Inside Higher Ed
April 2, 2010
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Education should encourage colleges and universities to use what has in the past been a controversial method to determine whether their athletics programs are in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal panel urged in a report released Thursday.
In its recommendations, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights endorses the department’s “model survey” – an e-mailed or Web-based questionnaire issued by the Office for Civil Rights in 2005 – as “the best method available” to show that an institution is “fully and effectively” meeting the needs of the gender that is underrepresented in its intercollegiate athletics offerings. The survey has been criticized as an option that sets back equity for women in college sports.
The recommendations were approved by four members of the commission, while one member abstained from voting and three others were absent for the vote. Of those who were absent, two -- Arlan D. Melendez and Michael Yaki -- co-wrote a rebuttal to the conclusions. "[B]ecause the process was biased, faulty, and inadequate," they wrote, "it was inevitable that the outcome is misleading."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/02/titleix
Showing posts with label U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Show all posts
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Monday, November 2, 2009
A Professor Proposes to Examine Gender Bias in College Admissions
Chronicle of Higher Education
November 1, 2009
Gail Heriot, a commissioner and law professor at the University of San Diego, proposed that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights begin examining whether selective colleges are discriminating against women in undergraduate admissions. The commission voted at its August meeting to pursue the project. Here is the text of Ms. Heriot's proposal.
Draft—Statutory Report Proposal
August 6, 2009
Topic: Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions
Background: Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in higher education. It does not, however, prohibit sex discrimination in admissions by private, non-professional, undergraduate schools. Put differently, traditionally male and traditionally female liberal arts schools are legally free to discriminate in admissions. So are private, coed, liberal arts schools. But state liberal arts schools are not and neither are private graduate or private professional schools.
Recently, accusations have been made that some selective private, coed, liberal arts schools are discriminating in admissions in to order to maintain what they regard as an appropriate gender balance. Specifically, the accusation is that women applicants are being discriminated against in order to prevent the schools from becoming “too female.” Indeed, some commentators have called this an “open secret” and suggested the same may be occurring at state schools too (where it would be illegal).
Women dominate higher education generally. Approximately 58% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master's degrees go to women. The dominance of women is particularly felt in community colleges and institutions that are non-selective or only somewhat selective. The reasons for this are complex and controversial, but no doubt part of the reason is that males who have recently graduated from high school are more likely than their female counterparts to prefer the opportunities available to them in the military or in the building trades. Incarceration rates are also higher for men than for women in this (or any) age group.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Full-Text-The-Proposal-That/49012/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
November 1, 2009
Gail Heriot, a commissioner and law professor at the University of San Diego, proposed that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights begin examining whether selective colleges are discriminating against women in undergraduate admissions. The commission voted at its August meeting to pursue the project. Here is the text of Ms. Heriot's proposal.
Draft—Statutory Report Proposal
August 6, 2009
Topic: Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions
Background: Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in higher education. It does not, however, prohibit sex discrimination in admissions by private, non-professional, undergraduate schools. Put differently, traditionally male and traditionally female liberal arts schools are legally free to discriminate in admissions. So are private, coed, liberal arts schools. But state liberal arts schools are not and neither are private graduate or private professional schools.
Recently, accusations have been made that some selective private, coed, liberal arts schools are discriminating in admissions in to order to maintain what they regard as an appropriate gender balance. Specifically, the accusation is that women applicants are being discriminated against in order to prevent the schools from becoming “too female.” Indeed, some commentators have called this an “open secret” and suggested the same may be occurring at state schools too (where it would be illegal).
Women dominate higher education generally. Approximately 58% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master's degrees go to women. The dominance of women is particularly felt in community colleges and institutions that are non-selective or only somewhat selective. The reasons for this are complex and controversial, but no doubt part of the reason is that males who have recently graduated from high school are more likely than their female counterparts to prefer the opportunities available to them in the military or in the building trades. Incarceration rates are also higher for men than for women in this (or any) age group.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Full-Text-The-Proposal-That/49012/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Monday, September 15, 2008
Mismatched Minorities?
Inside Higher Ed
September 15, 2008
Addressing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Friday, a panel of researchers discussed whether minority students are doomed to failure if admitted into highly selective science programs on the basis of racial preferences.
The commission’s briefing centered on the “mismatch” theory, which suggests minority students are less successful in science majors when they are placed in colleges with academic standards that far exceed the students’ preparation.
“Race preferences in admissions … are harming the aspirations of blacks,” said Rogers Elliott, professor emeritus of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College.
The controversial mismatch theory purports to explain, in part, why black and Hispanic students are less likely than whites to complete degrees in the so-called STEM disciplines of science.
Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, drew upon data from the University of Michigan’s graduation rates to illustrate the mismatch theory. He noted that for black students who entered Michigan in 1999, 73 percent who were given “no preference” graduated in four years compared with 70 percent of white students with the same credentials. But for black students who were given “large preference,” just 21 percent graduated in four years, compared with 35 percent of whites who were also given a large preference.
In order to determine the level of preference given to applicants, Sander used an index that included standardized test scores and grade point averages. A 50-point difference on the verbal SAT, for instance, would be considered a moderate preference under Sander’s analysis. A 90-point difference would be considered a large preference. (Michigan officials could not be reached for comment, but in previous debates over affirmative action they have rejected the idea that applicants can be grouped by SAT scores alone to judge their relative ability.)
Sander introduced his mismatch analysis of black law school students in 2004. Since that time, his argument that some minority students might be better served at less prestigious institutions has been met with criticism by affirmative action advocates, who say that race-blind admissions in law schools, for instance, would ultimately undercut minority participation altogether.
California Data Shows Mismatch, Sander Says
The University of California System also served as a model for Sander’s research. Citing unpublished data from the system, Sander noted that black and Latino students have far greater success rates in science when they enroll in the California’s less selective campuses. Minority students were about half as likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in science at Berkeley or UCLA, for instance, as they were to earn science degrees from five of the of the other six campuses in the system, according to Sander’s study of those entering between 1998 and 2000.
“All those [data] show very compelling evidence that there really is some mismatching going on,” he said.
Michael Yaki, a member of the commission, was the lone commissioner to publicly criticize Sander’s analysis at Friday’s briefing.
“Part of what we’re talking about is the potentiality of human beings, and that’s not something you can really measure,” said Yaki, a rare Democrat on the Republican-dominated commission.
Richard Tapia, a panelist at the briefing and a math professor at Rice University, expressed concern about steering minorities to less rigorous academic programs – just for the sake of increasing degree production in the sciences. The net result, he argued, will be fewer minorities on faculty at prestigious institutions, which are disinclined to hire professors lacking in academic pedigree.
“Our current path will lead to a permanent underclass,” he said.
Tapia, a Los Angeles native whose parents emigrated from Mexico, renounced the “sink or swim” mentality that some embrace in higher education. Retention and mentoring programs can work for minorities, he argued, if they are given funding and support.
“Treating everyone the same is not good enough,” Tapia said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/15/mismatch ]
September 15, 2008
Addressing the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Friday, a panel of researchers discussed whether minority students are doomed to failure if admitted into highly selective science programs on the basis of racial preferences.
The commission’s briefing centered on the “mismatch” theory, which suggests minority students are less successful in science majors when they are placed in colleges with academic standards that far exceed the students’ preparation.
“Race preferences in admissions … are harming the aspirations of blacks,” said Rogers Elliott, professor emeritus of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College.
The controversial mismatch theory purports to explain, in part, why black and Hispanic students are less likely than whites to complete degrees in the so-called STEM disciplines of science.
Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, drew upon data from the University of Michigan’s graduation rates to illustrate the mismatch theory. He noted that for black students who entered Michigan in 1999, 73 percent who were given “no preference” graduated in four years compared with 70 percent of white students with the same credentials. But for black students who were given “large preference,” just 21 percent graduated in four years, compared with 35 percent of whites who were also given a large preference.
In order to determine the level of preference given to applicants, Sander used an index that included standardized test scores and grade point averages. A 50-point difference on the verbal SAT, for instance, would be considered a moderate preference under Sander’s analysis. A 90-point difference would be considered a large preference. (Michigan officials could not be reached for comment, but in previous debates over affirmative action they have rejected the idea that applicants can be grouped by SAT scores alone to judge their relative ability.)
Sander introduced his mismatch analysis of black law school students in 2004. Since that time, his argument that some minority students might be better served at less prestigious institutions has been met with criticism by affirmative action advocates, who say that race-blind admissions in law schools, for instance, would ultimately undercut minority participation altogether.
California Data Shows Mismatch, Sander Says
The University of California System also served as a model for Sander’s research. Citing unpublished data from the system, Sander noted that black and Latino students have far greater success rates in science when they enroll in the California’s less selective campuses. Minority students were about half as likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in science at Berkeley or UCLA, for instance, as they were to earn science degrees from five of the of the other six campuses in the system, according to Sander’s study of those entering between 1998 and 2000.
“All those [data] show very compelling evidence that there really is some mismatching going on,” he said.
Michael Yaki, a member of the commission, was the lone commissioner to publicly criticize Sander’s analysis at Friday’s briefing.
“Part of what we’re talking about is the potentiality of human beings, and that’s not something you can really measure,” said Yaki, a rare Democrat on the Republican-dominated commission.
Richard Tapia, a panelist at the briefing and a math professor at Rice University, expressed concern about steering minorities to less rigorous academic programs – just for the sake of increasing degree production in the sciences. The net result, he argued, will be fewer minorities on faculty at prestigious institutions, which are disinclined to hire professors lacking in academic pedigree.
“Our current path will lead to a permanent underclass,” he said.
Tapia, a Los Angeles native whose parents emigrated from Mexico, renounced the “sink or swim” mentality that some embrace in higher education. Retention and mentoring programs can work for minorities, he argued, if they are given funding and support.
“Treating everyone the same is not good enough,” Tapia said. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/15/mismatch ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)