring an 1150 on their SAT more impressive than the student with all the advantages scoring a 1250.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty simple really -- I don't ultimately care why there's a 100-point difference ... the decisive factor here is that the 100-point difference exists. I applaud the effort of the low-income student, but they came up short of the mark (in this two-way competition scenario).

Again we differ. The low-income student came up short through no fault of their own - had they been given all the additional help the other student had, don't you think they'd have done as well or better?

My argument, and maybe I'm naive on this, but I think once you reach a major university these differences in background become much less important - I don't think a high-income kid has much of an advantage anymore over the low-income kid in learning and achieving at a University level.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Notice something else too -- the hypothetical that we're talking about now suddenly reverts to a high-income vs low-income scenario ... when the bulk of the editorial placed focus on black vs white.

Take the same income-based scenario, and make the economically disadvantaged student white, and you'd suddenly hear the cries from the AJC
from coast-to-coast about how white students were getting preferential treatment. At least I'm consistent with my position, I couldn't care less if
the kid is purple, if he's got higher scores (and an overall advantage in the elements that factor into admissions), he's the one that earned the slot.
But race, gender, ethnicity, et al should have absolutely zero influence on those admission factors -- anything else is a gimme, and an insistence that those recipient is somehow inferior to others.

I never actually argued in favor of simple race-based quotas - I was merely arguing in favor of schools having the flexibility to judge academic accomplishments within the context of how they were achieved in order to better determine who are the most promising students.

I do think that schools should have some flexibility to assign bonus points to minorities in terms of admissions as a tie-breaker of sorts in determining who gets in and who doesn't if the minority portion of the student body is well below the at-large percentages of the region. There is some value to be gained in having a university population that has a similar diversity to what those students will encounter in the real world - the education you recieve at a university isn't just confined to the classroom, it also encompasses all of the outside associated experiences you get attending school.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think people get too caught up in the prestige factor of attending a certain name university. There are plenty of decent schools out there without elite admissions standards. Schools better able to offer the right remedial courses, better used to smart kids from poorer areas needing the remedial courses.

I largely agree with this, but the reason people get caught up in the prestige of attending a name university is that other people get caught up in it too.

My family was unable to offer me much assistance for college. I wanted to attend Missouri for the journalism school right off the bat, but when I crunched the numbers my scholarships and student loans to MU were going to leave me with too much of a gap to make up with a part-time job. If had a full-ride scholarship offer to Southwest Missouri State plus a $2,000 state scholarship, so I actually made money by going to SMS. I atteneded there for two years then transferred to Missouri for the journalism school.

In my comparable under grad classes, my educational experience at SMS was far superior. I took French 1-3 at SMS and had a full doctoral professor teach all three courses. I took French 4 at Missouri taught by a TA. In my last semester at SMS, I took 18 hours and all were taught by a professor or assistant professor and none were a mass lecture.

In my first semester at Missouri, I took 15 hours and the only class taught be a professor was a mass lecture where all of our test and papers were graded by our TA. The other four classes were all taught by TAs who had only been in school 2 or 3 years more than I had. By all measures, outside the journalism schcool my academic experience at SMS was supperior to the education at Missouri.

But I'm making a pretty good living and I owe my last two jobs largely to the Missouri name. The last two people who hired me where Missouri grads, and there are plenty of places in journalism where being a Missouri grad will open doors or be the deciding factor in hiring.

I have a friend of mine who I considered to be on par with my ability. He attended SMS all four years. But his career has moved along much more slowly than mine, and I have no doubt that a lack of a "name university" on his resume is a big reason.

Receiving a good education and passing on the knowledge can certainly help your descendants, but it might not help you as much if people get caught in the prestige of where you have been and what you do.

[kcchief19]

On a different tanget, I have traditionally favored the concept of affirmative action but think that it has been poorly applied at times. And with each passing year, the "need" for affirmative action based on race decreases. I certainly understand why some people feel affirmative action is demeaning. Some of my support for affirmative action comes from the white people I know who are against. I've know too many rascists who hate affirmative action that makes me things there must be some merit to it.

But the AJC article made me consider this -- I think we should be moving more toward affirmative action based on socio-economic standing than race. I don't think society benefits if the best schools are only available to those with the best means and the best opportunities. In the AJC example, I don't think race need to be a factor. I think anyone is able to succeed in bad circumstance deserves credit for that.

Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules. There are plenty of people who defy stereotypes: poor kids from uneducated families who succeed and rich kids from educated families who fail. But by and large, what happens to you early in life dictates what will happen to you later in life. If you parents are be prepared to prepare you for an education and working, you have a better chance to make it.

That's the goal of affirmative action -- to give people the opportunity to overcome obstacles that are institutionalized in our society. If all elementary, middle and high schools were equal, you really wouldn't need affirmative action. But I think there are plenty of kids regardless of ethnicity who could benefit from affirmative action -- and in most cases I think society overall benefits from the greater diversity.

[clintl]

The big fallacy here is that the view that SAT scores should be the biggest factor in admissions policies, when they are not even the best predictors of academic success at the university level. High school GPA is a better predictor of how well students will perform at the university level. Furthermore, SAT scores inherited have a very limited scope with respect to measuring a student's true academic and intellectual talent. Many universities recognize this. The University of California, for example, has a process called Comprehensive Review, which takes into account how challenging the student's high school program of study is, how many honors and AP classes the student took and the performance in those classes, by how much the student's study exceeded the minimum admissions requirements, extracurricular activities that demonstrate leadership ability, as well as hardship. SAT scores are only a small part of the total picture, and rightly so. It has its critics who focus almost exclusively on SAT scores, but one of the regents who supports it is Ward Connerly, who led the fight to end affirmative action in UC and the California state government.

An overview of what is considered can be found here:

University of California Comprehensive Review

More info, including a report by John Moores, a regent and critic of the program can be found here:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.ed...ew/update.html

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

High school GPA is a better predictor of how well students will perform at the university level.

Might work fine in areas where GPA's are actually meaningful ... in Georgia, there
are quite a few indications (and more on the way) that they don't mean squat when they're issued by certain school systems/schools.

Now, once we have something along the lines of the "Comprehensive Review" in place, which aims to identify the extent of the grade inflation problem among other things, I'd be more receptive to increasing the focus on that particular factor.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Might work fine in areas where GPA's are actually meaningful ... in Georgia, there
are quite a few indications (and more on the way) that they don't mean squat when they're issued by certain school systems/schools.

Even in those schools, it should be possible to tell which students are the top performers. Part of the UC admissions policy is that the top 4% from each high school are guaranteed admission to a UC campus (not necessarily their top choice) as long as they meet the other eligibility criteria. This seems to me to be a reasonable way to control for the problem you are mentioning.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Jane, you ignorant slut

While I'll grant you that this is a better argument than a lot of the tired old "poor pitiful me/us/them" crap that gets trotted out on this subject by some camps, I still see little more than yet another b.s. excuse to offer extra credit based on skin color.

But how is merit measured? By what you have achieved, or by what you have overcome?

The sad fact that this question is even asked in an apparently serious fashion probably says more about the AJC editorial board than anything else.

Look, if a one-armed, one-legged, blind midget averages 8 ppg, 2 apg, 1 spg, and 2 rpg in Division I hoops, I'm incredibly impressed by that. But if I've also got a 6'10" guy who is the offspring of an Olympic wrestler & an Olympic gymnast, who averages 15 ppg, 3 apg, 2 spg, 2 bpg, and 8 rpg ... I know which one of them is going to start every night, impressed by "overcoming obstacles" be damned, "prior advantage" does not diminish the reality of the accomplishments nor the productivity.

Whose accomplishments represent greater merit?

Again, it alternately saddens & sickens me that there's even a question to be asked on that one. Lemme see here, 1350 > 1250. Damn, looks like I got it in one.

And on a side note, I love the way the AJC just convienently overlooks other factors (which have been documented in their own paper over the past few years) that influence what schools students even apply to. (Hard to get admitted if you don't apply)

Those familiar with Georgia geography know the racial geography of the state pretty well -- UGA sits amidst some of the whitest counties in the state, in what seems likely to be the 2nd-whitest region in the state (depending upon how you want to divide the state into regions). For some non-white students, UGA isn't as geographically desirable as other schools. Let's also not forget the presence of a number of "legacy" HBC's in Atlanta, surely those are still attracting quite a few black college-bound students as well.

But it's easier for the AJC to push their agenda if they just ignore those factors and others, and focus on the narrow bits that further their goals.

{edited to add/clarify} For those who aren't familiar with the various demographic clusters in Georgia, it might be worth pointing out that this sentence "For some non-white students, UGA isn't as geographically desirable as other schools." does not apply strictly to black students. One of the state's largest Hispanic communities is located in the NW part of the state & is significantly closer to schools in both TN & AL than to Athens, GA.

I understand where your coming from, but let me just put in my 2 cents in. First off, I don't see anything wrong with giving "extra credit" to people of color. Wheres the compassion? The least the rest of America can do is help out a demographic that has been systematically disadvantaged and also discriminated against for hundreds of years. I have African-American friends who still talk to me about some instance where they have faced racism. And I live in California!

The other argument you made what saying that the demographics of UGA are overwhelmingly white. I wouldn't doubt that for a second. Even if it isn't demographically or georaphically desirable for non-white students, thats not an exuse to ignore the white demographic. Life is so boring when there is just white kids in classrooms. Fostering a more minority friendly University can add so much to a students perspective and enhance their understanding of cultures and people. Georgia will never endorse any kind of Afrimative Action, thats just the way people think there.

I like to put it this way, Afrimative Action is never going to result in thousands of white students losing out on a great education. Afrimative Action should only be used in some situations. But if Afrimative Action is used, its a small price for a white kid to pay.

[randal7]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

. I've always viewed AA as, "Here you are, you poor little Negro. I know you can't do it on your own, so here's some help."

Bingo. And it reinforces this attitude amongst those of us white folks inclined to think that way. Because of AA, you can make the argument "If they're equal, why do they need the government to make people hire them?". And you can minimize in your own mind the accomplishments of any woman or minority by assuming they got where they are due to their skin color or gender.

But most of all, AA has denied minorities & women the final victory in their fight for equality. If the government had stayed out of it the problem would have solved itself. Businesses that only hired white men would over time get their arses kicked by businesses that hired the best person available. Colleges that graduate mediocre white guys would lose prestige to colleges that graduate superior potential employees regardless of color or gender. Market forces would force full integration, in other words. And when somebody who used to look down at you admits you are the best option and willingly gives you a job, you've won . Problem is, Americans always demand an quick fix rather than a long term solution.

[Arles]

There was a study done in California schools and the conclusion is very similar to what Jim stated. Essentially, there were many poor minorities being accepted into Cal with lower test scores. The problem was that many dropped out after less than 2 years, with some then going to smaller schools or JCs. The big issue, though, was that an alarming number would simply not re-enroll into any other school after dropping out of Cal. What they found was that these kids were told they would have no problem succeeding even though some of their scores (and academic work ethic) didn't really cut it. Therefore, they didn't change their tactics and adjust to college. So, many felt overwhelmed and came to the conclusion that college wasn't for them. While, if they had gone to a less-prestigious school like San Jose State from the start, they probably would have had 4-year degrees at this point.

I see this as a bit of a sports analogy. Let's say a 6-4 white kid from Yale averages 20 PPG and wants to go in the NBA. He's not quite as polished as the elite college kids and doesn't have the offensive game or ability to defend that many of the top tier kids do. Still, an NBA team decides to draft him at No. 25 because he's gotten to where he is without the benefit of great athletic ability or top coaching (not his playing ability). Then, the kid from Yale sits on the bench for 2-3 years before leaving the league for good and giving up basketball once his contract ends.

Now, wouldn't that kid have been better served to have not been drafted, went to Europe and work on his game, then come back to the NBA when he is ready?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by randal7

...Market forces would force full integration, in other words...Problem is, Americans always demand an quick fix rather than a long term solution.

It seems like the only time the government talks about the free market and market forces is when they talk about jobs going overseas or health insurance. With nearly everything else, they won't let market forces work things out. For instance, when one beef company wanted to test 100% of their herd for mad cow, the government (who regulates who can buy the tests) said they could not exceed the national standard (which I recall requires testing of only 1%), because the market might demand everyone test 100% and that would be a burden on the industry. Go figure.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

A university should select only on merit.

How? SAT scores? GPA? Honest question, as I really don't know what that means. A number of hypotheticals have been thrown out in this thread asking which candidate might be more meritorious. Certainly, at some level, these choices may be no-brainers, but on the fringe they are nothing more than subjective decisions that may have very little to do with merit. I'd argue anything beyond looking at pure numbers becomes subjective (incidentally law school admissions have tried to combat this with numbers, creating a UGPA, where your college GPA is multiplied by an x-factor based on your undergraduate institution's reputation). Further, I think we want that subjectivity.

What about legacies? What about kids whose parents give a lot of money to the school? What about that outstanding flutist who doesn't have the grades because she's been traveling with the city pops orchestra? She could really transform the college orchestra. Or the star point guard who has an 850 SAT score?

University campuses are unique. They are places where you benefit by people challenging your ideas based on different thoughts and ideas (possibly based on varying experiences and beliefs). If we go only to numbers (I realize I've changed your "merit" argument into a numbers one--and not intentionally--only because I don't know how to define merit), I fear we could lose a great deal of the uniqueness (and the benefit) a college campus offers.

(I think I might fall into the camp Quik mentions here. As part of looking at the subjective factors, I think socioeconomic status, race, geography, etc. will come into play, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However, I don't think there should be x spots set aside for blacks, whites, kids from South Carolina, farm boys, or anyone else.)

[kcchief19]

Stephen articulated my thoughts much better than I did.

I think a fallacy of AA is exposed in some of the above thoughts. Analogies comparing a one-legged basketball player average two points per game to a player averaging 15 points isn't even remotely close to what this type of a program -- or most any AA program outside of quotas -- is designed to do. We're not talking about that big of a discrepancy. We're not talking about rejecting a student with a 1250 SAT score to let in someone else with an 850. We're talking about how to determine whether or not a 1250 SAT score with a 3.0 GPA in a high-rated suburban school is better than an 1100 SAT score with a 3.25 GPA for a kind in a poor rural school.

Digamma has a point -- it is difficult to make decisions strictly on merit when there are so many x-factors that can't be identitied to determine who is more deserving of going to a particular college. In the end, I take the utilitarian approach on this -- making college campus diverse is essential to a successful college experience, so long as we don't use strict quotas.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

First off, I don't see anything wrong with giving "extra credit" to people of color.

Then we've got a fundamental disagreement that we're probably not going to resolve.

The other argument you made what saying that the demographics of UGA are overwhelmingly white.

Just to avoid having anyone take that thumbnail in the wrong context (not saying you did, just saying I can foresee somebody doing so) -- the relevance of that involved where non-white students choose to attend.

Georgia will never endorse any kind of Afrimative Action, thats just the way people think there.

Umm ... that's pretty much what started this discussion AFAIK -- the state is about to do just that, kinda makes it hard to say "never".

But if Afrimative Action is used, its a small price for a white kid to pay.

Sadly, they aren't the only ones paying the price -- everyone is,
in a number of ways.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

Part of the UC admissions policy is that the top 4% from each high school are guaranteed admission to a UC campus (not necessarily their top choice) as long as they meet the other eligibility criteria. This seems to me to be a reasonable way to control for the problem you are mentioning.

Up the thread a bit, I provided an anecdote that pretty much covers why I don't believe it provides an adequate control -- #1 & #2 of the same HS both flunking out after spending virtually their entire college career in remedials. The top 4% in some schools in GA simply aren't near the level of the 50th percentile at other HS.

I've seen better reports with more details than the one I'm going to link (and much more detail about the situation in Georgia) but it's the best I've got time to google up right now (I'm sooooo supposed to be working instead of posting)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...des-usat_x.htm

In Georgia, for instance, four out of 10 students who earn the popular Hope Scholarships to the state's university system lose the scholarship after they earn about 30 credits — roughly a year's worth of work — because they can't keep their grades up.

Performances on college admissions tests point to possible grade inflation. Fifteen years ago, students with A averages accounted for 28% of SAT test takers, says Wayne Camara, who oversees research for the College Board.

Today, 42% of college-bound seniors have A averages, but they score no better on the college admissions tests than did A students a decade earlier.
...
Only 1 in 3 18-year-olds is even minimally prepared for college, according to a report by the Manhattan Institute, a New York-based think tank. The picture is even bleaker for minorities: Only 20% of black students in the class of 2001 were college-ready.

...

But about 40% of Hope Scholars who entered Georgia schools as freshmen in fall 2000 failed to maintain the minimum 3.0 GPA in their first 30 credit hours of college work.

I did find a more scholarly approach to the same basic issue here:
http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2001/fable.htm

It's got their detailed findings & detailed methodology & all the minutiae that comes with a study, but their conclusion pretty well sums it up:
This study finds evidence that not all Georgia high school "B" averages are created equal. It finds systematic differences in the way Georgia’s public school systems award "B" averages and hence eligibility for HOPE scholarships. Based on average student achievement measured by average SAT scores, some school systems systematically award more HOPE eligibility relative to the state wide average. Conversely, some school systems systematically award less HOPE eligibility relative to the state wide average. Dee and Jackson find the county of a student’s origin is important in predicting HOPE retention among college students. Similarly, this study finds the county of a student’s origin is important in predicting initial HOPE eligibility.

[spleen1015]

I'm not going to get into the meat of this discussion. I just want to ask a question that I have wondered about for a while.

Why is Race even on a college application? I know why it was put on there to begin with, but why is it still on there today? If you remove it, then I would think more folks would get selected based on merit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Why is Race even on a college application? I know why it was put on there to begin with, but why is it still on there today? If you remove it, then I would think more folks would get selected based on merit.

The straight answer is that, with race & demographics playing a role in all sorts of funding matters, as well as to track possible discriminatory issues, it's a necessary evil.

The cynical answer is that a scenario where "more folks would get selected based on merit" is the very last thing some people want.

[clintl]

FWIW, in case some of you haven't clicked on the UC Comprehensive Review link I posted, here is what the University of California considers when reviewing applications. It's not just GPA, and it's not just test scores, and it emphasizes high achievement within the context of the available opportunities.

1. High school grade point average in UC-required courses
2. Standardized test scores
3. Number of, content of and performance in academic courses completed beyond the University’s minimum eligibility requirements
4. Number of, and performance in honors and AP courses
5. Being identified as “eligible in the local context” by ranking in the top 4 percent of the high school class, as determined by the University’s academic criteria
6. Quality of the senior year program, as measured by the type and number of academic courses in progress or planned
7. Quality of academic performance relative to educational opportunities available in the applicant's school
8. Outstanding performance in one or more academic subject areas
9. Outstanding work in one or more special projects in any academic field
10. Recent marked improvement in academic performance
11. Special talents, achievements, and awards in a particular field, or experiences that demonstrate unusual promise for leadership or ability to contribute to the intellectual vitality of the campus
12. Completion of special projects that offer significant evidence of an applicant’s special effort and determination or that may indicate special suitability to an academic program on a specific campus
13. Academic accomplishments in light of an applicant’s experiences and circumstances, such as disabilities, low family income, first generation to attend college, need to work, disadvantaged social or educational environment, difficult personal and family situations or circumstances, refugee status or veteran status
14. Location of the applicant’s secondary school and residence, to provide for geographic diversity in the student population and to account for the wide variety of educational environments existing in California

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

... here is what the University of California considers when reviewing applications.

A question or two, with the full acknowledgement that I haven't gone looking for the answers to these questions myself (hey, why reinvent the wheel if you already know the answers *g*)

1) Is that list in "weighted order"? In other words, does a high GPA outweigh a high standardized test performance, which outweighs performance in AP classes, etc? Or is that list in somewhat random order?

2) Compare, if you could/will, the performance disparity of different Cali districts/systems vs the great gaps I've talked about in Georgia. I'm not looking for anything scientific particularly, I'm just talking in general terms like "yeah, ours is just a f'ed up as yours" or "I think your situation is a lot more drastic than ours".

[clintl]

I probably should have included these two lines that follow the list, but which I think answers the first question:

All campuses use the same selection criteria to evaluate applications; however, the weight of each factor and the specific evaluation process differ from campus to campus.

Students who demonstrate strong academic performance and have challenged themselves to the best of their ability and circumstances will continue to receive the highest priority in admissions.

As for your second question, there are pretty large disparities between different districts. I'm most familiar with the Sacramento area districts, and I can tell you that the highest performing districts are in Davis (where a UC campus is located) and the districts in South Placer County, which is a very affluent suburban region. The inner city districts tend to have lots of problems. A year ago, the Sacramento City School District turned Sacramento High School into a charter school (run by former NBA star Kevin Johnson's St. Hope Foundation) because it had so many problems, and there are several other high schools in the Sacramento District with similar problems. Rural districts in agricultural areas also don't do well on standardized tests. Likely the fact that there are so many English language learners in those districts is a primary cause, because there are so many migrant farm workers from Mexico in those areas. I know that in the district I have been substitute teaching in recently (Woodland), there are quite a few of these students, especially at the lower grades, although it seems to me that most of the Hispanic students I have encountered have decent to good English language skills by the time they reach secondary school. Woodland is close enough to metropolitan Sacramento, however, that it is probably not completely representative of more remote rural agricultural communities.

Grade inflation, however, if it is a problem, does not seem to be getting much attention in California. The state and the school districts are focused primarily on improving standardized test scores throughout the state, and there is a very heavy focus within the schools on teaching the state curriculum standards. In fact, teachers are supposed to have the standards posted in their classrooms so that students know what they are supposed to be learning.

How the disparity compares to Georgia, I'm not sure, since I'm not at all familiar with Georgia's profile, other than what you and SkyDog and other Georgians have posted here.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by clintl

How the disparity compares to Georgia, I'm not sure, since I'm not at all familiar with Georgia's profile, other than what you and SkyDog and other Georgians have posted here.

Let's put it this way. The Atlanta area schools just about universally grade out above national average. Once you add the rural area schools, we are about dead last in the country. It isn't a slight drop. It is like a huge cliff.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Let's put it this way. The Atlanta area schools just about universally grade out above national average. Once you add the rural area schools, we are about dead last in the country. It isn't a slight drop. It is like a huge cliff.

That pretty well covers it ... although there are definitely exceptions to the Atlanta-area part, and a few exceptions to the rural part (not sure if there are enough to be very significant though).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That pretty well covers it ... although there are definitely exceptions to the Atlanta-area part, and a few exceptions to the rural part (not sure if there are enough to be very significant though).

Yeah, I'm broad-brushing. But basically the good is pretty good, and the bad is really bad.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I graduated 27th out of 43 from a prep school. I had the test scores, the extracurriculars (a lot of sports participation, and my first attempts at running a software company) and I think I did very well on interviews from the comments I received.

The result: I was turned down flat by Harvard, deferred at Yale (good luck getting in off of that list) and got in everywhere else I applied (Rochester, Northwestern, Michigan).

I think it was a fair result. There were better students who demonstrated intelligence and versatility without dropping from an A average to a B average. I would have hated for it to be decided by something out of my control, like race.

I am a little confused over the list of colleges you were looking at going to.

Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Northwester, U of Rochester????? Unless that's supposed to be RIT it seems a little out of place.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Those "rural" schools would all be the red counties, right? Shocking.

Nope. The Suburbs where some of the best schools are are all Red. Nice try, dillybar.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Those "rural" schools would all be the red counties, right? Shocking.

Nope. You don't know what you're talking about. Shocking.

Cobb Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET		Bush (Incumbent)	173,206	62%	100% of precincts reporting
		Kerry	103,720	37%
		Badnarik	2,048	1%

Gwinnett Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET		Bush (Incumbent)	160,013	66%	100% of precincts reporting
		Kerry	81,334	33%
		Badnarik	1,758	1%

Without looking it up, I'm 95% certain that Cobb and Gwinnett counties would have the highest average SAT's among government schools in Georgia. The school that my sister-in-law picked for my nephew is in Gwinnett. Go home, you ignorant and bitter troll.

[Ben E Lou]

Just double-checked. Both Cobb and Gwinnett come in above the national average. Shocking.

[Ben E Lou]

But then, for example...

Stewart Updated: 2:09 p.m. ET		Kerry	1,220	60%	100% of precincts reporting
		Bush (Incumbent)	797	39%
		Badnarik	14	1%

Average SAT in Stewart County in 2003???

Stewart County

401

391

792

[Crapshoot]

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

link sent to me by someone. Lets not get started on the red/blue version of this.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

link sent to me by someone. Lets not get started on the red/blue version of this.

Ah. Yet another person who posts without having done his homework.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp