• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Group contemplating challenge to UNC Affirmative Action

PhDeac said:
Leaving now but SES doesn't cover a lot with respect to social and cultural capital gaps by race.

A middle class white person is more likely to know people with resources and important knowledge than a middle class black person.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if race as a factor is essentially banned because of the strict scrutiny test then I think using SES as a proxy is the next best thing when coordinated with other methods aimed at increasing diversity at large.
 
jhmd2000 said:
UNC should recruit the best students at every high school in the state. It would bother me if unc skipped any school because those kids deserve a look at unc no matter what color they are.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Unless you're an athlete, child of a wealthy alumnus, child of a wealthy donor...
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I agree, but if race as a factor is essentially banned because of the strict scrutiny test then I think using SES as a proxy is the next best thing when coordinated with other methods aimed at increasing diversity at large.
Click to expand...

That sounds nice but schools are moving away from need blind admissions in order to get more people who can pay rising tuition costs. Asking universities to institute need preference policies is unrealistic.

And SES includes much more than what a kid's parents make. Do universities want to get into parents' background, wealth, extended family finances, etc?
 
Parents co-signing for student loans will be commonplace in the next few years.

The similarities to the housing bubble are scary.
 
ONW said:
Parents co-signing for student loans will be commonplace in the next few years.

The similarities to the housing bubble are scary.
Click to expand...

The tenure we somehow can't live without ain't cheap.
 
PhDeac said:
This is the NYTimes article, "Who Gets to Graduate?"

It's relevant here because it puts much of the mismatch research jhmd likes to quote in context.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html?ref=magazine&_r=2
Click to expand...

Got to this part..."an elite school like the University of Texas"

Stopped reading.*

* Kidding. I saw that article earlier. The "mismatch" problem to me isn't so much a "they didn't deserve to be here" (that's a bit loaded, especially at a public school), but more of "If you start to prepare for college AT college, it is too late." It's an economy of effort and return on the investment analysis. THE DRIVER for equality needs to be preparation for schools, and any admissions and graduation gaps will resolve themselves (which is the nature of true equality). Why are we trying the same old failed public school policies? Why not more charters and choice? What would it hurt?
 
Last edited:
You aren't one to talk, UNC grad.

Anyway, read the article and comment. I'm curious if your stance includes being against programs to help acclimate students to the campus environment. Also, take note of one of the opening paragraphs on how students from underrepresented groups often don't even apply to the top schools that you're scared they'll get into.
 
PhDeac said:
You aren't one to talk, UNC grad.

Anyway, read the article and comment. I'm curious if your stance includes being against programs to help acclimate students to the campus environment. Also, take note of one of the opening paragraphs on how students from underrepresented groups often don't even apply to the top schools that you're scared they'll get into.
Click to expand...

To me it's about economy of effort: We can make a conscious effort to admit people from underrepresented groups who otherwise wouldn't get in (if not, why have the preferences?) and push them through hoping they can make it (studies show they struggle disproportionately, understandably and quite foreseeably), and that will undoubtedly benefit those that do make it through (query: what about those that don't?). But wouldn't it be better to make the thrust of our efforts genuine reform (cf. more new money after old policies) at the primary and secondary levels, which would make EVERYONE at that school better prepared, whether they were admitted to college (or graduated) or not (or not)?

P.S. Where is the evidence that I'm scared people will get into good schools? That strikes me as not helpful.
 
jhmd2000 said:
To me it's about economy of effort: We can make a conscious effort to admit people from underrepresented groups who otherwise wouldn't get in (if not, why have the preferences?) and push them through hoping they can make it (studies show they struggle disproportionately, understandably and quite foreseeably), and that will undoubtedly benefit those that do make it through (query: what about those that don't?). But wouldn't it be better to make the thrust of our efforts genuine reform (cf. more new money after old policies) at the primary and secondary levels, which would make EVERYONE at that school better prepared, whether they were admitted to college (or graduated) or not (or not)?

P.S. Where is the evidence that I'm scared people will get into good schools? That strikes me as not helpful.
Click to expand...

This line of rhetoric would ring a lot less hollow coming from someone with more sound primary/secondary education policy theory.
 
What is your reform answer for primary and secondary levels then JHMD? I've never heard you give too many policy reasons on that.
 
Step 1 - school choice
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - profit...errrr...education
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What is your reform answer for primary and secondary levels then JHMD? I've never heard you give too many policy reasons on that.
Click to expand...

School choice, replacing tenure with compensation more responsive to the performance of the teachers (as measured by the parents and standardized testing) and nuke the bureaucracy from orbit and return control to the local levels. The more local, the better. Charter schools would introduce innovative thinking and let consumers pick the winners....as they do in nearly every other industry in our culture.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
What's your model/theory for how competition works for a credence good?
Click to expand...

If your schools present the only choice for a community, everyone in the community will quickly know it. If the school becomes in jeopardy of losing its funding b/c the parents start sending their children to another viable option, it stands to reason and a good deal of human history that it will be in the school's best interest to offer more and better services to their prospective students and they will be less likely to retain poorly qualified staff in the name of inertia. I believe a school has a greater incentive to attract good teachers/purge bad ones when parents are presented with a viable alternative, and that is good---if not great---for parents and students.

I'm in favor of a parent-centered system, where the teachers and administrators are accountable to the people for whom the school system exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top