I mean positive discrimination in college admission favoring low incomes as opposed to racial categories.
I attended a very liberal elite undergraduate private college. Even back in the late 70s, the majority of the Black students came from wealth and good schools. I had and have no idea whether and to what extent racial preferences helpe…
I mean positive discrimination in college admission favoring low incomes as opposed to racial categories.
I attended a very liberal elite undergraduate private college. Even back in the late 70s, the majority of the Black students came from wealth and good schools. I had and have no idea whether and to what extent racial preferences helped with their admission, but what I do know is that people of all races in this economic demographic generally had the chops to flourish there and indeed they did.
There was a smaller contingent of students who came from real tough backgrounds both socially and economically. They mostly struggled both academically and socially. These are the people who need a leg up.
One alternative to income based affirmative action is automatic admission to the top 10% of any public high school in the state, irrespective of the income or academic ranking of the high school.
I agree with your focus on individual circumstances, rather than basing admissions on population group membership. Still pondering the details tho.
I want to note that need-based financial support is often not be considered positive "discrimination". But you may have been suggesting admission and hiring discrimination, like admitting a less qualified poor person over a more qualified middle class person - but based on family income rather than group membership.
---
The top 10% of high school graduates can be a large number, so I'm guessing that you mean "automatic admission to some state college or university" rather than to a particular university, right? And if so, would you support admissions matching those students with a most compatible university?
John McWhorter points out that Black success in California universities did not drop after positive discrimination was prohibited by the voters; the students still went to college but were not differentially admitted to colleges above their level of ability and preparation. As a result, they are spread through the spectrum of the universities they attend, rather than being encouraged to overreach and clustering near the bottom of their classes, transfer to easier majors, and have lower completion rates (more debt without extra income if they drop out). Basically, he says that on the whole, being admitted through AA/PD to schools above one's ability is not a blessing.
And that's not about race. Systemically admitting students of any race to colleges above their current ability would not be blessing them. A program which granted easier admission above preparation to applicants with surnames beginning with letters K-M would also produce such effects.
----
In some schools, one can read at an 8th grade level and still be in the top 10%. I'm astounded at how bad significant portions of the system have become, even inside liberal states. So there may need to be some sort of expanded pre-college remediation program - provided by community colleges and/or others. However the question would be: does it make the most sense to base admission to such programs on income on the need for remediation?
As I see it, the core qualifier for a remediation program should be the need for remediation. Using income would be an unneccessary and inexact proxy for that (as would be using race or national origin etc). Why use something which partially correlates with the relevant factors, when you can use the factor itself?
I mean positive discrimination in college admission favoring low incomes as opposed to racial categories.
I attended a very liberal elite undergraduate private college. Even back in the late 70s, the majority of the Black students came from wealth and good schools. I had and have no idea whether and to what extent racial preferences helped with their admission, but what I do know is that people of all races in this economic demographic generally had the chops to flourish there and indeed they did.
There was a smaller contingent of students who came from real tough backgrounds both socially and economically. They mostly struggled both academically and socially. These are the people who need a leg up.
One alternative to income based affirmative action is automatic admission to the top 10% of any public high school in the state, irrespective of the income or academic ranking of the high school.
Thanks for explaining.
I agree with your focus on individual circumstances, rather than basing admissions on population group membership. Still pondering the details tho.
I want to note that need-based financial support is often not be considered positive "discrimination". But you may have been suggesting admission and hiring discrimination, like admitting a less qualified poor person over a more qualified middle class person - but based on family income rather than group membership.
---
The top 10% of high school graduates can be a large number, so I'm guessing that you mean "automatic admission to some state college or university" rather than to a particular university, right? And if so, would you support admissions matching those students with a most compatible university?
John McWhorter points out that Black success in California universities did not drop after positive discrimination was prohibited by the voters; the students still went to college but were not differentially admitted to colleges above their level of ability and preparation. As a result, they are spread through the spectrum of the universities they attend, rather than being encouraged to overreach and clustering near the bottom of their classes, transfer to easier majors, and have lower completion rates (more debt without extra income if they drop out). Basically, he says that on the whole, being admitted through AA/PD to schools above one's ability is not a blessing.
And that's not about race. Systemically admitting students of any race to colleges above their current ability would not be blessing them. A program which granted easier admission above preparation to applicants with surnames beginning with letters K-M would also produce such effects.
----
In some schools, one can read at an 8th grade level and still be in the top 10%. I'm astounded at how bad significant portions of the system have become, even inside liberal states. So there may need to be some sort of expanded pre-college remediation program - provided by community colleges and/or others. However the question would be: does it make the most sense to base admission to such programs on income on the need for remediation?
As I see it, the core qualifier for a remediation program should be the need for remediation. Using income would be an unneccessary and inexact proxy for that (as would be using race or national origin etc). Why use something which partially correlates with the relevant factors, when you can use the factor itself?