SCOTUS Affirmative Action decision could affect Service Academy and ROTC

DTT!FSA! said:
The elimination of legacy, donor and athletic preference would open up way more slots to "qualified candidates" than affirmative action policies have closed.

None of this bothers me personally, since my scions, male and female, have always been offered slots wherever they applied. And we are about as white as they come. I suppose if my "qualified candidates" had been less "qualified" and had been rejected, my attitude might be different.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, research showed that "43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard University were recruited athletes, legacy students, children of faculty and staff, or...whose parents or relatives have donated to Harvard."

"The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,”

I'd be upset if I had a doctor who got extra points because he was a white legacy or could play lacrosse.

For the Academies, points are also given to kids who's parents were former military and if they were Academy grads. To me that is the same as giving a bump to someone from an underrepresented category. And it could be said that there are non-qualified cadets being admitted

No minority is automatically granted admission solely based on being a minority. They still have to meet min standards. Then extra points could be given based on the school needed a diverse student body. I can accept this at an Academy more than giving a bump because the kid's dad was an alum or that the soccer coach wants the kid on his team.
 
unkown1961 said:
I'd be upset if I had a doctor who got extra points because he was a white legacy or could play lacrosse.
Click to expand...
Let's get off this point. The case is about undergraduate admissions. Future doctors go through years of post-undergrad study, training, testing, and residency before they earn an MD. Plenty of winnowing after freshman year to suss out the "unqualified."
 
Last edited:
VelveteenR said:
Thankfully, our university system is not a meritocracy and never has been.


:popcorn1:
Click to expand...
Definition of Meritocracy: Government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability - Oxford Dictionary

Isn't a Meritocracy what we want? Don't we want the best universities to select the best students? Maybe I do not understand what you meant in your post.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
Don't we want the best universities to select the best students?
Click to expand...

That is precisely what Harvard, UNC and other universities are trying to achieve with their current admissions practices. The problem is that too many want to define "merit" formulaically via numbers like grades and test scores when those metrics are often poor indicators of ability, especially in this day of rampant grade inflation and test prep. Thus the need for a more holistic view of applicants that considers additional factors to give the universities the best chance of finding those best students for their various communities and the classes they are trying to build.

Harvard claims that it could fill every one of its roughly 1,900 freshman seats with perfect grades and test scores, but that is not how it defines merit for those seats, and it is not interested in building a community on a one-dimensional metric that does not define ability. So, the problem with using a term like "merit" or "meritocracy" in a discussion like this is that, as many posts upthread imply, merit is defined too narrowly when the universities know that finding the best students requires consideration of many factors beyond grades and scores.

As President Bacow said in his letter:

Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.

Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
VelveteenR said:
That is precisely what Harvard, UNC and other universities are trying to achieve with their current admissions practices. The problem is that too many want to define "merit" formulaically via numbers like grades and test scores when those metrics are often poor indicators of ability, especially in this day of rampant grade inflation and test prep. Thus the need for a more holistic view of applicants that considers additional factors to give the universities the best chance of finding those best students for their various communities and the classes they are trying to build.

Harvard claims that it could fill every one of its roughly 1,900 freshman seats with perfect grades and test scores, but that is not how it defines merit for those seats, and it is not interested in building a community on a one-dimensional metric that does not define ability. So, the problem with using a term like "merit" or "meritocracy" in a discussion like this is that, as many posts upthread imply, merit is defined too narrowly when the universities know that finding the best students requires consideration of many factors beyond grades and scores.

As President Bacow said in his letter:
Click to expand...

David Hogg got into Harvard with an average record and an extremely low SAT. He was rejected from a state school in California.

My son didn’t apply to MIT, but he likely would have been rejected or wait listed. A girl in his class finished lower in the class, lower SATs, no extracurricular activities at all. She got in.

This isn’t about merit. It is about social engineering.

A better approach would be to figure out why inner city kids aren’t being educated properly.
 
VelveteenR said:
That is precisely what Harvard, UNC and other universities are trying to achieve with their current admissions practices. The problem is that too many want to define "merit" formulaically via numbers like grades and test scores when those metrics are often poor indicators of ability, especially in this day of rampant grade inflation and test prep. Thus the need for a more holistic view of applicants that considers additional factors to give the universities the best chance of finding those best students for their various communities and the classes they are trying to build.
Click to expand...

I think most people would agree with this stance. Test scores are an important piece because they allow for an objective comparison on academic ability, but as you say they don’t tell the full story on who a person is. That’s why extracurriculars, essays, interviews and the like are used to allow for that holistic consideration. I just don’t know about bringing race into it though. In part because considering race seems to have led to more discrimination—It doesn’t seem right that Harvard admissions generally rates Asian applicants as scoring lower on leadership, integrity, etc.
 
Kierkegaard said:
It doesn’t seem right that Harvard admissions generally rates Asian applicants as scoring lower on leadership, integrity, etc.
Click to expand...
This is the key. They had to downgrade that part of it to allow less deserving candidates in.
 
I look forward to an era when nobody is able to choose a particular race because everyone is a complete mutt. Like my favorite kind of dog.

That's going to take a while, though.
 
Another point is that the Asian American share of enrollments at Harvard has actually increased since affirmative action was implemented and is currently at 450% of parity.
 
VelveteenR said:
That is precisely what Harvard, UNC and other universities are trying to achieve with their current admissions practices. The problem is that too many want to define "merit" formulaically via numbers like grades and test scores when those metrics are often poor indicators of ability, especially in this day of rampant grade inflation and test prep. Thus the need for a more holistic view of applicants that considers additional factors to give the universities the best chance of finding those best students for their various communities and the classes they are trying to build.

Harvard claims that it could fill every one of its roughly 1,900 freshman seats with perfect grades and test scores, but that is not how it defines merit for those seats, and it is not interested in building a community on a one-dimensional metric that does not define ability. So, the problem with using a term like "merit" or "meritocracy" in a discussion like this is that, as many posts upthread imply, merit is defined too narrowly when the universities know that finding the best students requires consideration of many factors beyond grades and scores.

As President Bacow said in his letter:
Click to expand...
I agree that “merit” should not be defined as only the highest grades and test scores. But however a school wants to define merit, ethnicity or race should not be part of the equation. A student’s economic background or how they overcame adversity can and could be considered.
 
unkown1961 said:
For the Academies, points are also given to kids who's parents were former military and if they were Academy grads. To me that is the same as giving a bump to someone from an underrepresented category. And it could be said that there are non-qualified cadets being admitted
Click to expand...
Can't speak for the other SA's, but USMA does not give points based on being the child of an academy grad.
 
"For the Academies, points are also given to kids whose parents were former military and if they were Academy grads. To me that is the same as giving a bump to someone from an underrepresented category. And it could be said that there are non-qualified cadets being admitted"

I've been a USAFA ALO for a LOOOONG time and I've never been told this by anyone in the admissions directorate. I've asked that very question and was told "no, we do not give credence, credit, or a leg-up for military kids or grads kids."

I do know they track that information as they're required to for audit purposes and other reasons I can't remember right now, but they've been pretty clear that whether the parent is military or a grad means nothing for scoring purposes, just demographics.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
VelveteenR said:
That is precisely what Harvard, UNC and other universities are trying to achieve with their current admissions practices. The problem is that too many want to define "merit" formulaically via numbers like grades and test scores when those metrics are often poor indicators of ability, especially in this day of rampant grade inflation and test prep. Thus the need for a more holistic view of applicants that considers additional factors to give the universities the best chance of finding those best students for their various communities and the classes they are trying to build.

Harvard claims that it could fill every one of its roughly 1,900 freshman seats with perfect grades and test scores, but that is not how it defines merit for those seats, and it is not interested in building a community on a one-dimensional metric that does not define ability. So, the problem with using a term like "merit" or "meritocracy" in a discussion like this is that, as many posts upthread imply, merit is defined too narrowly when the universities know that finding the best students requires consideration of many factors beyond grades and scores.

As President Bacow said in his letter:
Click to expand...
It is all well and good to try to value experience vs just a test score. What appears to have happened though, is that Asian applicants were given lesser scores on subjective areas with statistical consistency that was intended to reduce the number of Asian applicants accepted (eg a negative racial discrimination against Asian applicants). That presents serious moral and legal concerns.
 
flieger83 said:
"For the Academies, points are also given to kids whose parents were former military and if they were Academy grads. To me that is the same as giving a bump to someone from an underrepresented category. And it could be said that there are non-qualified cadets being admitted"

I've been a USAFA ALO for a LOOOONG time and I've never been told this by anyone in the admissions directorate. I've asked that very question and was told "no, we do not give credence, credit, or a leg-up for military kids or grads kids."

I do know they track that information as they're required to for audit purposes and other reasons I can't remember right now, but they've been pretty clear that whether the parent is military or a grad means nothing for scoring purposes, just demographics.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Click to expand...
Very interesting.

Have you seen anything that indicates other SAs are similar?
 
raimius said:
It is all well and good to try to value experience vs just a test score. What appears to have happened though, is that Asian applicants were given lesser scores on subjective areas with statistical consistency that was intended to reduce the number of Asian applicants accepted (eg a negative racial discrimination against Asian applicants). That presents serious moral and legal concerns.
Click to expand...
I live in NYC where there are currently protests weekly on the dismantling of the gifted programs in public high schools and the attempts to eliminate the standardized test for entry and students grade point averages for admission. I live in a diverse area with a large Asian community who are primarily immigrants or first generation. I also was a teacher for a few years and would have students come in with their parents for teacher and parent conferences to translate and these were parents coming from working 10 hours or more and they were completely engaged in their children’s academic success and they were not wealthy or even middle class . The vast majority of these parents that I met with instilled an incredible work ethic and discipline into their children and it is a travesty that these students are being penalized through no fault of their own.
 
Banshee Mom said:
I live in NYC where there are currently protests weekly on the dismantling of the gifted programs in public high schools and the attempts to eliminate the standardized test for entry and students grade point averages for admission. I
Click to expand...
The dumbing down of America continues. If achievements are getting in the way of politicians and “higher education” doing what they want, they eliminate the achievement. Brilliant. They are driving those with the means to abandon public schools for private - that’s where the real egalitarians live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top