The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus. He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic. If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
Oh really? I suppose it's unlikely that peoples' prejudices could cause them to make inaccurate generalizations about the world around them. And do go on about the differences between the minorites and the "regular students".
He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic.
The assumption being that this is actually happening to a significant degree. The SCOTUS has set down fairly strict rules governing affirmative action in admissions processes, including forbidding quotas and rigid point-systems that benefit minorities.
"The academic achievement gap between the admitted white and Asian students and those designated as "underrepresented minorities" is often huge, in statistical terms often exceeding a full standard deviation (equivalent to a 600 vs. a 700 on each of the sections of the SAT exam)."
Sounds like a significant degree to me. Should the OP pretend not to notice this is happening?
I know it doesn't cite sources, but neither do you.
If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities ...
You keep using that phrase, affirmative action. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Modern affirmative action in higher education isn't about meeting quotas and admitting inferior students; rather, it's more like the Rooney Rule in the NFL, a way to make sure that minority students are getting looked at.
By the way, MIT has an active affirmative action program and we still seem to be doing just fine.
I'm pretty sure I didn't use the phrase affirmative action so I'm rather taken aback that you think I don't know what it means. I'm sure you don't know what καλημέρα means, but I have better chance at being right because it's in Greek. And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway.
But since you brought it up... At Caltech they didn't say they didn't use affirmative action at all. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face.
They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.
And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students.
Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment:
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
How is that misguided or offensive? It's simply a fact that if you lower academic standards for athletes, then the stereotype will be that the athletes are of lower academic caliber. Because they are. It was a statement of fact. I suppose the truth can be offensive...
It's not a strawman. At UoM, the point system was designed so that being a racial or ethnic minority was worth the same number of points as a full grade point (i.e. a white student with a high school 4.0 was equivalent point-wise to a black student with a high school 3.0.) For athletes, I remember it was about 1/5 of that amount of points, but I could be wrong on that score.
Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
If you taught at U of M, I'd imagine you're at least passingly familiar with Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court explicitly made what you're talking about illegal.
So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system. The result is identical. Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs. It's a fact, not a strawman.
Well at the very least maybe you can finally admit that you're expressing a view about minority students. Quitting your denial of that would be a great first step.
Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs.
So? Surprise, surprise: when you start adding factors besides pre-college test scores to your admissions criteria you see ... variation in pre-college scores.
The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system.
So you're unhappy that non SAT/GPA factors are taken into account. I'm curious if you've got the intellectual consistency to be in favor of simply ranking all students by their high school GPAs and SAT scores in descending order and taking the first N students. Maybe we don't actually need admissions committees or essays at all ...
* The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.)
Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :)
Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
Medical schools have similar practices - the average black student accepted into medical school has GPA/MCAT a full standard deviation below the average white student. (I.e., 50% of black medical students are in the bottom 20% of medical students.)
As a follow-up, in the late '70s, Caltech changed the admissions policies to go from application review by one professor to review by a committee of three. The % of women in the next class jumped by about 3x from one year to the next, from about 5% or so. Admissions is done completely differently today, but I still find that to be an interesting anecdote.
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus. He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic. If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.