The New York Times
By SAM DILLON
The Obama administration on Friday urged colleges and universities to get creative in improving racial diversity at their campuses, throwing out a Bush-era interpretation of recent Supreme Court rulings that limited affirmative action in admissions.
The new guidelines issued by the Departments of Justice and Education replaced a 2008 document that essentially warned colleges and universities against considering race at all. Instead, the guidelines focus on the wiggle room in the court decisions involving the University of Michigan, suggesting that institutions use other criteria — students’ socioeconomic profiles, residential instability, the hardships they have overcome — that are often proxies for race. Schools could even grant preferences to students from certain schools selected for, among other things, their racial composition, the new document says.
“Post-secondary institutions can voluntarily consider race to further the compelling interest of achieving diversity,” reads the 10-page guide sent to thousands of college admissions officials on Friday afternoon. In some cases, it says, “race can be outcome determinative.”
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/education/us-urges-campus-creativity-to-gain-diversity.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Showing posts with label admissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label admissions. Show all posts
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Governor files legal opinion against ban on affirmative action
Los Angeles Times
July 8, 2011 5:59 pm
Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday added his voice in support of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on racial affirmative action in public university admissions.
In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, because it is part of the state Constitution and not just a law or university policy. In addition, he noted a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said race could be considered in state college admissions if it did not involve quotas or carry predetermined weight in decisions.
Full Story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/gov-brown-files-legal-opinion-against-ban-on-affirmative-action.html
July 8, 2011 5:59 pm
Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday added his voice in support of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on racial affirmative action in public university admissions.
In a legal brief, Brown said that minorities face too high a barrier in efforts to overturn Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, because it is part of the state Constitution and not just a law or university policy. In addition, he noted a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said race could be considered in state college admissions if it did not involve quotas or carry predetermined weight in decisions.
Full Story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/gov-brown-files-legal-opinion-against-ban-on-affirmative-action.html
Friday, October 22, 2010
Is affirmative action for men the answer to enrolment woes?
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
Carolyn Abraham and Kate Hammer
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 5:41AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 10:32AM EDT
For Harold Reiter the tipping point was the entering class of 2002.
As the new chair of admissions at McMaster University's medical school, he took one look at the proportion of women admitted – a whopping 76.9 per cent – and wondered what had happened to the men.
The gender gap at the university's Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine was one of the widest in the country and one of the factors that prompted Dr. Reiter to rethink the admissions criteria.
Full Story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/is-affirmative-action-for-men-the-answer-to-enrolment-woes/article1766432/page2/
Carolyn Abraham and Kate Hammer
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 5:41AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Oct. 21, 2010 10:32AM EDT
For Harold Reiter the tipping point was the entering class of 2002.
As the new chair of admissions at McMaster University's medical school, he took one look at the proportion of women admitted – a whopping 76.9 per cent – and wondered what had happened to the men.
The gender gap at the university's Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine was one of the widest in the country and one of the factors that prompted Dr. Reiter to rethink the admissions criteria.
Full Story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/is-affirmative-action-for-men-the-answer-to-enrolment-woes/article1766432/page2/
Picture: Globe and Mail
SJW Comment:
I read with much interest this story about Canadian medical schools and their "soft" admissions policies to attract more male applicants. What I don't see or hear is the thunderous opposition and indignation that medical school admissions policies are being lowered; that future patients will be threatened. Who will hire a male doctor who is the obvious beneficiary of affirmative action and preferential treatment? Can we trust these unqualified professionals? Male preferential treatment has occurred in some form for centuries and is now being subtly applied to favor more male applicants in the USA and now Canada. What I do not see is the same anger and emotion that is used when the subject of race based affirmative action comes up, despite centuries of discrimination and exclusion. Is this a matter of whose ox is gored? Such hypocrisy!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Civil-Rights Panel May Ask Justice Dept. to Pry Title IX Data From Virginia Union U.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
May 14, 2010
By Eric Kelderman
Washington
A lawyer for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said on Friday that the panel may have to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for help in getting admissions data from Virginia Union University as part of an inquiry into its compliance with a key federal gender-equity law.
Virginia Union, a private, historically black college in Richmond, Va., is one of 19 institutions — a mix of public, private, religious, secular, and historically black colleges and universities — that the commission is examining for evidence of gender discrimination in undergraduate admissions.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Civil-Rights-Panel-May-Ask/65577/
May 14, 2010
By Eric Kelderman
Washington
A lawyer for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said on Friday that the panel may have to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for help in getting admissions data from Virginia Union University as part of an inquiry into its compliance with a key federal gender-equity law.
Virginia Union, a private, historically black college in Richmond, Va., is one of 19 institutions — a mix of public, private, religious, secular, and historically black colleges and universities — that the commission is examining for evidence of gender discrimination in undergraduate admissions.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Civil-Rights-Panel-May-Ask/65577/
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Who's in the know: Women surge, men sink in education's gender gap
The Globe and Mail
Female students are dominating campuses, a shift that will change 'who does what.' But leaving men behind has its costs
ELIZABETH CHURCH
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Monday, Dec. 07, 2009 10:0 6AM EST
In a red-brick building at the University of Guelph, where veterinarians have been schooled for the better part of a century, a demographic shift is taking place that offers a window into the future of human behaviour.
In the past decade, Ontario Veterinary College has seen its student numbers turned on their head: Women account for more than 80 per cent of its students during that time, and now make up more than half of the province's practising vets.
It's an extreme example of a story that is playing out on campuses in Canada and around the world - and a trend that could have profound social implications. There are now three female undergraduates for every two male students on Canadian campuses, and more women than men graduated with higher education degrees in 75 of 98 countries examined in a recent UNESCO study.
Women are expected to gain more power in public and corporate life and more financial independence.
Faced with a dwindling number of potential mates who are their education equals, however, researchers speculate more women may take a pass on the traditional family, or be more willing to leave it when things don't work. And more men may find themselves tending to hearth and home.
Full Story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/whos-in-the-know-women-surge-men-sink-in-educations-gender-gap/article1390902/
Female students are dominating campuses, a shift that will change 'who does what.' But leaving men behind has its costs
ELIZABETH CHURCH
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Monday, Dec. 07, 2009 10:0 6AM EST
In a red-brick building at the University of Guelph, where veterinarians have been schooled for the better part of a century, a demographic shift is taking place that offers a window into the future of human behaviour.
In the past decade, Ontario Veterinary College has seen its student numbers turned on their head: Women account for more than 80 per cent of its students during that time, and now make up more than half of the province's practising vets.
It's an extreme example of a story that is playing out on campuses in Canada and around the world - and a trend that could have profound social implications. There are now three female undergraduates for every two male students on Canadian campuses, and more women than men graduated with higher education degrees in 75 of 98 countries examined in a recent UNESCO study.
Women are expected to gain more power in public and corporate life and more financial independence.
Faced with a dwindling number of potential mates who are their education equals, however, researchers speculate more women may take a pass on the traditional family, or be more willing to leave it when things don't work. And more men may find themselves tending to hearth and home.
Full Story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/whos-in-the-know-women-surge-men-sink-in-educations-gender-gap/article1390902/
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Title IX Trojan Horse?
Inside Higher Ed
November 3, 2009
A federal investigation into possible bias against female applicants would, one might expect, be welcome news to groups that advocate for the education of women. After all, these groups have over the years urged tougher federal enforcement of anti-bias laws.
But factor in the politics of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars gender bias in educational institutions receiving federal funds, and things have a way of getting complicated. Namely, a new federal probe into the allegations that liberal arts colleges are unfairly favoring male applicants is seen by many Title IX experts as a sneak attack on an important law. They believe that in the name of gender equity, the commission is in fact trying to undercut gender equity.
At issue is a move by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate liberal arts college admissions. The inquiry was begun based on reports that many private liberal arts colleges -- struggling to have anything close to parity between male and female students -- favor male applicants. Private undergraduate colleges generally are considered to have the legal right to do so, given an exemption in Title IX for their admissions policies. But much of the probe is directed toward the issue of athletics, with commissioners favoring the inquiry saying that it would be "preferable" for liberal arts colleges to add male athletic teams to attract more male students than it is to use admissions preferences, as is alleged to be taking place now.
The inquiry was planned without much consultation with advocates for women's athletes, and many of them -- just learning of what's going on -- are concerned.
The civil rights commission's investigation "seeks to allow schools to discriminate against women in order to attract more male students. Not only is this unlawful, it would be patently unfair," said Leslie Brueckner, a lawyer with Public Justice, a legal organization that has brought numerous suits on behalf of women's athletics. "Women should not be made to pay the price for the fact that fewer men are interested in seeking higher education. Surely, there are other ways to attract males to schools than to reinstate sex discrimination against women in sports."
Brueckner noted that the Civil Rights Commission's own analysis in deciding to kick off the investigation cited a variety of reasons that men these days lag in college enrollments: They are more likely than women to enlist in the military, to seek jobs in the building trades or to end up in jail. Given these large societal issues, she asked, why should a federal agency be assuming that the key problem with male enrollments is insufficient chances to be an athlete, and that this justified a shift in Title IX. If colleges are favoring male applicants, she said, the solution isn't to let them ignore the rights of female students who are athletes.
"The goal of this approach, as I understand it, would be to stop schools from discriminating in admissions by permitting them to discriminate in athletics," Brueckner said. "To this, I have only one response: Two wrongs do not make a right."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/titleix
November 3, 2009
A federal investigation into possible bias against female applicants would, one might expect, be welcome news to groups that advocate for the education of women. After all, these groups have over the years urged tougher federal enforcement of anti-bias laws.
But factor in the politics of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars gender bias in educational institutions receiving federal funds, and things have a way of getting complicated. Namely, a new federal probe into the allegations that liberal arts colleges are unfairly favoring male applicants is seen by many Title IX experts as a sneak attack on an important law. They believe that in the name of gender equity, the commission is in fact trying to undercut gender equity.
At issue is a move by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate liberal arts college admissions. The inquiry was begun based on reports that many private liberal arts colleges -- struggling to have anything close to parity between male and female students -- favor male applicants. Private undergraduate colleges generally are considered to have the legal right to do so, given an exemption in Title IX for their admissions policies. But much of the probe is directed toward the issue of athletics, with commissioners favoring the inquiry saying that it would be "preferable" for liberal arts colleges to add male athletic teams to attract more male students than it is to use admissions preferences, as is alleged to be taking place now.
The inquiry was planned without much consultation with advocates for women's athletes, and many of them -- just learning of what's going on -- are concerned.
The civil rights commission's investigation "seeks to allow schools to discriminate against women in order to attract more male students. Not only is this unlawful, it would be patently unfair," said Leslie Brueckner, a lawyer with Public Justice, a legal organization that has brought numerous suits on behalf of women's athletics. "Women should not be made to pay the price for the fact that fewer men are interested in seeking higher education. Surely, there are other ways to attract males to schools than to reinstate sex discrimination against women in sports."
Brueckner noted that the Civil Rights Commission's own analysis in deciding to kick off the investigation cited a variety of reasons that men these days lag in college enrollments: They are more likely than women to enlist in the military, to seek jobs in the building trades or to end up in jail. Given these large societal issues, she asked, why should a federal agency be assuming that the key problem with male enrollments is insufficient chances to be an athlete, and that this justified a shift in Title IX. If colleges are favoring male applicants, she said, the solution isn't to let them ignore the rights of female students who are athletes.
"The goal of this approach, as I understand it, would be to stop schools from discriminating in admissions by permitting them to discriminate in athletics," Brueckner said. "To this, I have only one response: Two wrongs do not make a right."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/titleix
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Oxford University admissions favour men, study finds
guardian.co.uk Education Web
• White students also more likely to be offered place
• Admissions director rejects discrimination claims
Jessica Shepherd
The Guardian,
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Women are less likely than men to be offered a place at Oxford University even when they have better grades and are from similar backgrounds, a study has found.
Academics at Oxford, Manchester and London University's Institute of Education analysed details of 1,700 UK students who had applied to 11 Oxford colleges in 2002.
They asked students what kind of school they attended, their GCSE and predicted A-level results, the number of books they read in a year, and the jobs and qualifications of their parents.
The students were asked how often, in the past year, they had visited a museum, art gallery, classical music concert, theatre, opera or ballet, and whether they played a musical instrument. They were then asked to tick in which field figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lloyd George and Graham Greene were best known.
The academics found men were twice as likely as women to be offered a place in a science subject, and 1.4 times more likely than women to gain a place in an arts subject. This was despite the fact that the women had the same or better grades, had similar scores on the historical figures test, came from similar backgrounds to the men and claimed to have read more books.
Some 86.3% of the women had been predicted straight As at A-level, compared with 81.5% of the men. Despite this, 34% of the women were offered places, against 40% of the men.
The research, published in the latest edition of the journal Sociology, also found white applicants were five times more likely than students of south Asian heritage to be offered a place on science courses. Students from state schools were 1.7 times more likely than those from private schools to be offered a place on an arts course, even when they achieved the same or worse grades, were from similar backgrounds and had comparable scores in the historical figures test. There was no difference between state and private school pupils on science courses.
Full Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/19/oxford-university-men-places-women
• White students also more likely to be offered place
• Admissions director rejects discrimination claims
Jessica Shepherd
The Guardian,
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Women are less likely than men to be offered a place at Oxford University even when they have better grades and are from similar backgrounds, a study has found.
Academics at Oxford, Manchester and London University's Institute of Education analysed details of 1,700 UK students who had applied to 11 Oxford colleges in 2002.
They asked students what kind of school they attended, their GCSE and predicted A-level results, the number of books they read in a year, and the jobs and qualifications of their parents.
The students were asked how often, in the past year, they had visited a museum, art gallery, classical music concert, theatre, opera or ballet, and whether they played a musical instrument. They were then asked to tick in which field figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Lloyd George and Graham Greene were best known.
The academics found men were twice as likely as women to be offered a place in a science subject, and 1.4 times more likely than women to gain a place in an arts subject. This was despite the fact that the women had the same or better grades, had similar scores on the historical figures test, came from similar backgrounds to the men and claimed to have read more books.
Some 86.3% of the women had been predicted straight As at A-level, compared with 81.5% of the men. Despite this, 34% of the women were offered places, against 40% of the men.
The research, published in the latest edition of the journal Sociology, also found white applicants were five times more likely than students of south Asian heritage to be offered a place on science courses. Students from state schools were 1.7 times more likely than those from private schools to be offered a place on an arts course, even when they achieved the same or worse grades, were from similar backgrounds and had comparable scores in the historical figures test. There was no difference between state and private school pupils on science courses.
Full Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/19/oxford-university-men-places-women
Sunday, May 3, 2009
New admission policy at UC system angers Asian-Americans
baltimoresun.com
Associated Press
May 3, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO - A new admissions policy set to take effect at the University of California system in three years is raising fears among Asian-Americans that it will reduce their numbers on campus, where they account for 40 percent of all undergraduates.University officials say the new standards - the biggest change in UC admissions since 1960 - are intended to widen the pool of applicants and make the process more fair.But Asian-American advocates, parents and lawmakers are angrily calling on the university to rescind the policy, which will apply at all nine of the system's undergraduate campuses.They point to a UC projection that the new standards would sharply reduce Asian-American admissions while resulting in little change for blacks and Hispanics, and a big gain for white students.
"I like to call it affirmative action for whites," said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. "I think it's extremely unfair to Asian-Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other."Asian-Americans are the single largest ethnic group among UC's 173,000 undergraduates. In 2008, they accounted for 40 percent at UCLA and 43 percent at UC Berkeley - the two most selective campuses in the UC system - as well as 50 percent at UC San Diego and 54 percent at UC Irvine.Asian-Americans are about 12 percent of California's population and 4 percent of the U.S. population overall.
Full Story: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.asian03may03,0,3230843.story
Associated Press
May 3, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO - A new admissions policy set to take effect at the University of California system in three years is raising fears among Asian-Americans that it will reduce their numbers on campus, where they account for 40 percent of all undergraduates.University officials say the new standards - the biggest change in UC admissions since 1960 - are intended to widen the pool of applicants and make the process more fair.But Asian-American advocates, parents and lawmakers are angrily calling on the university to rescind the policy, which will apply at all nine of the system's undergraduate campuses.They point to a UC projection that the new standards would sharply reduce Asian-American admissions while resulting in little change for blacks and Hispanics, and a big gain for white students.
"I like to call it affirmative action for whites," said Ling-chi Wang, a retired professor at UC Berkeley. "I think it's extremely unfair to Asian-Americans on the one hand and underrepresented minorities on the other."Asian-Americans are the single largest ethnic group among UC's 173,000 undergraduates. In 2008, they accounted for 40 percent at UCLA and 43 percent at UC Berkeley - the two most selective campuses in the UC system - as well as 50 percent at UC San Diego and 54 percent at UC Irvine.Asian-Americans are about 12 percent of California's population and 4 percent of the U.S. population overall.
Full Story: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.asian03may03,0,3230843.story
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Blacks and Mexican Americans Disproportionately Denied Law School Admittance
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Ronald Roach
Apr 15, 2009, 08:36
Despite an increase in capacity, law schools have been admitting fewer African-American and Mexican American students over the last 15 years.
As director of the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at the Columbia University Law School, law professor Conrad Johnson knows that digital technology has the power to highlight and amplify social justice concerns and to enable people to take direct action. Under Johnson’s leadership, the clinic has developed and maintained the Columbia-hosted Web site titled “A Disturbing Trend in Law School Diversity,” which highlights more than a decade of declining to stagnant African-American and Mexican American enrollment at U.S. law schools.
“What we tried to do in this study is something we haven’t seen done very often (and that) is to measure the trends of inclusiveness in the context of the capacity of law schools to take in students, which has increased by 10 percent over the last 15 years,” Johnson says.
The Web site features 12 graphs taken from Law School Admission Council (LSAC) data showing how first-year African-American and Mexican American enrollment has declined 8.6 percent, from a total of 3,937 in 1992 to 3,595 in 2005. The Web site notes that in 1992 there were 176 accredited U.S. law schools and by 2006 that total had increased to 195 accredited schools, offering a gain of nearly 4,000 first-year seats for law school students. It’s also shown that, while African-American and Mexican American applicants have endured falling admissions rates, their undergraduate grade point averages and Law School Admission Test scores have improved during the same period.
“Instead of measuring this year against last year, we decided to say ‘let’s look at 15 years and let’s look at LSAT scores, GPAs and capacities of law schools to take in new students,’ and I think that’s going to be particularly important to continue to monitor the fuller picture as opposed to a small slice of the picture,” Johnson notes.
More recently, the American Bar Association reported that first-year African-American law school enrollment went from 3,107 in 2005-2006 to 3,516 in 2006-2007 and fell to 3,486 in 2007-2008. First-year Mexican American law school enrollment went from 851 in 2005-2006 to 915 in 2006-2007 and fell to 888 in 2007-2008.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12481.shtml
by Ronald Roach
Apr 15, 2009, 08:36
Despite an increase in capacity, law schools have been admitting fewer African-American and Mexican American students over the last 15 years.
As director of the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at the Columbia University Law School, law professor Conrad Johnson knows that digital technology has the power to highlight and amplify social justice concerns and to enable people to take direct action. Under Johnson’s leadership, the clinic has developed and maintained the Columbia-hosted Web site titled “A Disturbing Trend in Law School Diversity,” which highlights more than a decade of declining to stagnant African-American and Mexican American enrollment at U.S. law schools.
“What we tried to do in this study is something we haven’t seen done very often (and that) is to measure the trends of inclusiveness in the context of the capacity of law schools to take in students, which has increased by 10 percent over the last 15 years,” Johnson says.
The Web site features 12 graphs taken from Law School Admission Council (LSAC) data showing how first-year African-American and Mexican American enrollment has declined 8.6 percent, from a total of 3,937 in 1992 to 3,595 in 2005. The Web site notes that in 1992 there were 176 accredited U.S. law schools and by 2006 that total had increased to 195 accredited schools, offering a gain of nearly 4,000 first-year seats for law school students. It’s also shown that, while African-American and Mexican American applicants have endured falling admissions rates, their undergraduate grade point averages and Law School Admission Test scores have improved during the same period.
“Instead of measuring this year against last year, we decided to say ‘let’s look at 15 years and let’s look at LSAT scores, GPAs and capacities of law schools to take in new students,’ and I think that’s going to be particularly important to continue to monitor the fuller picture as opposed to a small slice of the picture,” Johnson notes.
More recently, the American Bar Association reported that first-year African-American law school enrollment went from 3,107 in 2005-2006 to 3,516 in 2006-2007 and fell to 3,486 in 2007-2008. First-year Mexican American law school enrollment went from 851 in 2005-2006 to 915 in 2006-2007 and fell to 888 in 2007-2008.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12481.shtml
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Swedish district court rules against 'affirmative action'
Life News
Swedish district court rules against 'affirmative action'
By DPAApr 9, 2009, 14:32 GMT
Stockholm - A Swedish district court has criticized the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for discriminating against women in its selection process for applicants to veterinary studies.
The district court in the university city of Uppsala, north-west of Stockholm, ruled that 44 women were discriminated against by being denied places in veterinary school even though they had the same grades as the male applicants.
The district court said the quota used in 2006 and 2007 to increase the number of male veterinary students had discriminated against women who applied from adult education colleges.
'We have obtained redress,' Sofia Lindblad, one of the plaintiffs, told Swedish radio after the ruling. ...
More than 85 per cent of applicants were women, said lawyer Gunnar Strommer from the Centre for Justice, who handled the group action case. Read more: Swedish district court rules against 'affirmative action' - Monsters and Critics - http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/life/news/article_1470041.php/Swedish_district_court_rules_against_affirmative_action#ixzz0CDkGirQf
Full Story: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/life/news/article_1470041.php/Swedish_district_court_rules_against_affirmative_action
Swedish district court rules against 'affirmative action'
By DPAApr 9, 2009, 14:32 GMT
Stockholm - A Swedish district court has criticized the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for discriminating against women in its selection process for applicants to veterinary studies.
The district court in the university city of Uppsala, north-west of Stockholm, ruled that 44 women were discriminated against by being denied places in veterinary school even though they had the same grades as the male applicants.
The district court said the quota used in 2006 and 2007 to increase the number of male veterinary students had discriminated against women who applied from adult education colleges.
'We have obtained redress,' Sofia Lindblad, one of the plaintiffs, told Swedish radio after the ruling. ...
More than 85 per cent of applicants were women, said lawyer Gunnar Strommer from the Centre for Justice, who handled the group action case. Read more: Swedish district court rules against 'affirmative action' - Monsters and Critics - http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/life/news/article_1470041.php/Swedish_district_court_rules_against_affirmative_action#ixzz0CDkGirQf
Full Story: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/life/news/article_1470041.php/Swedish_district_court_rules_against_affirmative_action
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
New eligibility requirements could mean fewer Asians at UC
The California Aggie
Change could be "detrimental" to Asian American population at UC, critics say
Written by PATRICK McCARTNEY
Published April 7, 2009
The new UC eligibility requirements have sparked an uproar with some Asian American community leaders, who say the change will cause a decline in the university's Asian American population.
Chinese for Affirmative Action is among several national advocacy organizations that have expressed concern over the eligibility changes. The organization has suggested that the new eligibility requirements could cause "unintentional whitening" of UC.
"There's almost a swapping out of Asian students for white students. Let's not rush this thing," said Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, in a press release.
"The concern is that this policy change hasn't been well studied and hasn't determined how it will affect the diversity of the student body at UC," said Susan Hseih, spokesperson for Chinese for Affirmative Action.
Beginning with the fall class of 2012, students will no longer have to take the SAT Subject Tests, also known as SAT II, in order to have their application considered by UC.
The new admissions policy could change the demographics of admitted UC students.
According to a California Postsecondary Education Commission study that examined 2007 applicants, the new requirements would have hypothetically caused a 4 to 7 percent decline in the proportion of admitted Asian American students in 2007-2008. African American students would have seen at most a 1 percent increase, Latinos a 3 percent increase, and white students as much as a 10 percent increase.
The admitted fall 2007 class was 36 percent Asian American, 34 percent white, 19 percent Chicano/Latino, 4 percent African American, 1 percent Native American and 6 percent other or unknown.
Full Story: http://www.theaggie.org/article/3434
Change could be "detrimental" to Asian American population at UC, critics say
Written by PATRICK McCARTNEY
Published April 7, 2009
The new UC eligibility requirements have sparked an uproar with some Asian American community leaders, who say the change will cause a decline in the university's Asian American population.
Chinese for Affirmative Action is among several national advocacy organizations that have expressed concern over the eligibility changes. The organization has suggested that the new eligibility requirements could cause "unintentional whitening" of UC.
"There's almost a swapping out of Asian students for white students. Let's not rush this thing," said Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, in a press release.
"The concern is that this policy change hasn't been well studied and hasn't determined how it will affect the diversity of the student body at UC," said Susan Hseih, spokesperson for Chinese for Affirmative Action.
Beginning with the fall class of 2012, students will no longer have to take the SAT Subject Tests, also known as SAT II, in order to have their application considered by UC.
The new admissions policy could change the demographics of admitted UC students.
According to a California Postsecondary Education Commission study that examined 2007 applicants, the new requirements would have hypothetically caused a 4 to 7 percent decline in the proportion of admitted Asian American students in 2007-2008. African American students would have seen at most a 1 percent increase, Latinos a 3 percent increase, and white students as much as a 10 percent increase.
The admitted fall 2007 class was 36 percent Asian American, 34 percent white, 19 percent Chicano/Latino, 4 percent African American, 1 percent Native American and 6 percent other or unknown.
Full Story: http://www.theaggie.org/article/3434
Monday, April 6, 2009
10% Admissions -- the Full Impact
Inside Higher Ed
April 6, 2009
Texas legislators may be on the verge of changing one of the most notable admissions experiments in recent years: a state law requiring that all public colleges and universities automatically admit all of those who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.
The focus of lawmakers -- particularly those advocating a change -- has been the difficulty the law places on the University of Texas at Austin. As the most competitive institution in the state, it is highly attractive to anyone eligible to earn admission, and UT leaders say that they are filling such a large share of admissions slots through the so-called 10 percent program that they have lost flexibility and, with it, the ability to admit highly talented students who don’t earn automatic admission. Defenders of the law tend to focus on its impact increasing minority enrollments.
Two new studies suggest both positive and negative impacts of the law that have received relatively less attention in the debate. The studies are scheduled to be released next Friday at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
One focuses on the high schools that send students to UT -- and finds that the law has led to much broader representation, effectively halting what had been a growing pattern in which a small number of wealthy high schools were increasingly dominating admissions. Not only has the overall number of high schools sending students to Austin increased since the 10 percent program, but the law appears to have shifted high school students’ decisions. At many high schools before the law took effect, those who would have almost certainly been admitted never bothered to apply -- and the law appears to have changed that, the research has found.
A second study could be used to argue against the 10 percent law -- or at least the way it has been carried out at UT-Austin. This study finds that, as the 10 percent law made it more difficult for some applicants to win admission, an increasing number of these rejected applicants used a program allowing transfer from other UT campuses. And as these transfers grew, transfers from community colleges fell. The finding is significant because so many low-income and minority students start their higher education at two-year institutions.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/06/texas
April 6, 2009
Texas legislators may be on the verge of changing one of the most notable admissions experiments in recent years: a state law requiring that all public colleges and universities automatically admit all of those who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.
The focus of lawmakers -- particularly those advocating a change -- has been the difficulty the law places on the University of Texas at Austin. As the most competitive institution in the state, it is highly attractive to anyone eligible to earn admission, and UT leaders say that they are filling such a large share of admissions slots through the so-called 10 percent program that they have lost flexibility and, with it, the ability to admit highly talented students who don’t earn automatic admission. Defenders of the law tend to focus on its impact increasing minority enrollments.
Two new studies suggest both positive and negative impacts of the law that have received relatively less attention in the debate. The studies are scheduled to be released next Friday at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
One focuses on the high schools that send students to UT -- and finds that the law has led to much broader representation, effectively halting what had been a growing pattern in which a small number of wealthy high schools were increasingly dominating admissions. Not only has the overall number of high schools sending students to Austin increased since the 10 percent program, but the law appears to have shifted high school students’ decisions. At many high schools before the law took effect, those who would have almost certainly been admitted never bothered to apply -- and the law appears to have changed that, the research has found.
A second study could be used to argue against the 10 percent law -- or at least the way it has been carried out at UT-Austin. This study finds that, as the 10 percent law made it more difficult for some applicants to win admission, an increasing number of these rejected applicants used a program allowing transfer from other UT campuses. And as these transfers grew, transfers from community colleges fell. The finding is significant because so many low-income and minority students start their higher education at two-year institutions.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/06/texas
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Impact of Dropping the SAT
Inside Higher Ed
March 26, 2009
A new research study -- based on simulations using actual student applications at competitive colleges that require the SAT or ACT for admission -- has found that ending the requirement would lead to demonstrable gains in the percentages of black and Latino students, and working class or economically disadvantaged students, who are admitted.
The finding is consistent with what admissions officers have reported at many colleges that have gone SAT-optional. But the basis of this new research goes well beyond the anecdotal information reported by colleges pleased with their shifts. Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research obtained actual admissions data from seven selective colleges that require the SAT or ACT. Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the "don't ask, don't tell" approach in which a college says that it won't look at standardized test scores.
These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)
In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher grade point averages. Dropping testing entirely, on the other hand, would result in higher levels of academic achievement in the entering classes at the public institutions studied, but not the privates. The research will be formally presented next month at a conference at Wake Forest University about college admissions, but the Princeton researchers released the findings Wednesday.
Parts of the findings may be controversial with both SAT critics and fans. The study found that, as the College Board has long argued, the SAT is a good way to predict the first-year academic success of students. But the study's findings on the impact of dropping the SAT as a requirement provide an independent analysis to show that dropping the SAT as a requirement does lead to increased diversity -- and that is something many colleges want to promote.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/26/sat
March 26, 2009
A new research study -- based on simulations using actual student applications at competitive colleges that require the SAT or ACT for admission -- has found that ending the requirement would lead to demonstrable gains in the percentages of black and Latino students, and working class or economically disadvantaged students, who are admitted.
The finding is consistent with what admissions officers have reported at many colleges that have gone SAT-optional. But the basis of this new research goes well beyond the anecdotal information reported by colleges pleased with their shifts. Scholars at Princeton University's Office of Population Research obtained actual admissions data from seven selective colleges that require the SAT or ACT. Using the actual admissions patterns for these colleges, the scholars then ran statistical models showing the impact of either going SAT-optional or adopting what they called the "don't ask, don't tell" approach in which a college says that it won't look at standardized test scores.
These models suggest that any move away from the SAT or ACT in competitive colleges results in significant gains in ethnic and economic diversity. But the gains are greater for colleges that drop testing entirely, as opposed to just making it optional. (To date, only one institution -- Sarah Lawrence College -- has taken that step.)
In terms of other measures of academic competitiveness, the study found that going SAT optional would result in classes of students with higher grade point averages. Dropping testing entirely, on the other hand, would result in higher levels of academic achievement in the entering classes at the public institutions studied, but not the privates. The research will be formally presented next month at a conference at Wake Forest University about college admissions, but the Princeton researchers released the findings Wednesday.
Parts of the findings may be controversial with both SAT critics and fans. The study found that, as the College Board has long argued, the SAT is a good way to predict the first-year academic success of students. But the study's findings on the impact of dropping the SAT as a requirement provide an independent analysis to show that dropping the SAT as a requirement does lead to increased diversity -- and that is something many colleges want to promote.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/26/sat
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Black (Immigrant) Admissions Edge
Inside Higher Ed
March 17, 2009
The election of Barack Obama -- African American because of his African father, distinguishing him from how the phrase is commonly used -- has brought unprecedented attention to the diversity of backgrounds of those covered by the term. Within higher education, one of the more sensitive issues in discussion of admissions and affirmative action in recent years has been the relative success of immigrant black Americans compared to black people who have been in the United States for generations.
A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.
The research -- published in the journal Sociology of Education (abstract available here) -- is the second major study in two years to try to define the “advantage” of some black applicants to top college. In 2007, a team of researchers published a study in The American Journal of Education finding that while only about 13 percent of black people aged 18 or 19 in the United States are first- or second-generation immigrants, they made up 27 percent of black students at the selective colleges studied.
The new study focuses on the entire population of high school graduates to see where they go to college, comparing immigrant black people, “native-born blacks” (the authors’ terms for others), and white students. The authors are two assistant professors of sociology -- Pamela R. Bennett of Johns Hopkins University and Amy Lutz of Syracuse University. ...
While their study found success for non-immigrant black students in enrolling in some kinds of colleges, the authors note that the sector -- selective colleges -- in which this is less likely is also the sector most likely to lead to many kinds of high wage careers. More examination of the issue is needed, the authors write, to combat “continued socioeconomic inequality.”
That scholarly phrasing may not do justice to the tensions raised by such issues. In 2003, at a reunion of black alumni of Harvard University, Lani Guinier, a law professor, was quoted by The Boston Globe as raising the question of whether black students who are “voluntary immigrants” should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action.
"If you look around Harvard College today, how many young people will you find who grew up in urban environments and went to public high schools and public junior high schools?" she said. "I don't think, in the name of affirmative action, we should be admitting people because they look like us, but then they don't identify with us."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/17/immigrant
March 17, 2009
The election of Barack Obama -- African American because of his African father, distinguishing him from how the phrase is commonly used -- has brought unprecedented attention to the diversity of backgrounds of those covered by the term. Within higher education, one of the more sensitive issues in discussion of admissions and affirmative action in recent years has been the relative success of immigrant black Americans compared to black people who have been in the United States for generations.
A new study has found that among high school graduates, “immigrant blacks” -- defined as those who immigrated to the United States or their children -- are significantly more likely than other black Americans to attend selective colleges. In fact, immigrant black Americans are more likely than white students to attend such colleges.
The research -- published in the journal Sociology of Education (abstract available here) -- is the second major study in two years to try to define the “advantage” of some black applicants to top college. In 2007, a team of researchers published a study in The American Journal of Education finding that while only about 13 percent of black people aged 18 or 19 in the United States are first- or second-generation immigrants, they made up 27 percent of black students at the selective colleges studied.
The new study focuses on the entire population of high school graduates to see where they go to college, comparing immigrant black people, “native-born blacks” (the authors’ terms for others), and white students. The authors are two assistant professors of sociology -- Pamela R. Bennett of Johns Hopkins University and Amy Lutz of Syracuse University. ...
While their study found success for non-immigrant black students in enrolling in some kinds of colleges, the authors note that the sector -- selective colleges -- in which this is less likely is also the sector most likely to lead to many kinds of high wage careers. More examination of the issue is needed, the authors write, to combat “continued socioeconomic inequality.”
That scholarly phrasing may not do justice to the tensions raised by such issues. In 2003, at a reunion of black alumni of Harvard University, Lani Guinier, a law professor, was quoted by The Boston Globe as raising the question of whether black students who are “voluntary immigrants” should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action.
"If you look around Harvard College today, how many young people will you find who grew up in urban environments and went to public high schools and public junior high schools?" she said. "I don't think, in the name of affirmative action, we should be admitting people because they look like us, but then they don't identify with us."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/17/immigrant
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Unintentional Whitening of U. of California?
Inside Higher Ed
Feb. 5
For several years now, the University of California has been debating plans to drop the SAT Subject Tests (formerly called the SAT II or achievement tests) and to find ways to consider more minority applicants. The debate has focused on the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the SAT and how to promote diversity while not violating the state’s ban on affirmative action.
In the past few days, however, a new issue has started to attract attention: concerns that the admissions policy changes that are expected to be approved by the Board of Regents today could lead to a significant drop in the numbers of Asian-American applicants who are admitted — with the major gains going to white applicants.
According to data prepared by the university and just starting to receive attention, 36 percent of those admitted to the university system in 2007-8 were Asian Americans. Applying the new admissions standards, that percentage would drop to 29-32 percent. In contrast, white applicants made up 34 percent of those admitted in 2007-8. Under the proposed reforms, they would have made up 41 to 44 percent of the entering class. The bottom line is that Asian Americans would shift from being the largest group gaining admission to the University of California to the second.
Some Asian American groups are calling on the Board of Regents to hold off on any vote today, raising questions about the fairness and wisdom of the changes being considered. (A board subcommittee approved the plan Wednesday, unanimously.)
“All of us share the goal of trying to preserve excellence as well as to promote diversity. But the gains for Latinos and African Americans in these projections are very small, while the decreases for Asian Americans and the gains for whites are quite large,” said Vincent Pan, president of Chinese for Affirmative Action, a national group based in California. “There’s almost a swapping out of Asian students for white students. Let’s not rush this thing.”
But university leaders are playing down the demographic projections and defending the admissions plan, which emerged from the Academic Senate, a system-wide faculty group. Mark G. Yudof, president of the university, said in a statement of the proposal: “It also sends a clear message to California high school students that if they work hard, take challenging courses and do well, they will get to make their case for admission to UC.” The university system has been praised by faculty and student groups for the planned shift.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/05/uc
Feb. 5
For several years now, the University of California has been debating plans to drop the SAT Subject Tests (formerly called the SAT II or achievement tests) and to find ways to consider more minority applicants. The debate has focused on the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the SAT and how to promote diversity while not violating the state’s ban on affirmative action.
In the past few days, however, a new issue has started to attract attention: concerns that the admissions policy changes that are expected to be approved by the Board of Regents today could lead to a significant drop in the numbers of Asian-American applicants who are admitted — with the major gains going to white applicants.
According to data prepared by the university and just starting to receive attention, 36 percent of those admitted to the university system in 2007-8 were Asian Americans. Applying the new admissions standards, that percentage would drop to 29-32 percent. In contrast, white applicants made up 34 percent of those admitted in 2007-8. Under the proposed reforms, they would have made up 41 to 44 percent of the entering class. The bottom line is that Asian Americans would shift from being the largest group gaining admission to the University of California to the second.
Some Asian American groups are calling on the Board of Regents to hold off on any vote today, raising questions about the fairness and wisdom of the changes being considered. (A board subcommittee approved the plan Wednesday, unanimously.)
“All of us share the goal of trying to preserve excellence as well as to promote diversity. But the gains for Latinos and African Americans in these projections are very small, while the decreases for Asian Americans and the gains for whites are quite large,” said Vincent Pan, president of Chinese for Affirmative Action, a national group based in California. “There’s almost a swapping out of Asian students for white students. Let’s not rush this thing.”
But university leaders are playing down the demographic projections and defending the admissions plan, which emerged from the Academic Senate, a system-wide faculty group. Mark G. Yudof, president of the university, said in a statement of the proposal: “It also sends a clear message to California high school students that if they work hard, take challenging courses and do well, they will get to make their case for admission to UC.” The university system has been praised by faculty and student groups for the planned shift.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/05/uc
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Attacking the ‘Mismatch’ Critique of Affirmative Action
Inside Higher Ed
September 3, 2008
One of the more influential and controversial studies of affirmative action in recent years came from Richard H. Sander in 2004. The law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed statistics about black law students and argued that they show that affirmative action hurts them by helping many gain admission to institutions where they are unlikely to be top students. This “mismatch,” he argued, led to academic performance at lower levels than the same students would have achieved at the less prestigious law schools to which they could have earned admission without the consideration of race.
Sander’s theory set off political and academic fireworks. They may be reignited with the release of a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that examines much of the same data Sander used. The new analysis — with the sort of detail normally used by critics of affirmative action — backs Sander’s claims on the substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants. And it also finds gaps in performance in law school.
But the new research — using simulations of admissions without affirmative action — finds that race-neutral policies wouldn’t send black students to law schools where they would do better. Rather there would be a huge falloff in black law enrollments — far more than might be counteracted by some black students doing better on bar exams. The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools, the paper says. Even if some positive impact took place in the experience of black students who did enroll, there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in the production of black lawyers, they write.
The study — by Jesse Rothstein of Princeton University and Albert H. Yoon of the University of Toronto — starts off by reviewing the Sander data and its significance. Rothstein and Yoon note that a key part of Sander’s thesis is that “affirmative action influences which schools African American students attend, but has only small effects on whether these students attend law school at all.”
Rothstein and Yoon then turn to data about students who applied to law school in 1991 — similar to the data Sander used. (They authors of the new paper note that changes in the performance of black students have been very modest since then, suggesting that similar findings would be possible with today’s data, although more recent data sets are less complete.) The authors also note that the Sander argument — left unchallenged — has the potential to undercut the political and legal arguments for affirmative action. From President Lyndon Johnson through recent Supreme Court arguments, defenders of affirmative action have assumed that its practice promoted black advancement rather than hindering it.
Notably, Rothstein and Yoon accept that the “mismatch” theory is “plausible,” given that admitting a student to a law school about his or her abilities could frustrate and “demoralize” him or her. Further, they note that the requirement to pass the bar means that students who get through law school but can’t practice are sure to feel particularly poorly served by the process.
Where Rothstein and Yoon depart from Sander is in their analysis of the differing admissions qualifications and academic performance of black and white law students. Sander uses the data to suggest “mismatch.” For example, 92 percent of white students who enter law school graduate, while only 81 percent of black students do. And of those who graduate from law school, 87 percent of white students pass the bar within a year, compared to 64 percent of black students.
But Rothstein and Yoon focus more on admissions data to suggest that — without affirmative action — many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.
For example, in the data studied, only 1.5 percent of black students taking the LSAT achieved a score of at least 38. Of all of those admitted to Yale University’s law school, 89 percent had scores of at least 41. While Yale law is among the most competitive law schools in the country, the study notes that there isn’t such a thing as a truly non-competitive law school and that admissions credentials gaps are present at all types of law schools. For example, at American University’s law school for the years studied, 91 percent of admitted applicants had LSAT scores above 32 and college grade-point averages above 2.5. Only 2.2 of law school applicants nationally with those credentials are black.
The authors conduct a simulation — based on admissions patterns of various types of institutions — to show what would happen to black representation at law schools, and the results are dramatic. Students don’t shift down a prestige level — but disappear. Only at “third tier” law schools would there be any gains for the black enrollment share, and those are small. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm ]
September 3, 2008
One of the more influential and controversial studies of affirmative action in recent years came from Richard H. Sander in 2004. The law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed statistics about black law students and argued that they show that affirmative action hurts them by helping many gain admission to institutions where they are unlikely to be top students. This “mismatch,” he argued, led to academic performance at lower levels than the same students would have achieved at the less prestigious law schools to which they could have earned admission without the consideration of race.
Sander’s theory set off political and academic fireworks. They may be reignited with the release of a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that examines much of the same data Sander used. The new analysis — with the sort of detail normally used by critics of affirmative action — backs Sander’s claims on the substantially different qualifications, on average, between black and white law school applicants. And it also finds gaps in performance in law school.
But the new research — using simulations of admissions without affirmative action — finds that race-neutral policies wouldn’t send black students to law schools where they would do better. Rather there would be a huge falloff in black law enrollments — far more than might be counteracted by some black students doing better on bar exams. The elimination of race-based admissions policies, the authors write, would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools, the paper says. Even if some positive impact took place in the experience of black students who did enroll, there would be at least a 50 percent reduction in the production of black lawyers, they write.
The study — by Jesse Rothstein of Princeton University and Albert H. Yoon of the University of Toronto — starts off by reviewing the Sander data and its significance. Rothstein and Yoon note that a key part of Sander’s thesis is that “affirmative action influences which schools African American students attend, but has only small effects on whether these students attend law school at all.”
Rothstein and Yoon then turn to data about students who applied to law school in 1991 — similar to the data Sander used. (They authors of the new paper note that changes in the performance of black students have been very modest since then, suggesting that similar findings would be possible with today’s data, although more recent data sets are less complete.) The authors also note that the Sander argument — left unchallenged — has the potential to undercut the political and legal arguments for affirmative action. From President Lyndon Johnson through recent Supreme Court arguments, defenders of affirmative action have assumed that its practice promoted black advancement rather than hindering it.
Notably, Rothstein and Yoon accept that the “mismatch” theory is “plausible,” given that admitting a student to a law school about his or her abilities could frustrate and “demoralize” him or her. Further, they note that the requirement to pass the bar means that students who get through law school but can’t practice are sure to feel particularly poorly served by the process.
Where Rothstein and Yoon depart from Sander is in their analysis of the differing admissions qualifications and academic performance of black and white law students. Sander uses the data to suggest “mismatch.” For example, 92 percent of white students who enter law school graduate, while only 81 percent of black students do. And of those who graduate from law school, 87 percent of white students pass the bar within a year, compared to 64 percent of black students.
But Rothstein and Yoon focus more on admissions data to suggest that — without affirmative action — many black applicants to law schools would simply never get in.
For example, in the data studied, only 1.5 percent of black students taking the LSAT achieved a score of at least 38. Of all of those admitted to Yale University’s law school, 89 percent had scores of at least 41. While Yale law is among the most competitive law schools in the country, the study notes that there isn’t such a thing as a truly non-competitive law school and that admissions credentials gaps are present at all types of law schools. For example, at American University’s law school for the years studied, 91 percent of admitted applicants had LSAT scores above 32 and college grade-point averages above 2.5. Only 2.2 of law school applicants nationally with those credentials are black.
The authors conduct a simulation — based on admissions patterns of various types of institutions — to show what would happen to black representation at law schools, and the results are dramatic. Students don’t shift down a prestige level — but disappear. Only at “third tier” law schools would there be any gains for the black enrollment share, and those are small. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm ]
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Professor Suspects UCLA Is Illegally Using Race in Admissions Decisions
Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
September 1, 2008
A political-science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, who says he suspects that his institution is “cheating on admissions” by illegally taking into account the race of student applicants, has resigned from a university admissions committee in protest.
The professor, Tim Groseclose, who has made his suspicions public in a report he posted on his UCLA Web site, says high-ranking administrators at the university and members of the committee are “engaged in a cover up” by refusing to allow him access to data about applicants so he can investigate his concerns. He says that the university’s new “holistic” approach to evaluating students allows it to let the race of applicants carry more weight than is allowed under a constitutional amendment that California voters adopted in 1996. The percentage of black students admitted as freshmen rose sharply after the new admissions policy was adopted, in 2006.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the number of entering black students edged up this fall, to 230 out of of 4,889 freshmen. In 2006, 103 black students entered as freshmen. University officials said Mr. Groseclose’s conclusions that race-conscious admissions policies played a factor failed to take into account the higher level of recruiting that the university has undertaken since then.
The study is likely to add fuel to the continuing debate over affirmative action in college admissions. [To read the entire story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5075/professor-suspects-ucla-is-illegally-using-race-in-admissions-decisions?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
News Blog
September 1, 2008
A political-science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, who says he suspects that his institution is “cheating on admissions” by illegally taking into account the race of student applicants, has resigned from a university admissions committee in protest.
The professor, Tim Groseclose, who has made his suspicions public in a report he posted on his UCLA Web site, says high-ranking administrators at the university and members of the committee are “engaged in a cover up” by refusing to allow him access to data about applicants so he can investigate his concerns. He says that the university’s new “holistic” approach to evaluating students allows it to let the race of applicants carry more weight than is allowed under a constitutional amendment that California voters adopted in 1996. The percentage of black students admitted as freshmen rose sharply after the new admissions policy was adopted, in 2006.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the number of entering black students edged up this fall, to 230 out of of 4,889 freshmen. In 2006, 103 black students entered as freshmen. University officials said Mr. Groseclose’s conclusions that race-conscious admissions policies played a factor failed to take into account the higher level of recruiting that the university has undertaken since then.
The study is likely to add fuel to the continuing debate over affirmative action in college admissions. [To read the entire story, go to: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5075/professor-suspects-ucla-is-illegally-using-race-in-admissions-decisions?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
20 . . . and Counting
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
August 25, 2008
By V.I. King
A 25-year deadline is fast approaching; in fact, 5 years have expired, and there are only a short 20 years remaining.
In July, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued landmark legal opinions in the two lawsuits filed against the University of Michigan. It held, essentially, that universities can continue to give preferences in admissions on the basis of race for the purpose of promoting diversity. However, in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court gave our society a deadline. She wrote, “Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time . . . The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Five years have passed. Time is running out fast, and—as unpleasant as the task may be—political leaders, public intellectuals, journalists, social scientists, and voters need to start a national debate about affirmative action — whether to keep it, how to fix it, and what it means for the future of the country.
Those who might believe that there is no urgent need to confront these issues now should bear in mind the long road to Brown v. Board of Education. The legal path to that decision in 1954 actually began 20 years earlier, when civil rights attorney Charles Houston joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The following year, in 1935, Houston and his prot̩g̩ Рthe young Thurgood Marshall Рwon the first battle against the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, in the case of Murray v. Pearson (which forced Maryland to open its law school to African-American applicants). Nineteen more years of hard-fought litigation followed, including landmark cases such as Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Smith v. Allwright (1944), Morgan v. Virginia (1946), Patton v. Mississippi (1947), and Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), culminating in the issuance of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
To play a role in shaping how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in 2028, higher education leaders and lawyers need to strategize – as Houston and Marshall did – about what test cases are emerging in all 50 states, how those cases will create appellate opportunities, and how each court decision can build upon a prior decision.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/]
V.I. King is President of the Board of Trustees at Glendale Community College and University Legal Counsel at California State University, Los Angeles.
August 25, 2008
By V.I. King
A 25-year deadline is fast approaching; in fact, 5 years have expired, and there are only a short 20 years remaining.
In July, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued landmark legal opinions in the two lawsuits filed against the University of Michigan. It held, essentially, that universities can continue to give preferences in admissions on the basis of race for the purpose of promoting diversity. However, in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Supreme Court gave our society a deadline. She wrote, “Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time . . . The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Five years have passed. Time is running out fast, and—as unpleasant as the task may be—political leaders, public intellectuals, journalists, social scientists, and voters need to start a national debate about affirmative action — whether to keep it, how to fix it, and what it means for the future of the country.
Those who might believe that there is no urgent need to confront these issues now should bear in mind the long road to Brown v. Board of Education. The legal path to that decision in 1954 actually began 20 years earlier, when civil rights attorney Charles Houston joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The following year, in 1935, Houston and his prot̩g̩ Рthe young Thurgood Marshall Рwon the first battle against the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, in the case of Murray v. Pearson (which forced Maryland to open its law school to African-American applicants). Nineteen more years of hard-fought litigation followed, including landmark cases such as Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938), Smith v. Allwright (1944), Morgan v. Virginia (1946), Patton v. Mississippi (1947), and Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), culminating in the issuance of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
To play a role in shaping how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in 2028, higher education leaders and lawyers need to strategize – as Houston and Marshall did – about what test cases are emerging in all 50 states, how those cases will create appellate opportunities, and how each court decision can build upon a prior decision.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://diverseeducation.wordpress.com/]
V.I. King is President of the Board of Trustees at Glendale Community College and University Legal Counsel at California State University, Los Angeles.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Inside Higher Ed
Aug. 4
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Every year or so, someone takes on the idea of legacy admissions preferences — the advantages some colleges give to applicants who are the children of alumni. John Edwards talked about it when he was a senator. A scathing book in 2006, The Price of Admission, included legacy admissions among a series of practices used at elite colleges to favor the wealthy. When these attacks come, colleges defend legacy admissions in part by arguing that the significantly higher than average admit rates for alumni children don’t suggest unfairness. The argument goes like this: Children of alumni are more likely to have gone to good high schools, to have been encouraged to study hard, and to have been taught at home the value of higher education — so they are likely winning admission largely on their own merits, with maybe just a little tip among relatively equal applicants.
Research released Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association casts doubt on some of those claims, while drawing attention to the wealth advantages and lack of diversity among legacy admits at one elite institution, Duke University. The claim that alumni children compare favorably to the applicant pool as a whole and thus are admitted largely on their merits isn’t challenged directly. Rather the study compares legacy admits to groups to which they are more similar: other applicants whose parents have gone to college. Among this group, alumni children don’t fare as well, and those in the study entered Duke with lower academic qualifications and didn’t do as well their freshman year (although they recover well from their slightly lower first year grades).
The study was prepared by Nathan D. Martin, a graduate student at Duke, and Kenneth I. Spenner, a professor of sociology there. They obtained information on two recent cohorts of Duke students, with data on various demographic characteristics and academic performance. While the data come from only one institution, the authors note that Duke shares characteristics with other elite colleges in the competitiveness of undergraduate admissions, the loyalty of alumni, and the use of legacy admissions preferences.
Several of the findings back the contention of critics of legacy admissions that the preferences act against diversity and in favor of wealth. Compared to other students who enroll at Duke, legacies are more likely to be white, Protestant and U.S. citizens, as well as having attended private schools. In terms of wealth, legacies are “considerably more affluent” than students whose parents don’t have college degrees and also wealthier than those with parents who went to colleges other than Duke. Specifically, the pre-college household income of legacy students is about $240,000 a year — which the study finds is triple that of students whose parents didn’t earn a college degree and 44 percent higher than the average student whose parents attended college. Being black is associated with an 80 percent decrease in the odds of being a legacy student, the study finds, while being Roman Catholic or Jewish is associated with a 72 percent decrease.
While the study finds that legacy students and others with college parents come from advantaged backgrounds, in which cultural and educational activities were common, legacy averages on measures of academic performance suggest that they are less well prepared than other students whose parents went to college. For example, the average SAT score for legacies is 40 points lower than students with parents who have professional degrees and 12 points lower than students whose parents have college degrees. About 44 percent of legacy students — compared to 32 percent of students whose parents have professional degrees — are below SAT averages for the class in which they were admitted. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/04/legacy ]
AAAA Comment: Where’s the Ire?
Underneath the Inside Higher Ed article were only two comments (as of 9:28 am, 8/4/08) when a similar piece written about race-based affirrmative action would have had many. Where is the righteous indignation about this ancient preference program? Where are the expressions of unfairness and discrimination? Where are the victims whose places were taken by these undeserving students who are using their parent’s connections to gain them an unfair advantage at selective colleges and universities? Where are the words “quotas"? Where is the bile? If the words racial or gender preferences had been used instead, there would be a long run of comments about how discriminatory these preferences were. The silence is deafening....It is clear that affirmative action that benefits the wealthy and advantaged is acceptable; affirmative action to benefit the victims of this nation’s race-based history and economy is not. -- SJW
Aug. 4
Legacy Admits: More Money, Lower Scores
Every year or so, someone takes on the idea of legacy admissions preferences — the advantages some colleges give to applicants who are the children of alumni. John Edwards talked about it when he was a senator. A scathing book in 2006, The Price of Admission, included legacy admissions among a series of practices used at elite colleges to favor the wealthy. When these attacks come, colleges defend legacy admissions in part by arguing that the significantly higher than average admit rates for alumni children don’t suggest unfairness. The argument goes like this: Children of alumni are more likely to have gone to good high schools, to have been encouraged to study hard, and to have been taught at home the value of higher education — so they are likely winning admission largely on their own merits, with maybe just a little tip among relatively equal applicants.
Research released Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association casts doubt on some of those claims, while drawing attention to the wealth advantages and lack of diversity among legacy admits at one elite institution, Duke University. The claim that alumni children compare favorably to the applicant pool as a whole and thus are admitted largely on their merits isn’t challenged directly. Rather the study compares legacy admits to groups to which they are more similar: other applicants whose parents have gone to college. Among this group, alumni children don’t fare as well, and those in the study entered Duke with lower academic qualifications and didn’t do as well their freshman year (although they recover well from their slightly lower first year grades).
The study was prepared by Nathan D. Martin, a graduate student at Duke, and Kenneth I. Spenner, a professor of sociology there. They obtained information on two recent cohorts of Duke students, with data on various demographic characteristics and academic performance. While the data come from only one institution, the authors note that Duke shares characteristics with other elite colleges in the competitiveness of undergraduate admissions, the loyalty of alumni, and the use of legacy admissions preferences.
Several of the findings back the contention of critics of legacy admissions that the preferences act against diversity and in favor of wealth. Compared to other students who enroll at Duke, legacies are more likely to be white, Protestant and U.S. citizens, as well as having attended private schools. In terms of wealth, legacies are “considerably more affluent” than students whose parents don’t have college degrees and also wealthier than those with parents who went to colleges other than Duke. Specifically, the pre-college household income of legacy students is about $240,000 a year — which the study finds is triple that of students whose parents didn’t earn a college degree and 44 percent higher than the average student whose parents attended college. Being black is associated with an 80 percent decrease in the odds of being a legacy student, the study finds, while being Roman Catholic or Jewish is associated with a 72 percent decrease.
While the study finds that legacy students and others with college parents come from advantaged backgrounds, in which cultural and educational activities were common, legacy averages on measures of academic performance suggest that they are less well prepared than other students whose parents went to college. For example, the average SAT score for legacies is 40 points lower than students with parents who have professional degrees and 12 points lower than students whose parents have college degrees. About 44 percent of legacy students — compared to 32 percent of students whose parents have professional degrees — are below SAT averages for the class in which they were admitted. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/04/legacy ]
AAAA Comment: Where’s the Ire?
Underneath the Inside Higher Ed article were only two comments (as of 9:28 am, 8/4/08) when a similar piece written about race-based affirrmative action would have had many. Where is the righteous indignation about this ancient preference program? Where are the expressions of unfairness and discrimination? Where are the victims whose places were taken by these undeserving students who are using their parent’s connections to gain them an unfair advantage at selective colleges and universities? Where are the words “quotas"? Where is the bile? If the words racial or gender preferences had been used instead, there would be a long run of comments about how discriminatory these preferences were. The silence is deafening....It is clear that affirmative action that benefits the wealthy and advantaged is acceptable; affirmative action to benefit the victims of this nation’s race-based history and economy is not. -- SJW
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
U. of Michigan Says It Has Avoided a Big Drop in Diversity From Proposal 2
The Chronicle of Higher Education
June 17, 2008
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor’s preliminary admissions figures for this fall’s entering freshmen suggest that it has a avoided a substantial drop in black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment despite being barred from considering race and ethnicity in admissions.
The number of applications from students in one of those three minority groups fell by just 2 percent in the first full admissions cycle conducted under Proposal 2, a ban on the use of affirmative-action preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies. Such students account for 10.47 percent of the projected entering freshman class, down from 10.85 percent a year ago.
“The results are not as dire as the opponents of Proposal 2 had predicted,” Ward Connerly, a leader of the campaign on behalf of the measure, said today.
A statement issued by the university described several steps it had taken to try to maintain racial and ethnic diversity. Its undergraduate-admissions office hired additional employees, expanded its hours of operation, and used Descriptor PLUS, a geodemographic search tool developed by the College Board, to identify high schools and neighborhoods that are underrepresented on its campus. The university also stepped up its outreach in communities such as Detroit. [To see the entire article, go to:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/4694/u-of-michigan-says-it-has-avoided-a-big-drop-in-diversity-from-proposal-2?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
To see the University of Michigan's press release, go to: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6609 ]
June 17, 2008
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor’s preliminary admissions figures for this fall’s entering freshmen suggest that it has a avoided a substantial drop in black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment despite being barred from considering race and ethnicity in admissions.
The number of applications from students in one of those three minority groups fell by just 2 percent in the first full admissions cycle conducted under Proposal 2, a ban on the use of affirmative-action preferences by public colleges and other state and local agencies. Such students account for 10.47 percent of the projected entering freshman class, down from 10.85 percent a year ago.
“The results are not as dire as the opponents of Proposal 2 had predicted,” Ward Connerly, a leader of the campaign on behalf of the measure, said today.
A statement issued by the university described several steps it had taken to try to maintain racial and ethnic diversity. Its undergraduate-admissions office hired additional employees, expanded its hours of operation, and used Descriptor PLUS, a geodemographic search tool developed by the College Board, to identify high schools and neighborhoods that are underrepresented on its campus. The university also stepped up its outreach in communities such as Detroit. [To see the entire article, go to:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/4694/u-of-michigan-says-it-has-avoided-a-big-drop-in-diversity-from-proposal-2?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ]
To see the University of Michigan's press release, go to: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6609 ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)