Poor Donnell, Pathetic U. of Kentucky

Sad and forlorn Donnell!

His entire existence seems predicated on defending racial double standards with all the standard hoopla and hollowness about “diversity” and “obstacles.”

Like the President of U. of Kentucky, he fails to realize that by admitting students under racial double standards, by effectively ignoring test scores and normal measures of academic preparedness, they are setting students up for failure, non-graduation, and premature dropouts.

Worse than that, other students pay close attention to how their own classmates do in class — noting grades on returned exams and papers, or simply observing how students articulate and frame questions in the classroom itself.

It never occurs to defenders of the diversity mantra that their racial double standards are having exactly the opposite effect that they intend.

The new policy of U. of Kentucky perpetuates racist stereotypes, sets up many black students for failure if they are mismatched with academically rigorous institutions, and inflames campus tensions by drawing attention to the lack of preparedness on the part of students obviously admitted because of their skin color.

The racist stereotypes of Donnell and U. of Kentucky could not be more appalling or counter-productive.

Chuck, at 9:05 am EDT on October 10, 2005

Qualifications

It is unfortunate that qualifications no longer count. Because of my mixed racial backround, I can apply as either white or Hispanic — I don’t see how picking one bubble to fill in over the other would have made me a more qualified candidate. Likewise with friends who could put black or white.

The most objective measure we have right now is standardized test scores (ACT,SAT, AP, IB, SAT II). If we move to a subjective “holistic” grading process, we more and more discount consistancy and accuracy.

Having a campus that looks like a rainbow is fine and well, but not at the price of admitting underqualified students or turning away those who filled in the wrong bubble.

As to the “unable to achieve” comments, the best measure we have had so far as to the likelyhood of dropping out and as a predictor of GPA has been standardized test scores (there have been a couple of studies on this). If these “leaders” would like to change the perception, perhaps they could tutor kids instead of demanding lowered expectations.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 3:46 pm EDT on October 10, 2005

“We want to look beyond test scores, at all of the things that make up a person,”

Translation: we can’t recruit good students, and we will admit students of rich parents.

It isn’t that hard to do well on standardize tests. You don’t need a prep course. But, unfortunately, a lot of parents hate their kids. Their kids don’t study. Their kids watch TV. Their kids “hang out.” Look, if your kid scored below the top 5% on a test, ask yourself “what did I do wrong?” If there is a TV in the house you know why your kid needs to rely on “diversity” to get into a second-rate school rather than his test scores.

Luckily, in my family, watching TV or getting drunk was considered dishonorable.

Of course, if you have lots of money, you can let the TV play as your kid’s life experience will be looked upon favorably by the school.

Larry, at 11:14 am EDT on October 11, 2005

Frank, I think you should probably give the full cite and maybe a quote so we know what that methodologies and conclusions of studies are. In my experience, since college students have considerable latitude in choosing courses, the ones that take the easiest courses (or courses wioth guaranteed high grades) and know how to manipulate professors do the best. These social skills often are more important than hard work once a student gets in.

There are plenty of kids with high SAT scores that have interesting backgrounds. Now, by “interesting” I don’t mean those jerks that volunteer for a summer. Those people are evil. Real passion takes years to nurture.

Indeed, if we want real diversity, the school could offer full scholarships to any sex offender that scores in the top 2%. After all, sex offenders are often lacking in education and, with a good education might either 1) conform their behavior to the community’s norms; or 2) work in a peaceful way to change our laws. I know it annoys people, but diversity isn’t all drum circles and dances. A school could also recruit muggers, strippers, pimps, and car thieves.

Or, maybe schools could require that all students have at least one novel published by a mainstream publisher. No self-publication or vanity publication allowed.

Want another suggestion? Completely blind admission. Admissions counselors would not know the name, sex, or high school of the applicant. No “personal statements” or letters of recommendation would be permitted. Applicants could select two characteristics from a menu of 100 or more (e.g. poet, hunter, housewife, meglomaniac, dancer, goat herder), and the admissions committee would decide who gets into the class by the way that the person described him or herself. (To prevent cheating, an admitted student would have to prove that they are, in fact, an exotic dancer or goat herder by providing pictures that can be authenticated as being at lest three years old – but only after admission and payment of tuition.)

However, since schools are really just trying to fill their ranks with a mix of paying students and students with high statistics, most schools are resigned to the fact that they will fill their ranks with frat-boys, “spirit girls,” bimbos, date-rapers, and sorostitutes.

Larry, at 4:20 pm EDT on October 11, 2005

Moe

While I agree with many of your statements, the important point I think should be made is that the other criteria, besides standardized tests, are subjective (as are the essay portions of the tests). With differences in grade inflation in different parts of the country, and differences in the level of teaching and the material covered it is very difficult to assess these aspects comparitively.

The same concepts aren’t even always covered one year to the next in a high school math class at the same level by the same teacher, so the concept of substitution grades for test scores when comparing students nation- and world-wide is a bit absurd. Harvard, Stanford and the local community college all offer an intro to biology course, but if one assumes that and A in one is equivalent to an A in another the admissions profile will be odd indeed (and there are quality gulfs between high schools about as wide as Harvard and your local community college). Who will rank high schools, on what basis, and with what consistancy?

Likewise with motivation — anyone can write “I am so darn motivated to get out there and help my community” — but there is not a really effective way to measure who is motivated until you’ve had them in the classroom. (Incidentally, recommendation letters don’t work nearly as well in this area as a lot of people think they do.)

Besides, holisitic ends up in the eye of the beholder, and what one admissions officer thinks would be good on campus another may not.

Lastly, one of the reasons we have admissions hurdles is to keep people from coming in a slowing down the class — those who appear most likely to are ussually not admitted without an non-academic purpose. Even if someone is really interesting (either to the admissions staff or fellow classmates) or belongs to a rare ethnic group, or is highly motivated they may still slow down the whole class, or at least interfere with their learning.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 8:58 pm EDT on October 13, 2005