Page 53 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 53
c. ghosh ■ livin’ the meritocratic dream!
candidate for Princeton and Yale degrees, and she has always maintained
that test scores are often the result of “cultural biases” and that her Prince-
ton and Yale degrees would not have been possible were these institutions
looking exclusively, or even primarily, at test scores in making their admis-
sions decisions (Mears, 2009).
To be sure, there is no easy way of identifying which of these two
points of view – Justice Thomas’s or Justice Sotomayor’s – is more valid
than the other. The Supreme Court recognizes not only that affirmative
action was instituted to correct historical injustices, but also that it serves
a temporary function in American society. Thus, in Grutter v. Bollinger
(2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor expressed the view that the court
expects that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer
be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved
today” (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, quoted in Rothstein, Krueger and
Turner, 2006). Both critics and supporters of affirmative action agree that
many black and Latino students suffer because they end up attending sub-
standard and under-resourced high schools. But critics like Ward Con-
nerly think that the solution is to introduce changes at the K-12 level so
that the academic standards of elite institutions do not have to be low-
ered to accommodate students from underrepresented minority groups.
On the other hand, supporters of affirmative action claim that if these
policies are discriminatory then so is the system of legacy that universities
regularly use to admit candidates who are related to alumni and/or to do-
nors, as are standardized tests (because they are biased in favor of middle
and upper class students).
Supporters of affirmative action, it must be said, have very strong ev-
idence for their claims. According to Peter Schmidt of the Chronicle of
Higher Education, “Harvard as of 2004 accepted about 40 percent of the
legacies who applied, compared to about 11 percent of applicants overall”
(Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 142). Equally, as a Century Foundation
study estimates, if the most selective colleges in the US were to eradicate
their affirmative action policies altogether and made their admissions de-
cisions on the basis of test scores alone, about 5,000 fewer black and His-
panic students would make the cut each year (Bell, 2003).
Some people are invested in retaining affirmative action while also
reforming it by making affirmative action class-based. Thus, someone like
Richard Kahlenberg at the Century Foundation says, “There are students
from low-income backgrounds who aren’t given the same opportunities
as wealthier students are given, and they deserve a leg up in admissions.
Someone’s test scores and grades are a reflection not only of how hard they
work and how talented they are, but what sorts of opportunities they’ve
51
candidate for Princeton and Yale degrees, and she has always maintained
that test scores are often the result of “cultural biases” and that her Prince-
ton and Yale degrees would not have been possible were these institutions
looking exclusively, or even primarily, at test scores in making their admis-
sions decisions (Mears, 2009).
To be sure, there is no easy way of identifying which of these two
points of view – Justice Thomas’s or Justice Sotomayor’s – is more valid
than the other. The Supreme Court recognizes not only that affirmative
action was instituted to correct historical injustices, but also that it serves
a temporary function in American society. Thus, in Grutter v. Bollinger
(2003), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor expressed the view that the court
expects that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer
be necessary to further the interest [in student body diversity] approved
today” (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, quoted in Rothstein, Krueger and
Turner, 2006). Both critics and supporters of affirmative action agree that
many black and Latino students suffer because they end up attending sub-
standard and under-resourced high schools. But critics like Ward Con-
nerly think that the solution is to introduce changes at the K-12 level so
that the academic standards of elite institutions do not have to be low-
ered to accommodate students from underrepresented minority groups.
On the other hand, supporters of affirmative action claim that if these
policies are discriminatory then so is the system of legacy that universities
regularly use to admit candidates who are related to alumni and/or to do-
nors, as are standardized tests (because they are biased in favor of middle
and upper class students).
Supporters of affirmative action, it must be said, have very strong ev-
idence for their claims. According to Peter Schmidt of the Chronicle of
Higher Education, “Harvard as of 2004 accepted about 40 percent of the
legacies who applied, compared to about 11 percent of applicants overall”
(Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 142). Equally, as a Century Foundation
study estimates, if the most selective colleges in the US were to eradicate
their affirmative action policies altogether and made their admissions de-
cisions on the basis of test scores alone, about 5,000 fewer black and His-
panic students would make the cut each year (Bell, 2003).
Some people are invested in retaining affirmative action while also
reforming it by making affirmative action class-based. Thus, someone like
Richard Kahlenberg at the Century Foundation says, “There are students
from low-income backgrounds who aren’t given the same opportunities
as wealthier students are given, and they deserve a leg up in admissions.
Someone’s test scores and grades are a reflection not only of how hard they
work and how talented they are, but what sorts of opportunities they’ve
51
