|
American Universities, Bastions of Privilege and Hypocrisy?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
http://economist.com/world/na/displ...tory_id=7945858
| quote: | Poison Ivy
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition
Not so much palaces of learning as bastions of privilege and hypocrisy
AMERICAN universities like to think of themselves as engines of social justice, thronging with “diversity”. But how much truth is there in this flattering self-image? Over the past few years Daniel Golden has written a series of coruscating stories in the Wall Street Journal about the admissions practices of America's elite universities, suggesting that they are not so much engines of social justice as bastions of privilege. Now he has produced a book—“The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates”—that deserves to become a classic.
Mr Golden shows that elite universities do everything in their power to admit the children of privilege. If they cannot get them in through the front door by relaxing their standards, then they smuggle them in through the back. No less than 60% of the places in elite universities are given to candidates who have some sort of extra “hook”, from rich or alumni parents to “sporting prowess”. The number of whites who benefit from this affirmative action is far greater than the number of blacks.
The American establishment is extraordinarily good at getting its children into the best colleges. In the last presidential election both candidates—George Bush and John Kerry—were “C” students who would have had little chance of getting into Yale if they had not come from Yale families. Al Gore and Bill Frist both got their sons into their alma maters (Harvard and Princeton respectively), despite their average academic performances. Universities bend over backwards to admit “legacies” (ie, the children of alumni). Harvard admits 40% of legacy applicants compared with 11% of applicants overall. Amherst admits 50%. An average of 21-24% of students in each year at Notre Dame are the offspring of alumni. When it comes to the children of particularly rich donors, the bending-over-backwards reaches astonishing levels. Harvard even has something called a “Z” list—a list of applicants who are given a place after a year's deferment to catch up—that is dominated by the children of rich alumni.
University behaviour is at its worst when it comes to grovelling to celebrities. Duke University's admissions director visited Steven Spielberg's house to interview his stepdaughter. Princeton found a place for Lauren Bush—the president's niece and a top fashion model—despite the fact that she missed the application deadline by a month. Brown University was so keen to admit Michael Ovitz's son that it gave him a place as a “special student”. (He dropped out after a year.)
Most people think of black football and basketball stars when they hear about “sports scholarships”. But there are also sports scholarships for rich white students who play preppie sports such as fencing, squash, sailing, riding, golf and, of course, lacrosse. The University of Virginia even has scholarships for polo-players, relatively few of whom come from the inner cities.
You might imagine that academics would be up in arms about this. Alas, they have too much skin in the game. Academics not only escape tuition fees if they can get their children into the universities where they teach. They get huge preferences as well. Boston University accepted 91% of “faculty brats” in 2003, at a cost of about $9m. Notre Dame accepts about 70% of the children of university employees, compared with 19% of “unhooked” applicants, despite markedly lower average SAT scores.
Why do Mr Golden's findings matter so much? The most important reason is that America is witnessing a potentially explosive combination of trends. Social inequality is rising at a time when the escalators of social mobility are slowing (America has lower levels of social mobility than most European countries). The returns on higher education are rising: the median earnings in 2000 of Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher were about double those of high-school leavers. But elite universities are becoming more socially exclusive. Between 1980 and 1992, for example, the proportion of disadvantaged children in four-year colleges fell slightly (from 29% to 28%) while the proportion of well-to-do children rose substantially (from 55% to 66%).
Mr Golden's findings do not account for all of this. Get rid of affirmative action for the rich, and rich children will still do better. But they clearly account for some differences: “unhooked” candidates are competing for just 40% of university places. And they raise all sorts of issues of justice and hypocrisy. What is one to make of Mr Frist, who opposes affirmative action for minorities while practising it for his own son?
The poor left behind
Two groups of people overwhelmingly bear the burden of these policies—Asian-Americans and poor whites. Asian-Americans are the “new Jews”, held to higher standards (they need to score at least 50 points higher than non-Asians even to be in the game) and frequently stigmatised for their “characters” (Harvard evaluators persistently rated Asian-Americans below whites on “personal qualities”). When the University of California, Berkeley briefly considered introducing means-based affirmative action, it rejected the idea on the ground that “using poverty yields a lot of poor white kids and poor Asian kids”.
There are a few signs that the winds of reform are blowing. Several elite universities have expanded financial aid for poor children. Texas A&M has got rid of legacy preferences. Only last week Harvard announced that it was getting rid of “early admission”—a system that favours privileged children—and Princeton rapidly followed suit. But the wind is going to have to blow a heck of a lot harder, and for a heck of a lot longer, before America's money-addicted and legacy-loving universities can be shamed into returning to what ought to have been their guiding principle all along: admitting people to university on the basis of their intellectual ability. |
Equal opportunity anyone? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I can't think of any other institute that reflects the social disparity gap more than in American Universities.
The prices down there are insane compared to our Canadian Universities.
This is probably one of my most left-leaning positions I have; I believe everyone should have equal access to education, unless of course, one is going to specialize in a particular field. Then a cost association would probably be prudent. |
|
|
| venomX |
I study at UBC, in vancouver and we get tons of people from seattle and Washington state in general because its like 3 times cheaper here, and thats paying international fees which are abt 3 times as much as canadian citizens pay. Take into account that UBC is ranked amongst the 50 best universities in the world. I have no idea why the universities down in the states charge as much but its a tad ridiculous. Price was one of the things that made me not go to the states for studying.
I belive that lately the states is suffering from a bit contradiction between their goals and how they achieve them. This is just one more example. Not only are the prices prohibitory the environment in universities in the states is too charged not to mention in the cities. Too much tension floating around. That was the other reason why i decided to go to canada and not the states for studying. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
I disagree with the article regarding social inequality in American universities. The author has to understand that colleges are a business. To keep that business running they have to keep their standards and prices high in order to keep the lazy people out.
To elaborate, I don't think it's a matter of diversity, but rather a survival of the smartest. It's plain and simple white people try harder to succeed at school than blacksor hispanics. This is why they have better acceptance rates at these elitist universities than the minority races and this is coming from a Latino (or Hispanic, take your pick).
My high school (maynard evans) is a great example. It is an an F-graded school (link) with pitiful FCAT scores (link). The high school is 80% black (link) and has not improved whatsoever. 15 years ago that same high school was made up of mostly white people and used to be the number 1 school in the district or county. Unfortunately those are the only statistics I don't have, but by word of mouth from teachers who taught at my high school before I was even conceived this is how I know this.
At first I thought this was just a coincedence, but upon examination of another high school in my district who are also predominantly black they too suffered from the same low standards of academia.
I wish I could compare every high school to determine if certain races like to study more than other races, but that seems to be the trend where I live so to say that one race is given a free ride over the other sounds like a justification for students with poor grades to be allowed at these prestigious universities. There's a reason for the inequality in American universities, but it isn't race, it's intelligence. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
I disagree with the article regarding social inequality in American universities. The author has to understand that colleges are a business. To keep that business running they have to keep their standards and prices high in order to keep the lazy people out. |
did you even read that article? it said that it is anything but. it said they usher in those "elites" regardless of academic merit. also, just goes to show why some things shouldnt be "a business" :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
To elaborate, I don't think it's a matter of diversity, but rather a survival of the smartest. It's plain and simple white people try harder to succeed at school than blacksor hispanics. This is why they have better acceptance rates at these elitist universities than the minority races and this is coming from a Latino (or Hispanic, take your pick).
My high school (maynard evans) is a great example. It is an an F-graded school (link) with pitiful FCAT scores (link). The high school is 80% black (link) and has not improved whatsoever. 15 years ago that same high school was made up of mostly white people and used to be the number 1 school in the district or county. Unfortunately those are the only statistics I don't have, but by word of mouth from teachers who taught at my high school before I was even conceived this is how I know this.
At first I thought this was just a coincedence, but upon examination of another high school in my district who are also predominantly black they too suffered from the same low standards of academia.
I wish I could compare every high school to determine if certain races like to study more than other races, but that seems to be the trend where I live so to say that one race is given a free ride over the other sounds like a justification for students with poor grades to be allowed at these prestigious universities. There's a reason for the inequality in American universities, but it isn't race, it's intelligence. |
yeah, no worries adolf :rolleyes:
even though we have our share of problems, id like to sing the praises of australia's higher education. if you want an education you really only need to get the grades. you pay back part of the cost of uni when you get a job and earn a certain amount of money. not perfect, but far better than the million dollar degrees you get in the states. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
I disagree with the article regarding social inequality in American universities. The author has to understand that colleges are a business. To keep that business running they have to keep their standards and prices high in order to keep the lazy people out.
To elaborate, I don't think it's a matter of diversity, but rather a survival of the smartest. It's plain and simple white people try harder to succeed at school than blacksor hispanics. This is why they have better acceptance rates at these elitist universities than the minority races and this is coming from a Latino (or Hispanic, take your pick).
My high school (maynard evans) is a great example. It is an an F-graded school (link) with pitiful FCAT scores (link). The high school is 80% black (link) and has not improved whatsoever. 15 years ago that same high school was made up of mostly white people and used to be the number 1 school in the district or county. Unfortunately those are the only statistics I don't have, but by word of mouth from teachers who taught at my high school before I was even conceived this is how I know this.
At first I thought this was just a coincedence, but upon examination of another high school in my district who are also predominantly black they too suffered from the same low standards of academia.
I wish I could compare every high school to determine if certain races like to study more than other races, but that seems to be the trend where I live so to say that one race is given a free ride over the other sounds like a justification for students with poor grades to be allowed at these prestigious universities. There's a reason for the inequality in American universities, but it isn't race, it's intelligence. |
Hehe... 8years ago my school was one of the best in the state. Was 90% something white. Now its about 95% black and it was under suspension about to lose its accreditation :wtf:
coincidence? I think so. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
did you even read that article? it said that it is anything but. it said they usher in those "elites" regardless of academic merit. also, just goes to show why some things shouldnt be "a business" |
Yes and I have to say I read it too fast. The actual point of the article talks about how people of privilege with an ivy league, famous past, etc. are chosen over those without that advantage. I was confused about his definition of social inequality. He used the word class and I immediately thought race. But he was talking about different types of social classes. For example rich vs. poor, legacy vs. non-legacy, students whose parents work for the university vs. those who don't, celebrity vs. non-celebrity, and so forth. Even though I went off topic I still stand 100% by what I said so consider it a rant.
| quote: |
yeah, no worries adolf :rolleyes: |
*waves magic wand and cues Q5echo's thread about logical fallacies*
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=368850
| quote: |
even though we have our share of problems, id like to sing the praises of australia's higher education. if you want an education you really only need to get the grades. you pay back part of the cost of uni when you get a job and earn a certain amount of money. not perfect, but far better than the million dollar degrees you get in the states. |
This is quite the exaggeration. The same system applies here. If you make the grade, you get to go to college. Whether you pay a million or nothing for your education is of no consequence since any highly accredited degree that you earn in the U.S. is universally recognized. The same goes for some European universities such as Oxford. Try getting the same degree in any country in South America or Africa and see if you get the same recognition. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
This is quite the exaggeration. The same system applies here. If you make the grade, you get to go to college. Whether you pay a million or nothing for your education is of no consequence since any highly accredited degree that you earn in the U.S. is universally recognized. The same goes for some European universities such as Oxford. Try getting the same degree in any country in South America or Africa and see if you get the same recognition. |
not an exaggeration at all. firstly, our degrees are far far cheaper. secondly, we dont have ivy league mummies and daddies ensuring our entry over more-deserving applicants.
international accreditation is totally irrelevant to this discussion. as is the state of higher education in less developed areas of the world. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
I disagree with the article regarding social inequality in American universities. The author has to understand that colleges are a business. To keep that business running they have to keep their standards and prices high in order to keep the lazy people out.
To elaborate, I don't think it's a matter of diversity, but rather a survival of the smartest. It's plain and simple white people try harder to succeed at school than blacksor hispanics. This is why they have better acceptance rates at these elitist universities than the minority races and this is coming from a Latino (or Hispanic, take your pick).
My high school (maynard evans) is a great example. It is an an F-graded school (link) with pitiful FCAT scores (link). The high school is 80% black (link) and has not improved whatsoever. 15 years ago that same high school was made up of mostly white people and used to be the number 1 school in the district or county. Unfortunately those are the only statistics I don't have, but by word of mouth from teachers who taught at my high school before I was even conceived this is how I know this.
At first I thought this was just a coincedence, but upon examination of another high school in my district who are also predominantly black they too suffered from the same low standards of academia.
I wish I could compare every high school to determine if certain races like to study more than other races, but that seems to be the trend where I live so to say that one race is given a free ride over the other sounds like a justification for students with poor grades to be allowed at these prestigious universities. There's a reason for the inequality in American universities, but it isn't race, it's intelligence. |
Wow.
Just wow...:wtf:
I don't even know where to start with you...:whip: |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
not an exaggeration at all. firstly, our degrees are far far cheaper. secondly, we dont have ivy league mummies and daddies ensuring our entry over more-deserving applicants.
international accreditation is totally irrelevant to this discussion. as is the state of higher education in less developed areas of the world. |
You're so damn politically correct! Yes your degrees are cheaper than ours and also yes to the latter statement. I'm just referring to regular joes like me to whom none of that stuff applies to. Ah well, in either case, point well taken pkc.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Wow.
Just wow...:wtf:
I don't even know where to start with you...:whip: |
It's just a demographic trend and off topic to the article at hand, don't get all worked up. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
You're so damn politically correct! Yes your degrees are cheaper than ours and also yes to the latter statement. I'm just referring to regular joes like me to whom none of that stuff applies to. Ah well, in either case, point well taken pkc.
It's just a demographic trend and off topic to the article at hand, don't get all worked up. |
It may be a 'trend' but the correlation and what you're hinting at doesn't hold water.
There is nothing out there proving white people are smarter.
eod. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
It may be a 'trend' but the correlation and what you're hinting at doesn't hold water.
There is nothing out there proving white people are smarter.
eod. |
I think my "survival of the smartest" comment might have led you to taking my point out of context. I do agree with you that the human body has an innate ability to sponge off a finite amount of intellectual capacity regardless of race, after all, we only use a small percantage of our brains. My point is that from a demographic standpoint certain races are more willing to use that intellectual capacity than others for some reason. This is when I branched off topic to a statement the author made about social inequality which I myself have taken out of context, hence the whole squabble with pkc. |
|
|
|
|
