• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban

Yes there is is a certain amount of subjectivity. But I have tested writing instructors for many years. If we give them four essays and ask them to rank them, the rank will be the same for all instructors. I've never seen the order disputed. However, if I ask for a grade, the grades do vary. So there is some subjectivity. But grades can be trained to limit variance. Removing all subjectivity doesn't necessarily make it a better test. After all, the mere practice of limiting admission implies subjectivity if in only deciding on what I will make that decision, on, what I value (subjective) over something else.

That is exactly what gave us AA and a quest for "diversity" in the first place. You have circled right back to the beginning - you now want subjective selections based on "feelings" or "impressions" rather than any concrete (outside measurable) standards.
 
That is exactly what gave us AA and a quest for "diversity" in the first place. You have circled right back to the beginning - you now want subjective selections based on "feelings" or "impressions" rather than any concrete (outside measurable) standards.

I think it is a mistake to remove all subjectivity. And we never have. Even without AA, as I've tried to show, there is still subjectivity. It's about what is valued. What are the criteria? Not feelings, but judgment based on criteria. Making a judgment is not a bad thing.

Let me give an example. I can show you two essays. They are first essays. First drafts. By two different students. A panel of 8 writing instructors with masters degrees look at both. No names attached. No knowledge of who was being evaluated. All 8 thought one was excellent and the other below remedial level. Both students also took the compass test, a placement test many colleges use.

The student who had a writing sample graded as excellent score 5 out of 100 on the compass. The student who was viewed as below remedial scored and 80 out of 100 on the compass.

What should we make of this?

Oh, I almost forgot. The student who scored a 5 on the compass went on to finish with a 3.8 GPA on graduate. The student who scored an 80 on the compass failed all of his first semester classes and eventually failed out of college. I have the essays and the data for five years. This was not uncommon.
 
I think it is a mistake to remove all subjectivity. And we never have. Even without AA, as I've tried to show, there is still subjectivity. It's about what is valued. What are the criteria? Not feelings, but judgment based on criteria. Making a judgment is not a bad thing.

Let me give an example. I can show you two essays. They are first essays. First drafts. By two different students. A panel of 8 writing instructors with masters degrees look at both. No names attached. No knowledge of who was being evaluated. All 8 thought one was excellent and the other below remedial level. Both students also took the compass test, a placement test many colleges use.

The student who had a writing sample graded as excellent score 5 out of 100 on the compass. The student who was viewed as below remedial scored and 80 out of 100 on the compass.

What should we make of this?

Oh, I almost forgot. The student who scored a 5 on the compass went on to finish with a 3.8 GPA on graduate. The student who scored an 80 on the compass failed all of his first semester classes and eventually failed out of college. I have the essays and the data for five years. This was not uncommon.

This simply shows me that the compass test (alone) has limited value. When you say that "this was not uncommon" does that mean that more commonly the higher score on the compass test meant lower GPA/graduation rates or simply that some (not most) low scores on a compass test were obtained by those later found to be good students?
 
This is happening at more and more universities.

Even the ultra-liberal University of Texas at Austin is looking hard at itself. It has bent over backwards for minorities here, and they're seeing their graduation rates drop and their overall GPA suffer greatly. It's a hard school to get into for a state school (top 8 percent only unless you have a lot of other qualifications), but they're waving requirements for a lot of minority students who get there and can't hack it.

Meanwhile, Texas A&M is sticking to their requirements and graduating more high-performers in the market place. Texas A&M used to be the irrelevant kid brother. That's changing rapidly, and it's got UT's attention.
 
Yes there is is a certain amount of subjectivity. But I have tested writing instructors for many years. If we give them four essays and ask them to rank them, the rank will be the same for all instructors. I've never seen the order disputed. However, if I ask for a grade, the grades do vary. So there is some subjectivity. But grades can be trained to limit variance. Removing all subjectivity doesn't necessarily make it a better test. After all, the mere practice of limiting admission implies subjectivity if in only deciding on what I will make that decision, on, what I value (subjective) over something else.

So how would this apply to tests in mathematics, physics, or chemistry? How do academics "subjectify" hard science, where new age bull**** plays no purchase? It's an anecdotal muse. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.
 
Not much. Don't get me wrong, I don't argue they are doing a good job. I am arguing that qualifications may be more than we think. I'd assess motivation, ability to finish, how well they think over memorize. And I'd certainly give a writing test over a multiple choice test. All labor intensive but more meaningful.
Surely it would be less labor intensive than accepting students who aren't college material, then either allowing them to fail or trying to remedy their academic deficits.
 
This simply shows me that the compass test (alone) has limited value. When you say that "this was not uncommon" does that mean that more commonly the higher score on the compass test meant lower GPA/graduation rates or simply that some (not most) low scores on a compass test were obtained by those later found to be good students?

Studies show nearly all such test have limited value, including the ACT. This is my point.

I'm saying that the scores not being indicative is common. High scores doing poorly, and low scores doing well. The scores seem to be poor predictors.
 
So how would this apply to tests in mathematics, physics, or chemistry? How do academics "subjectify" hard science, where new age bull**** plays no purchase? It's an anecdotal muse. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.

There are studies, and Math folks report the same type of problems.
 
Surely it would be less labor intensive than accepting students who aren't college material, then either allowing them to fail or trying to remedy their academic deficits.

That is what I argue.
 
Of course the problem then becomes one of the recipe and who is to judge the result put before us. And - in all humility i confess - I do not know how to fairly do that so one is not unfairly disadvantaged over another.

Eh, there's that issue with "fairness" again. It's a poor basis for a standard. There's an argument for "unfairness" in EVERY standard you attempt to push. It comes down to which level of "unfairness" you feel is most reasonable to be quite honest.

We took race into consideration as a plus because for so long society took race into consideration as a minus. Plain and simple - it was an attempt to right a wrong. But in doing so we committed further wrongs in denying academically qualified people spots in universities at the expense of not so qualified people. That is not a good thing and perhaps even perpetuates racial wrongs in further generations creating malice and resentment where otherwise none had previously flourished or taken root.

Agree with you here. I'm one of those people that think often we attempt to do something that is worth while, necessary, and beneficial in a particular context but then the context changes and the action you take doesn't change to reflect that new context and causes unforseen issues.

I am happy you embrace the principle of admitting the best and the brightest and GPA and test scores seem to be the only objective way to accomplish that. We live in a land where college is now plentiful and all who are able can find a place at some level and prove themselves.

Here's where I think you missed my earlier post and my point. I actually don't agree with your principle of doing it JUST on academic prowess. If you'll see my earlier post you'll note my feeling is that public universities should be able to choose how they wish to do their admissions, but that the choice should be relevant to things a person has DONE not simply who they are. My feeling is that private universities should be able to choose however they wish to admit people, providing an avenue for schools who feel that some of those more inherent qualities contribute to an overall better environment.

I'm not one that feels that every college has to be cookie cutter or needs to value certain things in an equal fashion. I think vareity breeds success over all. You can see my earlier post on this for more in depth as to what I mean in terms of those different categories.

As I said, I think "best" is a pretty subjective term. I do think schools should be looking for the "best", but the "Best" is something that each school may define differently. What I agreed with was that if YOUR principle is that academia should only be filled with the "Brighest", and that "brightest" refers to academic success, then it's completely in line with that principle to suggest enrollment is only decided based on GPA and some test scores.
 
I get your point but that never was and is not now my argument. I am not basing this on the Constitution. I am basing it on the simple principle that the best and brightest should be admitted.

I do not support rigid application of that principle if it were to exclude exceptional athletes or artists, or even just people from different places. I also support legacy preference to some extent: family traditions are important. :peace
 
Not really, they seek diversity. The point is no law mandates that they do this. Such is not affirmative action as subscribed by law.

When a university wants to "take race into consideration" it is using a dog whistle for affirmative action.:peace
 
When a university wants to "take race into consideration" it is using a dog whistle for affirmative action.:peace

Again, if that were so, they'd win in court. They don't. The court rules against them every time.
 
I didn't say it was a good dog whistle, but it was a dog whistle nonetheless.:mrgreen:

No, I've talked with quite a few. They are responding largely to a student desire for diversity. It's actually a selling point.
 
Sure. Just like the Crimeans voted 98% to join Russia.:lamo

No. Im' not saying it is a large number, but schools grasp for every student they can get. And it is good to not be too much alike.
 
No, I've talked with quite a few. They are responding largely to a student desire for diversity. It's actually a selling point.

Any student that isn't on campus to learn ought to be thrown out. Screw diversity.
 
Any student that isn't on campus to learn ought to be thrown out. Screw diversity.

That would be a rather large percentage today, and it has nothing to do with race. But learning also includes working with people who look, act, believe, and think differently than you do. Hearing different views also is part of learning. It is much more effective to have someone in the classroom that clearly presents those tings than to read about or be told about. Even a discussion about discrimination or preference is different if everyone is the same or there is a diverse classroom to discuss it. There is value in this diversity.
 
That would be a rather large percentage today, and it has nothing to do with race. But learning also includes working with people who look, act, believe, and think differently than you do. Hearing different views also is part of learning. It is much more effective to have someone in the classroom that clearly presents those tings than to read about or be told about. Even a discussion about discrimination or preference is different if everyone is the same or there is a diverse classroom to discuss it. There is value in this diversity.

Then it's a large percentage. Throw them out. Learning does not have anything to do with that, socializing does. That's not something done in the classroom, it's something done on one's own time. There is no value in diversity, for the sake of diversity, on the college campus. Go elsewhere to learn about that.
 
Then it's a large percentage. Throw them out. Learning does not have anything to do with that, socializing does. That's not something done in the classroom, it's something done on one's own time. There is no value in diversity, for the sake of diversity, on the college campus. Go elsewhere to learn about that.

It's more than socializing. It's examining another view point from someone who has walked a different path, experienced life differently. That is learning, and proper for the classroom.
 
I agree that they have been victims of institutional bias in the past. But rather than give them a boost in points or preference, laws should be put into place that allow equal footing and equal opportunity for all. I am not a person who wishes to wipe the past away, I fully realize the wrongs that have occurred, as well as those that continue. However, I would rather give those victims the power to walk rather than have them depend on a crutch.

The law already says you can't discriminate against someone based on race. It happens anyway. You'd like to give them the power to walk? Yeah, good talking point. Sounds wonderful. Explain how. Explain how someone is supposed to be self-sufficient when even an entry-level, minimum wage job that you can't sustain yourself on is denied to them based on skin color and cultural stigma. Explain how you would level the playing field when the white guy gets a second chance and the black guy doesn't get a first one.
 
Then it's a large percentage. Throw them out. Learning does not have anything to do with that, socializing does. That's not something done in the classroom, it's something done on one's own time. There is no value in diversity, for the sake of diversity, on the college campus. Go elsewhere to learn about that.

Yes, there absolutely is value in being exposed to other viewpoints, both in and out of the classroom. You guys always whine about universities being liberal hive minds, after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom