Michael Kimmel on “The Boy Crisis” and Anti-Male Ideology
| November 17th, 2006Via Dylan at Handle The Truth, a fantastic article by one of my favorite writers, Michael Kimmel, regarding the so-called “Boy Crisis” in education.
After outlining the case for the Boy Crisis, Kimmel effectively goes over the reasons for doubting the “crisis” exists: That historically, panics over boys in crisis surface again and again (and women - whether in the form of female schoolteachers or of feminists - are always to blame); that wage gaps would lead us to expect boys to have less incentive to stay in school (someone who can earn $20,000 a year out of high school is a good deal more likely to drop out than someone who can earn $14,000);1 how “No Child Left Behind” has hurt boys who would benefit from gym and sports programs, and from counseling; and that far from being a universal among boys, the “boy crisis” is virtually all among boys from lower-income families and boys of color. Kimmell writes:
Why don’t the critics acknowledge these race and class differences? To many who now propose to “rescue” boys, such differences are incidental because, in their eyes, all boys are the same aggressive, competitive, rambunctious little devils. They operate from a facile, and inaccurate, essentialist dichotomy between males and females. Boys must be allowed to be boys—so that they grow up to be men.
This facile biologism leads the critics to propose some distasteful remedies to allow these testosterone-juiced boys to express themselves. Gurian, for example, celebrates all masculine rites of passage, “like military boot camp, fraternity hazings, graduation day, and bar mitzvah” as “essential parts of every boy’s life.” He also suggests reviving corporal punishment, both at home and at school…
I was one of the boys who failed all the “masculinity” tests; I was gentle, overly sensitive, and could no more catch a ball than I could catch a jumbo jet plane. I can’t imagine how I would have survived the kind of schooling Gurian wants to shove boys into. But because wimpy boys don’t fit into the biological-essentialist worldview, their needs are never considered by the boy-crisis mavens. Their allegedly “pro-boy” reforms are really only about helping the jocky boys; all other boys can go hang.2
A crisis among lower-income and non-white boys is still a crisis, of course.3 But to talk as if an inability to do well in contemporary schools comes with the Y chromosome is deceptive. There already are many schools in the USA, right now, in which boys do just as well as girls. Boy crisis mavens tend to talk about how boy brains can’t learn if they’re expected to sit still in class, to read novels, to do homework, and to follow rules; but in schools where boys excel, boys are expected to do all those things.
Nonetheless, it’s a fact that among some groups, boys are doing worse than girls. Why is this? Kimmel argues that a false and damaging conception of masculinity harms boys by dissuading them from putting as much effort as they should into their schoolwork, even as it encourages them to be overconfident about their abilities.
Kimmel has angry words for the anti-male ideology underlying the “boy crisis” panic:
It is not the school experience that “feminizes” boys, but rather the ideology of traditional masculinity that keeps boys from wanting to succeed. “The work you do here is girls’ work,” one boy commented to a researcher. “It’s not real work.”
“Real work” involves a confrontation — not with feminist women, whose sensible educational reforms have opened countless doors to women while closing off none to men — but with an anachronistic definition of masculinity that stresses many of its vices (anti-intellectualism, entitlement, arrogance, and aggression) but few of its virtues. When the self-appointed rescuers demand that we accept boys’ “hardwiring,” could they possibly have such a monochromatic and relentlessly negative view of male biology? Maybe they do. But simply shrugging our collective shoulders in resignation and saying “boys will be boys” sets the bar much too low. Boys can do better than that. They can be men.
Perhaps the real “male bashers” are those who promise to rescue boys from the clutches of feminists. Are males not also “hardwired” toward compassion, nurturing, and love? If not, would we allow males to be parents? It is never a biological question of whether we are “hardwired” for some behavior; it is, rather, a political question of which “hardwiring” we choose to respect and which we choose to challenge.
The antifeminist pundits have an unyielding view of men as irredeemably awful. We men, they tell us, are savage, lustful, violent, sexually omnivorous, rapacious, predatory animals, who will rape, murder, pillage, and leave towels on the bathroom floor—unless women fulfill their biological duty and constrain us. “Every society must be wary of the unattached male, for he is universally the cause of numerous ills,” writes David Popenoe. Young males, says Charles Murray, are “essentially barbarians for whom marriage . . . is an indispensable civilizing force.”
By contrast, feminists believe that men are better than that, that boys can be raised to be competent and compassionate, ambitious and attentive, and that men are fully capable of love, care, and nurturance. It’s feminists who are really “pro-boy” and “pro-father”—who want young boys and their fathers to expand the definition of masculinity and to become fully human.
I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
- Actually, Kimmel barely touches on the point about the wage gap, but it’s a hobby horse of mine so I’m including it on this list. (back)
- And even the “help” offered jock boys is dubious; such “help” could be accurately termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” (back)
- Let’s not forget, however, that the same crisis exists among lower-income and non-white girls, whose academic achievement is considerably lower than that of their middle-class white counterparts. The real crisis owes much more to class and race inequalities than to sex. (back)
November 17th, 2006 at 8:00 am
The MIT numbers, and those of other science and engineering schools like Cal Tech, may be not readily compared to those of other schools because of the concentration in those schools on graduate study. Here’s MIT’s numbers in detail:
Student Body Profile (2005 - 2006)
Undergraduate 4,066
Graduate 6,140
Total 10,206 students
Undergraduate 43% female 57% male
Graduate 30% female 70% male
Overall, that’s 35% female and 65% male (they had 32 and 68 in the article).
And while we’re at it, I was thinking you all might be interested in this:
Profile of the Admitted Class of 2010
Who they are…
• 1,474 students out of 11,373 (13% admit rate)
• 52% men, 48% women
• 28% are Asian American
• 36% are Caucasian/White
• 22% are members of underrepresented minority groups (African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Native American, and other Hispanic groups)
• 1% Other
• 6% No response
• 7% are international students
Where they live…
• 50 States represented, DC and 2 territories
• 59 Foreign countries represented
Their achievements…
• 48% of those who are ranked are #1 in their high school class
• SAT mean scores - Math 759, Verbal 723
• SAT median scores - Math 780, Verbal 740
• 75% are Presidents/Captains/Leaders/Founders
•17% are academic stars (distinctions such as AIME score of 10+, National Science Fair finalists, International Olympiad medal winners, etc.)
•12% are non-academic stars (identified talent in art, music or athletics)
Asian Americans are minorities, but they are not considered “under-represented minorities”.
The Institute used to admit far fewer women, but they started to emphasize higher verbal scores (while not backing off on the math scores) and the communications and essay portions of the tests and admissions form, as well as the interview (which I have the honor of getting to conduct a few times a year with local kids).
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Asian Americans are minorities, but they are not considered “under-represented minorities”.
In the 1930s anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic sentiment flourished in higher education. The Census distinguished southern and Eastern European immigrants from native, northwestern Europeans. Jews were the first of the European immigrant groups to enter colleges in significant numbers and faced the brunt of discrimination there. Harvard President Lawrence Lowell was openly opposed to Jews at Harvard. The Protestant elite complained Jews were unwashed, uncouth, unrefined, loud and pushy. The Seven Sisters schools had a reputation for flagrant discrimination. Today, Jews make up 2% of the population but an astonishing 30% of Ivy League college students. Asians make up 4% of the population and face what Jews went through in the 30s. There was a recent study that showed Asian Americans need 50 points more on the the SAT for the same spots of whites at Ivy League colleges. They make up about 15% of Ivy League college students. I read this study the other day and made this parallel.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 9:54 am
So do you think Jews are “overrepresented” at Ivy League colleges, RonF?
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Donna, it was the admission of Jews, their “overrepresentation” in high test scores that lead to the idea of the “well-rounded” student: by emphasizing sports it was possible to bring in students who’s scores weren’t up to par.
Damn those minority groups who test well and throw things off for the WASP boys.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
“Underrepresented Minority” is not my term; it’s what MIT officially uses to help distinguish those minorities present in MIT’s student body at a percentage below that of the general population vs. minorities (e.g. Asian-Americans) who are present at percentages above those of the general population. Donna, if that statement about what Asians need to get into Ivy League schools is true it would appear that their admissions policies are markedly different from MIT’s. Which is no surprise to me.
As far as religious presence at MIT goes, here are some numbers from a 2004 survey of incoming freshmen:
42.2% Christian (11 sects + “Other Christian”)
41.2% None
4.8% Jewish
3.5% Hindu
2.5% Buddhist
2.5% Islamic
2.0% Other
0.9% Unitarian
0.5% LDS (Mormon)
10% of the people answering the survey said “Yes” to “Do you consider yourself a Born-Again Christian?” Given the breakdown of the Christian sects, I wonder about that. The survey is at http://web.mit.edu/ir/surveys/ug_2004_CIRP_freshman_survey.pdf
To answer the question specifically about the Jewish presence, the first survey I ran across on a Google search (taken in 2001) says that about 1.3% of the American population describes itself as Jewish, so I wouldn’t describe Jews as being underrepresented at MIT if these figures are representative of the Institute student body as a whole. I can’t answer for the validity or methodology of the study, so if you want to dispute that go right ahead.
When I went to grad school at a medical school, I don’t know what the exact proportion of Jews were there. But they closed for Jewish holidays, so you figure it out. Not too many other Episcopalian kids I know got Yom Kippur off.
Donna, it was the admission of Jews, their “overrepresentation” in high test scores that lead to the idea of the “well-rounded” student: by emphasizing sports it was possible to bring in students who’s scores weren’t up to par.
Kathe, I’d like to see you back that up with actual facts. Also: the influence of sports on college admissions differs greatly among Division I, II, and III schools. Only Division I schools grant tuition waivers (I refuse to use the word scholarship in this context) for athletes, and even then only athletes in a few sports get them - it’s a very low percentage of the total student body. In a school of any size, any preference for varsity athletes is going to have a minimal effect on the makeup of the student body.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
As far as “anti-male” bias in education in general; I’m no expert in K - 12 education. And I am not an expert in the differences between how girls learn vs. how boys learn, as I have not been involved much with girls in an educational setting. But I do work with boys quite a bit in non-classroom education and have done so for 14 years now. What I find is that boys learn a lot faster if sit-down instruction is limited to about 30 minutes a dose. If you break such sessions up with some kind of hands-on activity (some recreational, some instructional), they learn better. Sitting boys down for 6 forty-five minute sessions in a day with only one meal break and no hands-on opportunities to learn and little physical activity is asking for trouble. I personally think that schools should bring back recess and let the kids run around the school grounds for about 15 minutes in the morning and the afternoon. I think the girls would like it, too, although I imagine they’d use the time differently than the boys would.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Oh, I forgot to note that about 24% of the incoming freshman didn’t respond to the survey; the percentages are all based on the total responses only.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 18th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
One of the reasons Jews were so successful in the early 20th century in colleges is elite schools at the time still revered the gentleman’s C and disparaged intellectual pursuits. Colleges also changed from a gentleman’s bastion into a training ground for professionals in the industrial economy in fields such as business, engineering, accounting, pharmacy and scientific farming. The study about SAT scores was from the U of Michigan but it is similar to other elite schools because of the high number of Asian American applicants. I reckon MIT and CalTech would have even higher Asian populations given the same requirements as whites. MIT and CalTech may not be good examples of schools to disprove boys are shortchanged by our education system because it’s drilled into our heads early on that males than males at better at math and science.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 18th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
So while Protestant elites pursued the gentleman’s C, Jews raced ahead and became professionals. We may see the same for Asians if elite schools still revere “well-roundedness”.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 8:41 am
I reckon MIT and CalTech would have even higher Asian populations given the same requirements as whites.
And on what facts do you base this reckoning?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 8:52 am
I had an educational experience this weekend, and I thought I’d ask for some input on how applicable you think it would be in classroom education.
We were teaching boys cooking. Food groups, menu planning, weights and measures, making a shopping list, portion planning, using store ads, etc. The idea is that the boys are required to be able to plan a breakfast, lunch and dinner menu for a campout, go out and buy the food within a budget, cook the food outdoors so that all the food is done at the right time and is served hot (or cold as appropriate), that everyone gets enough but there’s minimal waste, and be able to clean up afterwards so that all the pots and dishes are properly clean and sanitized and there’s no garbage around to attract insects and animals.
We actually ran all through this; the activity ran all day and ended up with the boys planning menus, going to the store, buying the food, cooking it, eating it and cleaning up.
There’s a certain amount of lecture here, and the kids’ attention wanders. So partway though we had “Food Jeopardy”. My wife had made up a board with 30 questions on it, 5 questions for each of 6 groups (”Weights and Measures” “All about Cheese” “Meat”, and I forget the other 3). The questions got progressively harder and you get more points as you go down the column (they don’t know what the question is until they choose it and I pull the cover off). The boys were in two teams, compete to answer the questions, and the winners got more cookies than the losers at the end (but everyone got some cookies).
The game gave the kids some active fun and a chance to yell and wave their hands and arms without running around, and they still learned something. But if this was a co-ed group, would it have worked? Or would the boys have dominated?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Oh, and there was this exchange as I ran the game:
“We’ll take ‘All about Cheese’ for 5 points, Mr. F.”
“‘The kind of cheese used in lasagna.’”
“Cottage Cheese!”
“Sorry, it’s Ricotta.”
“My Mom uses Cottage Cheese!”
“Then your Mom uses the wrong kind of cheese.”
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Asians have to test higher than whites in elite schools including MIT and the Ivy League.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 12:29 am
And? It hasn’t bothered you folks that whites in elite schools have to test higher than blacks.
I don’t think you can have it both ways — either oppose AA or support it, no unprincipled exceptions when AA works in the “wrong” direction.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 1:05 am
AA exists, at least in part, to mitigate the effects of past and ongoing racism. I don’t think that anti-White racism in the USA is a significant problem requiring an AA mitigation.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:31 am
That’s not the point.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 3:05 am
The point of what?
It isn’t unprincipled to support AA that attempts to mitigate the effects of historical and ongoing discrimination but to oppose AA that attempts to ensure the continued dominance of the dominant group.
Must we, in your opinion, support AA for legacy kids if we support AA for blacks? Would we have to support AA for KKK members? Why? AA is a mechanism. Why on earth are we required to support all application of a mechanism, merely because we support that mechanism in support of a particular goal, even if a particular instance of the mechanism is one which supports an opposite goal.
If we view AA for black people as a small injustice to some which helps to correct a larger injustice to others, then why should we support AA when it is a small injustice to some, which helps to maintain the privileged position of others. If we view AA as a negligible injustice, but view supporting the entrenched power of the dominant group as a bad practice, why would we support AA that helps do exactly that?
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 3:09 am
Why on earth are we required to support all application of a mechanism…
Because we don’t trust the government with a morally-based filter for the application of the mechanism. If they are going to use this machine, they must use it in a way that can be applied equally to everyone.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 3:56 am
Well, MIT and most of the Ivy League schools aren’t the government, and I think that is actually relevant. The government isn’t a monolith that we have to either trust or not trust. The government is a set of interlocking institutions that we have a great deal of power over. If we want the government (of the US or of MIT) to apply its power through a morally based filter (our morality based filter), then we have a duty to attempt to influence the government to apply our filter. Obviously, it is a bad idea to leave government institutions and individual employees with absolute carte blance to apply their power through their own moral filters (although it is also possibly a bad idea to leave them with no ability to temper rules with personal judgment), but there is no reason not to attempt to get the government to apply our own moral filter.
It is wrong for the state to take away some one’s freedom and lock them in a small room for years at a time, but we still allow the state to use this method on some people. Must we allow the state to lock absolutely anyone in a small room for any reason if we are willing to allow the state to ever use this method? Are we not allowed to dicker and advocate over exactly which people the state will use this method on, for how long, etc?
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 4:48 am
Legacy kids get AA if they belong to a correct race (granted, this is somewhat rare).
As for KKK, I’m unaware of ideology being a legitimate reason for “positive discrimination”.
I will definitely remember that line.
That’s one hell of a tortured analogy. I suppose one could say that no, you shouldn’t advocate for people to be locked on a small room for a year because of something the demographic group they belong to did in the past or is supposedly doing today.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:03 am
For instance, you can remember it when you suggest that jus solis is bad policy, or when you try to get people to care more about the threat from Islam. Presumably, you have some policies that you’d like carried out on the basis of that care, or is it just that you want others to join you in your fear? What do you think is the basis for your policy preferences? Do you think that your policy preferences are unrelated to your morality filter?
Should I not campaign for an end to the death penalty, should Robert not campaign for its expansion, out of fear that we are simply trying to get the government of our country to be in accord with our personal morality? If you disagree with my position, either because you disagree with my morality or because you disagree that my position will be effective, you should try to prevent my position from becoming policy, but the “don’t legislate morality” position is either nonsense, or a very bad phrasing of “my morality and my beliefs about what makes a health happy society is that the laws should support a plurality of moral positions on some questions.” That, itself, is a demand that the law match your moral filter.
Oh, for the record, I also believe in the value of shaming, I just disagree with Robert on what should get shamed.
This comment was written by Charles S.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:09 am
Stop rambling about all sorts of unrelated stuff.
Absolutely and definitely not.
I’m just going to wait for the time y’all start whining about someone “legislating morality”.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:12 am
Oh, sorry, I edited my comment after I posted it, to fix the block quoting, and then I added some more material. Bad practice, and confusing.
That is to say, see above about “legislating morality.”
Oh, and I made “stop rambling” make even more sense.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:14 am
Oh. You edited it.
Whatever.
I just smell hypocrisy here.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:16 am
See, I’m not actually “y’all.” I’m actually a single individual and not some sort of expression of the collective left, so my acceptance of legislating morality is not anyone else’s acceptance of legislating morality.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:17 am
Sure, but it’s going to be fun for unprincipled supporters of AA who use that as their battle cry against laws they don’t like.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:22 am
Hypocrisy is always fun to smell on others.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 5:24 am
It isn’t that they are unprincipled, it is that “stop legislating morality” is a horrible but recognized short hand for “my morality and my beliefs about what makes a healthy, happy society is that the laws should support a plurality of moral positions on some questions, stop legislating against my morality.”
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 7:53 am
Most Asian Americans support affirmative action. It’s different in universities. Like Ampersand said, white legacies get the most “affirmative action” at elite colleges. Actual non-legacy affirmative action hurts Asian Americans and helps Latinos and blacks. Not all races are the same. The environment at alot of elite schools alienates Latinos and blacks so they are not as eager to apply. Asians apply regardless.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 8:04 am
How ’bout opposing legacy AA and non-legacy AA?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Tuomas, I guess I’m wondering what your stake on AA even is, considering that as a Finn, you are not living in a very racially mixed environment, and the legacy of slavery as practiced in the U.S. is not something you have to live with every day. Are you trying to say that American institutions of higher education should be pure meritocracies? Just asking.
This comment was written by Original Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 10:06 am
I can’t see why that would be a bad thing.
I do have a stake in this, in a manner that hare-brained ideas such as AA can (and will) metastasize if/when similar differences in among immigrants vs. natives are seen. And there’s always gender quotas etc.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
There would be alot less whites if elite schools were pure meritocracies. Interesting stuff today about affirmative action in the Harvard Crimson. Only well-off kids can afford SAT preparation courses. These tests don’t measure much except class privilege and useless test-taking knowledge.
“The editorial did not mean to suggest that Asian-American applicants are, either individually or on average, somehow lacking in admissions criteria that are difficult to quantify, such as “leadership qualities, extracurricular involvement, [and] achievement outside of the classroom.” Such a suggestion is patently false: one needs only to look around Harvard to see fellow students who exhibit these qualities.
Rather, the editorial attempted to argue that colleges are justified in looking favorably upon applicants from underrepresented minorities who exhibit these qualities. If you believe in using affirmative action in college admissions—for the sake of creating a diverse student body, or in order to account for challenges students may have faced before applying—then these are the sorts of criteria that make many minority applicants qualified for admissions, despite SAT scores well below those of Asian-Americans or whites.
First, the nature of affirmative action exaggerates the differences in measures of academic success for which it is trying to correct. For instance, students of color, who tend to be poorer, average lower SAT scores than wealthier students. Their lower SAT scores perhaps indicate a lack of opportunity to succeed academically, because of their financial circumstances, more than they suggest an academic deficiency.“
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
there is no reason not to attempt to get the government to apply our own moral filter
Absolutely. And you’ve done your best, and the population has resoundingly rejected that filter. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to “strong” affirmative action in university admissions (and like “weak” AA programs just fine).
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
RonF, I’m sorry to keep you witing so long for references. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton by Jerome Karabel is an excellant history of the admissions practices of elite US universities and The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates by Daniel Golden, is an exellant look at elite school admissions today. I’m sorry if I was unclear, but when referring to the “overrepresentation of Jews” I was talking about admissions to elite schools in the 1920s.
RonF, you’re making perfectly reasonable comments about how you don’t work with girls, but you do with boys, and how important it is to have breaks and time to run around and then you say ” I think the girls would like it, too, although I imagine they’d use the time differently than the boys would. ” Then I have to wonder why you’d say that? If you don’t have some kind of solid evidence that boys and girls are radically different about recess, why would you go out of your way to make an assumption about it?
For more on how Asian-Americans are the new Jews in admissions, that is, underepresented relative to their test scores, see Golden’s book.
Tuomas, I don’t know where you get the idea that “Legacy kids get AA if they belong to a correct race (granted, this is somewhat rare).” I’m not sure that you understand what affirmative action is. It isn’t one single thing that can be given to someone.
To speak of a meritocracy, especially as opposed to that decadent European aristocracy, of course it sounds like a good thing. The problem is that it is no more successful in application that communism was in the USSR. In a society that has active, ongoing problems with racism, large disparities in every stage of human life (guess who’s more likely to get prenatal care, guess who’s more likely to die in infancy, guess who’s more likely to grow up poor, to attend the nation’s worst schools, to be turned down for jobs and housing, etc.) The current US system, particularly in the elite colleges, isn’t meritocratic. It’s aristocratic, based on inherited wealth and influence trumping everything else.
To refer to Affirmative Action as a “hare-brained idea” would seem to indicate that you don’t have the foggiest idea what it is or how it works. What the hell are you talking about differences between “immigrants vs. natives”? Between WASPs, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Latinos, who is it you think are supposed to be the natives? “There’s always gender quotas?” Oh, really, where? When? What are they? Seriously, you should explain what you think AA is, because nothing you’ve posted has reflected an understanding of it.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
What the hell are you talking about? What decadent aristocracy in Europe? Where?
Don’t give me any of that “Communism is beautiful, USSR wasn’t communist enough” bullshit. Seriously.
Meaning differences between incoming immigrants of different ethnicity in, say, university admissions.
You can always make them, if you don’t have much diversity in the society.
Why should I write to the benefit to someone who can not read?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Why should explain anything to
Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
I’m not sure where the last line came from… Scratch that.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Immigrants vs. natives in European countries, and gender quotas do exist in many Scandinavian countries.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
The vast majority of Americans are opposed to “strong” affirmative action in university admissions (and like “weak” AA programs just fine).
The implicit affirmative action for affluent white male legacies should be abolished before regular affirmative action in university admissions. We’d be well on our way to meritocracy even though many are against that kind of affirmative action.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Well, private institutions can do what they like, whether it’s legacies or AA or whatever. It’s public institutions that are the issue, and as far as I know there are not generally legacy programs at public institutions.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Bush is the most infamous legacy. He would not have gotten anywhere without his Yale degree. There are hundreds of thousands of white males like this from schools that favor legacies. They in turn run everything (into the ground).
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Jeb Bush for example would have been a better president (barf) because he’s smarter but he went to University of Texas Austin where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a degree in Latin American Studies. (Thank you, wikipedia.)
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
I suspect that as a son of a President and powerful governmental insider, as well as a man of his own complex talents and characteristics, that GW would have done OK regardless of whether Yale had legacy preferences or not. In assessing his career, it’s difficult to see where Yale had much to do with his successes or failures.
It’s also worth noting that graduate programs do not generally engage in legacy activities, that no Bush went to Harvard before W did, and that he earned admission and graduation from the Harvard MBA program on his own hook.
My impression of the Bush boys is that Jeb is certainly more articulate than W, but W has considerably more native intellect. Articulation is not intelligence.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Okay, a little history. Because America was formed as a republic in a direct reaction against the British aristocracy, which was viewed as decadent, the notion of meritocracy was that anyone (white, male, educated, and landowning) could rise based on his own merits and not that of inherited privilege.
I’m not suggesting any such thing as “communism was beautiful.” My point was that many ideology sound good in theory but prove to be rather less good in their actual implementation. Communism and meritocracy are both examples of this.
In talking about AA in the US, we are not discussing “differences between incoming immigrants of different ethnicity in, say, university admissions”. We are discussing differences in admissions between groups who’s ancestors have been here for hundreds of years.
More later.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
This makes no sense. Slightly more than the world’s population is female, slightly less is male. There are perhaps some ambiguities, but if everyone were permitted to choose their preferred gender it is unlikely that the percentages of each would change much. Furthermore, to defend a statement such as “there are always gender quotas” by saying “you could make them” is pretty weak.
And you think I can’t read?
Now I cannot speak to immigrant issues in Europe, nor can I speak to Scandinavian gender quotas. But since the discussion started with the manufactured “boy crisis” in US education, and veered into US colleges and admissions policies, I can say that gender quotas aren’t relevant. Affirmative Action refers to a vast array of court-ordered remedies to discriminatory practices that have been proven in private or governmental organizations. In the US, gender quotas aren’t necessary, because wherever women have not been illegally kept out, they have entered in substantial numbers.
Robert, only private institutions that do not accept federal funding for research are free to do whatever they want. Harvard, for example, receives copious amounts of money for science and medical research that I know of, and no doubt, funding in every department. They are, therefor, bound by nondiscriminatory laws.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I suspect that as a son of a President and powerful governmental insider, as well as a man of his own complex talents and characteristics, that GW would have done OK regardless of whether Yale had legacy preferences or not. In assessing his career, it’s difficult to see where Yale had much to do with his successes or failures.
No, he had a C average at Andover and if he didn’t go to Yale he wouldn’t have been President and killed 1,000,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans, etc. and put this country in debt.
My impression of the Bush boys is that Jeb is certainly more articulate than W, but W has considerably more native intellect. Articulation is not intelligence.
Jeb is more articulate and intellectual. He had an A average (Phi Beta Kappa) and Bush had a C average. Their father wanted Jeb to be President but W ended up being the idiot President we have today.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 9:03 pm
An Inauspicious Start at School in Andover
Bush did not get off to an auspicious start when he arrived as at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., as a sophomore or “lower middler” in the school’s vernacular. His first English grade – for an essay on emotions – was zero.
“As I remember, the impression of the red marker was so intense that it stuck out of the back side of the blue book,” recalls Bush. With the help of a thesaurus his mother had given him, Bush had erroneously written about “lacerates” running down his cheek – instead of tears.
“And my math grades weren’t all that good either to begin with. So I was struggling,” said Bush.
Bush kept up with the work but was an average student who never made the honor roll, according to his year book. He was considered a solid athlete – he played varsity basketball and baseball his senior year – but he was never among the class stars.
“George and I were both witness to the fact that Andover has such an excellent academic system and even people at bottom tier – where I was and George was – can be okay and go to good colleges,” said Don Vermeil, a classmate friend who went to Stanford.
Bush would later tell friends he was terrified of flunking out of Andover, afraid that he would embarrass himself and his family. Despite Bush’s private fears and struggles, his classmates – all boys back then – saw him as a larger-than-life Texan – cocky and irrepressible. Within months of his arrival, Bush was seen as a campus mover, not on the strength his intellect or his athletic achievements, but by sheer force of personality. Bush was nicknamed “Lip” because he had an opinion on everything – and sometimes a tongue sharper than necessary.
Bush almost instinctively managed to always be in the center of the action, an ubiquitous, noisy presence at school events. He was the head football cheerleader his senior year, a member of his class rock-and-roll band, the Torqueys – not singing or playing an instrument but clapping – and organizer of the school’s stickball league.
“He was kind to the athletically challenged,” said Wofsey, now a Pennsylvania psychiatrist.
No one thought of him as a class leader in the traditional sense or had any inkling of the career he would ultimately choose.
“I would never have guessed he would go into public service. He never showed the slightest inclination toward it,” said Dan Cooper, the class president. “I would have bet money that he would have turned out to be an investment banker living in Greenwich and happily belonging to the country club.”
Cooper, now head of a Boston multimedia company, was voted Most Respected and Done Most for Andover. Bush came in second for Big Man on Campus.
In his senior year, Bush applied to only two colleges, the University of Texas and Yale. Barbara Bush said in an interview that her son was determined to go to his father’s alma mater, but knew it was not a sure thing that he would be admitted.
“George started hyping up the University of Texas, how he was going to love being a Longhorn,” said Doug Hannah, a Houston friend who talked to Bush over Christmas holidays of his senior year. “My recollection was that he was shocked that he got into Yale.”
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Not smart, athletic or a leader but loud. And a legacy.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Your faith in the value of a high grade point average is touching. I had a 3.94 undergraduate GPA; I guess I must be the King Shit of all creation - bow before my institutionally-accredited intellectual might!. (And it would have been a 4.0 if it weren’t for oppression from the man.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 9:42 pm
It’s public institutions that are the issue, and as far as I know there are not generally legacy programs at public institutions.
You are incorrect. Kaethe already addressed the ‘public/private’ split, but the University of Michigan (a public institution I think some people might have heard of) unapologetically gives ‘points’ for legacies as well as for students with an enrolled sibling.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Since you want to continue this discussion…
Bush went to Andover and was an average student. He got into Yale because he was a legacy, not because of his grades, athetic or leadership ability. He got into Harvard because of his continued loudness as a cheerleader on the football field and then his fraternity leadership skills. He wouldn’t have become President if he hadn’t gotten into Yale. He got into Yale just because he was a legacy. Loudness at Andover is not enough to get into Yale. He’s a textbook case of mediocre kids who climb their way to the top because they are legacies.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 10:10 pm
It’s public institutions that are the issue, and as far as I know there are not generally legacy programs at public institutions.
Right, Daniel Golden’s book on the subject says the top 100 private and public universities use the legacy model.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:31 am
I stand corrected vis the public : private distinction. Thank you for the information.
I do not deny that George Bush was a legacy admit to Yale. And undoubtedly that was a helpful place for him to be. His other choice was the University of Texas - not Ivy League, but a fine system nonetheless. His brother went there and seems to have done pretty well, as you yourself keep throwing out there.
I don’t really understand the fixation with grades. Yes, his brother got As while got Cs. His brother was at an easier school. UT is an excellent institution - but it isn’t Yale.
He got into Harvard because of his continued loudness as a cheerleader on the football field and then his fraternity leadership skills.
This seems a rather odd assertion. Have you any evidence to support it?
He got into Harvard because Harvard likes to train men and women who are going to handle millions of dollars, and it was already pretty clear that Bush was the kind of lunatic businessman who certainly would be handling millions of dollars. MBA programs, to my recent knowledge, are not extensively concerned with cheerleading.
If by “fraternity leadership skills” you mean leadership skills acquired in a fraternity, then I would acknowledge that seems to be a supporting element of his successful candidacy to the program. I’m not quite sure why you think having leadership skills is a questionable characteristic.
Look, I will admit - as will he - that the man lived a privileged life and got the best that America had to offer. He was lucky in his choice of family. I really don’t see why that’s considered such a crime in some circles. Everybody’s gotta be born somewhere.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 am
Kaethe:
Btw, I have not claimed that the current syste in US is meritocratic.
But are you seriously claiming that the concept of meritocracy is about as absurd and unworkable as communism — a system that has killed tens of millions of people — i.e it can never work?
I’m not sure how else am I supposed to read that absurd, outlandish comparison, I’d think that meritocracy would be a rather important concept and a worthy goal for a just society. No, it won’t lead to perfect equality of outcome. I think one of the arguments for AA is that it compensates for lesser opportunity, why not fix the root cause?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:54 am
Original Lee asked me a question, I answered it. You can’t accuse me of a thread drift.
Back to US from Europe, then.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:07 am
The current system claims to be meritocratic. It is not. The political system of the USSR claimed to be communism. It was not. Actually, communism does tend to work pretty well, as long as you limit it to a pretty tight - knit family. In the case of parents looking after children and elders you see a good example of “from each according to his means to each according to his needs.” The point of my “outlandish comparison” was that even good ideas do not necessarily result in good outcomes. Legacy admissions, for example, have turned elite universities into a system for maintaining an aristocracy.
It may be that “one of the arguments for AA is that it compensates for lesser opportunity”, but I find that a bad argument. It is an emotional argument, and it contains within it the suggestion that anyone aided by AA needed that help because he or she was not otherwise good enough. The reality is that AA, like desegregation plans, are not some sort of hopeful goal, there are specific remedies to specific discrimination. Therefor, colleges who excluded women, or African - Americans, or whomever, people who were fully qualified, who were inarguably, demonstrably qualified according to the findings of a court, must now prove that they are not discriminating. I mentioned that gender quotas aren’t relevant, because in the discussion of US college admissions they aren’t. Although, come to think of it, I suppose they will be, because before too long, someone is going to be demanding that there be quotas to raise the numbers of those boys in crisis.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
communism:
(my emphasis)
Sounds like USSR.
I know there are plenty of apologists (Chomsky etc.) who claim that USSR (and Communist China, Cambodia, North Korea…) are all some “perversions” of communism, but
Um, how can anyone claim that legacy admissions are meritocratic?
By definition, they are not.
Meritocracy:
(my emphasis)
Now, you may say that “but there are no quotas!”, but, in fact, the system of AA strives toward certain “balance” in outcome by manipulating admission on basis of legacy, socioeconomic factors, race and whatever else.
I oppose both legacy AA and racial AA.
Of course, this is all theory, but anyway.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:27 am
the sentence ends.
Should read
I know there are plenty of apologists (Chomsky etc.) who claim that USSR (and Communist China, Cambodia, North Korea…) are all some “perversions” of communism, but they actually all represent communism, thus all the oppression is a design feature rather than a mistake or a bug.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
[…] Ampersand has a deeply felt and thoughtful post commenting on on Michael Kimmel’s article, “The Boy Crisis and Anti-Male Ideology.” Kimmel’s analysis of masculinity always brings a much-needed perspective to an issue that is too often presented as a narrow-minded sexist lecture (He wrote the introduction to our own Familiar Men: A Book of Nudes.) […]
This comment was written by Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » The Boy Crisis - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Kaethe:
Hmm.
Affirmative action:
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
RonF, you’re making perfectly reasonable comments about how you don’t work with girls, but you do with boys, and how important it is to have breaks and time to run around and then you say ” I think the girls would like it, too, although I imagine they’d use the time differently than the boys would. ” Then I have to wonder why you’d say that?
I said that because when I was a kid in K - 8 we had recess and I noted that the boys tended to race around and play games that generally included contact and near-contact (football or “Kill the Guy With the Can”, whereas the girls engaged in more sedate activity - hopscotch and jump rope and the like. When the hill iced up in the winter, the kids sliding down the cement ramp on pieces of corrugated cardboard were all boys. That was a while ago, of course, when girls didn’t get the opportunity to play the same kinds of sports and other physical activities like they do now. But I still think that their social interactions might be different than a group of boys the same age. I could be wrong, though.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Asians have to test higher than whites in elite schools including MIT and the Ivy League.
Any time you want to back up assertions about MIT’s admissions practices with facts, go right ahead. That doesn’t include talking about Ivy League schools and then inferring that MIT’s admissions policies are the same.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
First, the nature of affirmative action exaggerates the differences in measures of academic success for which it is trying to correct. For instance, students of color, who tend to be poorer, average lower SAT scores than wealthier students. Their lower SAT scores perhaps indicate a lack of opportunity to succeed academically, because of their financial circumstances, more than they suggest an academic deficiency.“
Hm. Define academic deficiency. If by that you mean “lack of achievement”, then I might go along with this statement due to a lack of opportunity noted above. But if it means “lack of ability”, then I’d contest the statement.
The proper weight to give standardized test scores (SAT, ACT, etc.) is a continuing debate. Colleges look at them, but they also look at class rank, what high school you graduated from, what extra curricular activities you engaged in, what community activities you engaged in, what organizations you were active in, how well you can express yourself in a written essay, and whether or not you just were a member of an organization or whether you actually did something.
This is one reason why MIT and other schools try to have their alumni actually interview applicants; it gives you an idea as to the levels of leadership and committment and passion (yes, that is specifically called out in the guide I’m given) that the applicant shows. Say the kid is an Eagle Scout or a Gold Award holder. That looks good on a college application, but in an interview you can gauge for yourself whether or not the kid actually ran their project, or if they were a placeholder while Mom and/or Dad actually did the work.
It’s interesting to see the discussions of “legacies” here. Is there any documentation on what level of influence having a parent or grandparent as an alumni has on college admissions?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Robert, only private institutions that do not accept federal funding for research are free to do whatever they want. Harvard, for example, receives copious amounts of money for science and medical research that I know of, and no doubt, funding in every department. They are, therefor, bound by nondiscriminatory laws.
Among others; that’s why Harvard was threatened with the loss of Federal funding when they tried to keep military recruiters off campus (for the Law School, specifically) on the basis that the military discriminates against homosexuals.
Donna, you said that Golden’s book discussed the influence of being a legacy in college admissions. Can you expand on that?
One thing about AA in college admissions is whether or not admitting an underrepresented minority (if we’re in agreement on that term) whose academic preparation is lower than that of other students is doing them any favor. If their education up to that point has been substandard, then they’re going to have to do some make-up work to get up to speed to meet the standard of that school. When you’re talking about MIT or Cal Tech, you have to figure that there’s only so much make-up work that the incoming AA freshman is going to be able to add to the usual freshman studies at that school if they expect to keep up. The Institute does have programs for this; e.g., there are summer sessions for incoming freshman, tutoring, etc. But you can only do so much before it might be more advisable for many incoming students to go to a school where the course of study is not as demanding, but where they have a better chance of catching up. In the long run, it seems to me that an incoming student should go to a school where they would have a good chance of graduating in 4 or 5 years rather than one where they would end up being more likely to flunk out in a year.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
RonF, either we care about grades as a marker of ‘academic preparation’, or we don’t. If we do, then ANY factor that might make it easier for lower-achieving students to get in is wrong–we’re doing legacies no favors by ushering them into a school over their heads.
Is there any documentation on what level of influence having a parent or grandparent as an alumni has on college admissions?
Universities are notoriously close-mouthed about the details of their admissions process, much less how they whore out the admissions process in the hopes of sucking up to alumni, aka, legacy admissions. They don’t seem to mind publicizing legacies as a marketing tool, mind you.
The Economist has an article touching on the issue (amazingly, as you’d expect them to be all for it), and a recent book discusses exclusionist policies at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I do not deny that George Bush was a legacy admit to Yale. And undoubtedly that was a helpful place for him to be. I don’t really understand the fixation with grades. He got into Harvard because of his continued loudness as a cheerleader on the football field and then his fraternity leadership skills. This seems a rather odd assertion. Have you any evidence to support it?
I’m not fixated with grades, you are. He had a C average at Andover so being a legacy is what got him into Yale. He had a C average at Yale and his loudness on the football field sidelines was a lead-in to his being head of the fraternity council at Yale. He was not only President of DKE but of the entire council. Being a legacy gave him the opportunity to become some kind of leader at Yale. Not the typical kind like a debate or political leader and a dubious kind of leadership got him into Harvard. Of course being a legacy not only of his father but other relatives that went to Yale got him into Skull and Bones. These were stepping stones to his Presidency.
He got into Harvard because Harvard likes to train men and women who are going to handle millions of dollars, and it was already pretty clear that Bush was the kind of lunatic businessman who certainly would be handling millions of dollars. MBA programs, to my recent knowledge, are not extensively concerned with cheerleading.
You didn’t read the article, did you? Like I already said, the loudness on the football field sidelines got attention and he became head of DKE and the fraternity leadership council.
If by “fraternity leadership skills” you mean leadership skills acquired in a fraternity, then I would acknowledge that seems to be a supporting element of his successful candidacy to the program. I’m not quite sure why you think having leadership skills is a questionable characteristic.
Like I said, he got there by being loud in general and as a cheerleader on the football field and being head of a fraternity is a social and leadership skill mostly useful in business. I don’t think it’s a questionable characteristic for an MBA. I only bring it up as one of the stepping stones resulting from being a legacy. Being head of the fraternity council is not sufficient leadership training for a US President nowadays which requires a more complex, curious and cosmopolitan mind. Bill Clinton who was a debate champion comes to mind. Hillary Clinton who was head of Yale Law Review also comes to mind.
Look, I will admit - as will he - that the man lived a privileged life and got the best that America had to offer. He was lucky in his choice of family. I really don’t see why that’s considered such a crime in some circles. Everybody’s gotta be born somewhere.
It’s not a crime but there are thousands upon thousands of white men like this who run Wall Street, newspapers, politics, etc. and Bush of course almost ran this country into the ground.
RonF, I think CalTech is one of the three schools that doesn’t have the legacy system. Check out the interview with Daniel Golden at Racialicious.
http://www.racialicious.com/2006/11/21/brand-new-addicted-to-race-episode-out-now-48/
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I looked through that page but I couldn’t find that particular reference. MIT is on record as saying that they don’t give legacies any special preference in admissions. I wonder if Golden names them or not.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
It’s a podcast. Click the arrow at the bottom to listen to it. Fascinating.
Amazon review of Daniel Golden’s book:
This comment was written by Donna Darko.A heavy-hitting, name-naming exposé by Wall Street Journal deputy bureau chief Golden concludes that Ivy League admissions offices do not practice meritocracy. Instead, top-drawer schools reward donor-happy alums and the “legacy establishment,” which Golden defines as “elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves.” Moreover, the “preference of privilege” enables wealthy candidates to nose out more deserving working- and middle-class students, especially new immigrants and Asian-Americans. Golden backs his assertions with examples comparing the academic records of entering students: e.g., Al Gore’s son was admitted to Harvard despite his shabby record, although a better prepared Asian-American was rejected at all Ivy Leagues because he was “unhooked” (in admission parlance, not well connected or moneyed). Asian-Americans, notes Golden, are the “new Jews,” for whom a higher bar is set. Golden tracks shameful admissions policies at Duke, where the enrollment of privileged but underqualified applicants has helped elevate the school’s endowment ranking from 25th in 1980 to 16th in 2005; Brown is skewered for courting the offspring of entertainment industry notables. Golden suggests reasonable, workable tactics for resurrecting the antilegacy campaign in Congress (led by Senator Kennedy) and devotes a laudatory chapter to the equitable admissions practices at Caltech, Berea College (Kentucky) and Cooper Union (New York City).
Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:35 am
Tuomas, Wikipedia can be helpful, but it is hardly definitive. NOW gives a nice, brief timeline. Any discussion of AA is problematic, because the thing itself is poorly understood. Because, really, it isn’t any one thing. There are federal laws governing hiringby anyone who accepts federal funding and there are judicial orders covering remedies in discrimination suits against private employers or other entities, and there are non-binding guidelines implemented by others entities to correct real past deficiencies, current inequities, or to achieve other goals.
RonF, a little searching will bring up innumerable studies that drive home the point that AA is pretty much never about letting in unqualified candidates, whether for jobs or education. Reams of documentation.
This comment was written by Kaethe.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:22 am
RonF, a little searching will bring up innumerable studies that drive home the point that AA is pretty much never about letting in unqualified candidates, whether for jobs or education.
It isn’t a question of unqualified candidates, it’s a question of marginally less qualified candidates. Racial preferences in university admissions presents a distinctive and statistically inevitable profile: people of the preferred race are able to get into a modestly better school than they could have gotten into without the preference. Yale instead of Oberlin; Oberlin instead of Cornell; Cornell instead of UT-Austin; UT-Austin instead of University of Wherever; University of Wherever instead of Franktown Community College.
But the problem is, the racially preferred student is now enrolled in a program aimed at students a bit smarter than he is, and surrounded by students who are a bit better prepared. That has obvious consequences. Those consequences are vividly clear in the statistics for dropouts and lengthy completion times for racial groups which receive preferences in admission.
(Racial preferences in hiring have their own problematic areas, but for a variety of reasons aren’t nearly as destructive to the ambitions of the individuals being “helped”.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators