The Washington Post reports on the "affirmative reaction" of colleges to the dismantling of race-based AA and quota systems. The article, which describes the methods colleges are using to be more in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling, grabs your attention with the very first line:
As one of only 192 blacks who scored higher than 1450 on the SAT this year, Alice Abrokwa is being wooed by some of the nation's most elite colleges.
Yes, you read that right. Out of the 2 million total examinees, fewer than 200 black examinees had stellar combined scores. It is not surprising that colleges would like to woo Alice with outreach programs and full scholarships. However, while the article says that such efforts might be derailed by the recent ruling, someone with a 1450 is going to be recruited regardless of race. Why not have schools appreciate Alice for a quality over which she had some control?
Roger Clegg, general counsel for the Virginia-based Center for Equal Opportunity, which lodged complaints about the University of Michigan's affirmative-action policies, described the [race-based] Amherst [outreach] program as "flatly illegal" because it is racially exclusive. He said Amherst's decision to open the program to disadvantaged whites next year was "a step in the right direction" but warned that it could still "raise problems" if there were "differing admission requirements based on skin color."
A ban on such programs, say Amherst administrators, would lead to a "resegregation" of U.S. campuses, particularly at small liberal arts colleges. The past two decades have witnessed a doubling in the number of minority students attending college, from 2 million to 4.3 million. Despite these gains, only 40 percent of blacks and 34 percent of Hispanics attend college, compared with 46 percent of whites, according to data collected by the American Council on Education.
Yes, but how many of those minority students go on to graduate? How many are actually better off than they would have been had they chosen less prestigious colleges, or even no college at all immediately after high school? The ACE press release that contained the previous statistic gives college graduation rates for overall, Asian, black, Hispanic, and Native American students, but not white students (if this article is to be believed, the percentage of whites graduating is 20 points higher than the percentage of minority students graduating). The ACE release also notes high school graduation rates (76% for blacks, 59% for Hispanics) which suggest that AA at the college level, even if done right, can only do so much.
So, back to those select minority students:
The competition is particularly ferocious for blacks and Hispanics with SAT scores that put them on par with the most talented white students. According to the College Board, only 1,877 black students (about 1.5 percent of blacks who take the tests) scored higher than 1300 out of a possible 1600 on the SAT in 2003. Only 72 scored higher than 1500.
Among the overall student population, 148,024 (about 10 percent of test takers) scored higher than 1300, and 13,897 earned scores higher than 1500.
"Most of these students don't realize that they are being fought over," said Joy St. John, an Amherst admissions officer who specializes in minority outreach, gazing over a room of 70 or so black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian students whose SAT scores ranged from the low 1100s to above 1500. "They are modest, and they don't know the options that are out there."
Man, they must be living in a bubble. Any kid who has an SAT score of greater than 1300 who doesn't know that he or she is most likely good college material is definitely attending a school with a poor guidance counselor. And again, I ask, why should it be considered inviting for Amherst to tell these kids that their race (which they have no control over) is as important to the college as their SAT score (which they do) in admissions?
One high-scorer remarks at the end of the article, "It's nice to feel wanted." I agree. Hopefully some of these smart kids will learn to distinguish between schools that want bright students of all colors, and schools that want minorities simply to "increase the diversity" of campuses for their oh-so-culturally-deprived white peers.
Oh yeah, John of Discriminations has already covered this ground:
One of the most amusing parts of the article was its subhead: “After Rulings, Recruiters Take a More Inclusive Approach to Diversity.” This head at least seems to recognize what the body does not, which is that pre-ruling “diversity,” i.e., “diversity” left unregulated, had some exclusionary tendencies.
Posted by kswygert at November 25, 2003 02:18 PM