An Alternative to AA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Nefertari

Undercover Premed
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
A few weeks ago when the Supreme Court was debating the U Mich AA case, there were some good newspaper articles on finding alternative approaches to achieving diversity. One of them was "What if Affirmative Action in Education Ends?" (Wall Street Journal, 3/31, B1, by Daniel Golden). The article focused on undergrad admissions, but can be applied to med school admissions as well.

The article discussed the study by the Century Foundation (a New York liberal public-policy think tank) which concluded that black and Hispanic enrollment would drop to 4% from 12% at 146 most selective colleges (i.e. Barron's top 2 tiers) if affirmative action is eliminated and admision is based solely on grades/test scores.

The study calculated, however, that black and Hispanic enrollment would fall only to 10% (from the present 12%) if AA were to be replaced by preference for students of low socioeconomic status, measured by parental income, education and history of receiving federal/state aid.

Another interesting finding the study announced after analyzing federal education data is that low-income students are SCARCER THAN MINORITIES at the 146 elite colleges. Although colleges claim to give an edge to low-income apps, the researchers found wealthy students with the same grades and test scores are slightly more likely to be admitted. Students in the bottom quarter income level make up only 3% of enrollment at these colleges, compared with 74% for those at the top quarter income level.

Given the above findings and the ugliness/divisiveness of AA, I hope that undergrad & grad/professional schools will change to preference based on low socioeconomic status (or "disadvantaged status", as has been implemented in CA). Of course, these apps should be able to score within the avg range on standardized tests and be held to the same competence levels as their classmates. Such a system would still be vulnerable to certain flaws and abuses, but it would help to eliminate the AA backlash:

1) the "reverse discrimination" charges from white apps (low income white apps would receive special consideration not possible under AA)

2) the predicament of Asian apps, who are now lumped into the overrepresented minority category (under economic preference, recent poor immigrants would NOT be compared to their peers who have grown up in suburbia)

3) the prejudiced attitudes that black and Latino students now face as a result of the misconception that they are "underqualified"

Presently, the US educational system gives disproportionate advantage to students w/ high socioeconomic status (the New Yorker had a great article several weeks ago on the "back-scratching" admissions process @ the Ivies). Changing to socioeconomic preference would help to balance this inequality as well as to address the shortcomings of AA.

Members don't see this ad.
 
i completely agree with the proponents of socioeconomic status (SES) as a proxy for being disadvantaged. furthermore, i believe that we shouldn't place as much emphasis, if any, on an applicants ethnicity/racial background.

rather, a system needs to be developed which is blind to race/ethnicity in assessing the qualificiations of an applicant. the end result of AA as it stands now is an over-representation of under-qualified, not under-priveleged applicants.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So you'd feel better being rejected because your parents made too much money? Children, typically, have as little control over their parents incomes as they do about race.
 
Originally posted by soccerchick747
So you'd feel better being rejected because your parents made too much money? Children, typically, have as little control over their parents incomes as they do about race.
soccerchick,

As things stand now, what you mentioned is NOT generally the case. I wish I remembered which New Yorker issue it was that had the discussion of how many of the private feeder schools for elite colleges even "recommend" for admission applicants who have well-endowed, generous parents and would be LESS likely to seek financial aid. I remember that some crazy # like 70% of my undergrad class did not receive financial aid (i.e. their parents' income did not qualify them).

I'm not sure if you missed the part in my long post that addressed this issue, but let me quote it to clarify:

Although colleges claim to give an edge to low-income apps, the researchers found wealthy students with the same grades and test scores are slightly more likely to be admitted. Students in the bottom quarter income level make up only 3% of enrollment at these colleges, compared with 74% for those at the top quarter income level.


CJ2Doc,

Thanks for the link! I checked it out, and was pleasantly surprised by the civility and good discussion. I wasn't aware of the thread since I don't frequent the Everyone forum (too skanky over there!) :D j/k
 
Originally posted by Nefertari
soccerchick,

As things stand now, what you mentioned is NOT generally the case. I wish I remembered which New Yorker issue it was that had the discussion of how many of the private feeder schools for elite colleges even "recommend" for admission applicants who have well-endowed, generous parents and would be LESS likely to seek financial aid. I remember that some crazy # like 70% of my undergrad class did not receive financial aid (i.e. their parents' income did not qualify them).

I'm not sure if you missed the part in my long post that addressed this issue, but let me quote it to clarify:

Although colleges claim to give an edge to low-income apps, the researchers found wealthy students with the same grades and test scores are slightly more likely to be admitted. Students in the bottom quarter income level make up only 3% of enrollment at these colleges, compared with 74% for those at the top quarter income level.


I don't believe I said that that was the general case (and yes, i read the original post), it was a hypothetical question. I was just pointing out how this system could be percieved as just another, more subtle form of "reverse discrimination." The backlash of SES-based AA could potentially be parallel to what it is today. Because so many self-assuredly qualified people who feel that they were rejected from a spot at X school because a URM got in instead, a "rich," or moderately well off student, with equal qualifications will feel left out because their parent's made too much money. Just because someone lives above the poverty line doesn't mean that students go to the best schools, or have the best opportunities. My RA's parents made around $90,000 a year, and having to support their parents' extensive medical expenses, and that of their disabled youngest son, half of the time, they couldn't even make ends meet.

I'm just pointing out that the SES line isn't necessary any more cut and dry than the rich URM AA beneficiary/poor URM beneficiary line is, and that either system is going to have flaws.
 
Originally posted by indo
The intention is to give oppertunities to people who otherwise could not afford them. Under this type of system poor white kids would have as much of a chance as poor black kids etc etc. The way it is now people's economic status rarely comes into play. Whatever new AA system we get we have to remember that we're trying to give oppertunities to people who otherwise would not have them.

We should work from the bottom up, then. We shouldn't just cut AA automatically, if anything it should be phased out, until we can make all or most primary and secondary schools comparable in opporutnities, so that no one will need it.
 
First of all, the Century Foundation which did the study did certainly *NOT* recommend getting rid of affirmative action; rather, they wanted to EXPAND it to ALSO include economic variables (thus, in their view, to more focus on TRULY socioECONOMICALLY "disadvantaged" students)


HOWEVER, I don't see the argument here? AA IS NOT TARGETTED AT HELPING THE Gang-Banger from the Ghetto! Rather, AA is focused on getting MINORITIES, REGARDLESS of where they come from, INTO school because we NEED them there.

With medical school, according to the AAMC, who filed the breif with the supreme court, if AA was eliminated and INSTEAD economic factors were considered, minority enrollment would drop significantly! Do we want that as a society seeing how minority population trends are ever increasing?

SPecifically, it was found (as posted on other threads) that minorities from affluent families (80k or higher) scored significanly lower than whites or asians from poor families (30k or lower).

That was just the MCAT, of course, but I suspect similar trends are on all standardized tests.

IF IT WAS SO *EASY* to just do some economic variable which would target minorities, life would be easy and i'd be all for it! But it's simply not
 
Originally posted by kreno
First of all, the Century Foundation which did the study did certainly *NOT* recommend getting rid of affirmative action; rather, they wanted to EXPAND it to ALSO include economic variables (thus, in their view, to more focus on TRULY socioECONOMICALLY "disadvantaged" students)


HOWEVER, I don't see the argument here? AA IS NOT TARGETTED AT HELPING THE Gang-Banger from the Ghetto! Rather, AA is focused on getting MINORITIES, REGARDLESS of where they come from, INTO school because we NEED them there.

With medical school, according to the AAMC, who filed the breif with the supreme court, if AA was eliminated and INSTEAD economic factors were considered, minority enrollment would drop significantly! Do we want that as a society seeing how minority population trends are ever increasing?

SPecifically, it was found (as posted on other threads) that minorities from affluent families (80k or higher) scored significanly lower than whites or asians from poor families (30k or lower).

That was just the MCAT, of course, but I suspect similar trends are on all standardized tests.

IF IT WAS SO *EASY* to just do some economic variable which would target minorities, life would be easy and i'd be all for it! But it's simply not

I can understand why they believe that amending AA to include SES, rather than completely reforming it, is the only way that it will survive in the meantime (i.e., the only way that those crying "reverse discrimination" will be content). That would, atleast, provide a substantial amount of time to improve pre-undergraduate school programs without leaving anyone out in the meantime, and perhaps, AA could be phased out in the next generation.

I agree with your point about AA's intent, though, to give minorities, not just poor minorities, opportunities.

Some consolation that has come out of these debates...I know I won't be the only one anxiously awaiting the SC decision in June...
 
Originally posted by soccerchick747
I can understand why they believe that amending AA to include SES, rather than completely reforming it, is the only way that it will survive in the meantime (i.e., the only way that those crying "reverse discrimination" will be content). That would, atleast, provide a substantial amount of time to improve pre-undergraduate school programs without leaving anyone out in the meantime, and perhaps, AA could be phased out in the next generation.

I agree with your point about AA's intent, though, to give minorities, not just poor minorities, opportunities.

Some consolation that has come out of these debates...I know I won't be the only one anxiously awaiting the SC decision in June...

First of all, we are not "crying discrimination"--it is discrimination and the Supreme Court will agee and deem it unconstitutional.


Anyway, the pro-AA sect will never allow using AA based on economic status. UC-Berkley tried it and what did they discover? That when socioeconomic class is a weighing factor instead of race, white and asian admission jumped and URM admission fell drastically. That was completley unaccpetable to the leftist establishment in California, so they did away with that policy.

So who is it that's unwilling to give an inch?
 
Originally posted by kreno
First of all, the Century Foundation which did the study did certainly *NOT* recommend getting rid of affirmative action; rather, they wanted to EXPAND it to ALSO include economic variables (thus, in their view, to more focus on TRULY socioECONOMICALLY "disadvantaged" students)


HOWEVER, I don't see the argument here? AA IS NOT TARGETTED AT HELPING THE Gang-Banger from the Ghetto! Rather, AA is focused on getting MINORITIES, REGARDLESS of where they come from, INTO school because we NEED them there.

With medical school, according to the AAMC, who filed the breif with the supreme court, if AA was eliminated and INSTEAD economic factors were considered, minority enrollment would drop significantly! Do we want that as a society seeing how minority population trends are ever increasing?

SPecifically, it was found (as posted on other threads) that minorities from affluent families (80k or higher) scored significanly lower than whites or asians from poor families (30k or lower).

That was just the MCAT, of course, but I suspect similar trends are on all standardized tests.

IF IT WAS SO *EASY* to just do some economic variable which would target minorities, life would be easy and i'd be all for it! But it's simply not

Ive always been puzzled by people who express these sentiments while also being aware of the facts that even wealthy URMs do poorly on quantifiable standards. If the goal is to get as many URM bodies as possible, why bother making them take standardized exams or put them in a situation where they are graded on performance and achievmant. I bet we can double or triple the URM applicant pool if we just let judge URMs on how motivated they are or their personal qualities. Why keep up a pretense that they need to achieve anything to get the opportunity to practice medicine, law or any other desirable field.

Personally, I think the concept of ORMs and the success story of Asian immigrants refutes many of the reasons that we need to give certain minority groups such a substantial boost. It is also is a pet peeve of mine when people procliam that AA is great for all minorities when it is clearly not. If we moved back to the original idea of AA as equal opportunity or "The all things being equal" definition, most people can live with that and its probably how the Supreme court decision is going to move us back to. I think the days when URMs can get in with test scores and GPAs several SDs below the mean are numbered.
 
Top