Thanks to John at Paladin's Pad for keeping up with our health status (here and here). Now that I am better and caught up with stuff, I want to take a moment to respond to John's response to my post about hardship considerations in admissions processes.



Let me start by saying that I think John and I have talked past each other. John's response seems to speak primarily to the problems with affirmative action--I am trying to point out that exercising discretion that considers hardship or particular circumstances is valid. He says

My issue here is that this is not a question of affirmative action (which is explicitly tied to race) but rather one of school policy. Further, affirmative action, in this case, ignores the fact that many people in bad schools are not minorities.

I agree. Where I disagree is John's following assertion.

Funding schools from real-estate taxes and piss-poor administration, among other things, contribute to the problem, but equal admissions standards to college don't. In this case, affirmative action is a post hoc solution to a problem that should be solved at the level of elementary, middle, and high schools. The fact that people from poor schools unprepared for college should not logically give them an advantage in the college admissions process. To preference someone precisely because they are less qualified defies reason.

I don't think the preference "defies reason." And I believe that because I'm about to give some reasoning.



I understand John's point that equal admissions standards to college don't solve the problems with schools. I don't assert that at all. I think it is a wholly separate issue to hold responsible the students who attended those schools--and that is what you do when you refuse to consider that they had, as a matter of fact, a lesser educational experience than other students. The fact that they had crappy schools is not a reflection of their intelligence, abilities, or potential. When you pretend that their grades and scores can be set against the same bar as students from other schools, you are deceiving yourself. (I avoid here asking whether it is the student's fault that the school is bad--Dean Jens questions the use of the word "fault" and I see his point. He is right that his explanation better expresses what I mean by questioning "fault.")



I can see that John might then argue that the real question is, as he expresses, "who is the best prepared to succeed at this college, right now." Fine. If that is the question, then I think he has more of a point. A poor school may give a very intelligent student poor preparation and thus, though the student might be as "intelligent" as another student who went to a better school and earned better scores, the first student may not be prepared to succeed at a particular college, "right now." I don't, however, agree that that should be the standard by which all admissions are determined. There is a serious argument for bringing in a student that might be intelligent enough to make up the ground. Even if that is the standard for admissions, I think there is an argument for taking in students who appear less prepared. How can you know how they will function in a better educational environment? The root of the issue is: Are grades and scores truly a reflection of a student's preparedness?



I also don't agree with John's belief that hardship considerations are about appealing to pity. That's never been part of the calculus. It is a question of whether someone has been disadvantaged. Have you been running in the race with your legs tied together? I don't argue that the judges should feel sorry for the person. I simply argue that in determining whether the runner should be allowed into the next race, the judges should not turn a blind eye to the fact that the legs were tied together. We are talking about fairness--due process, one of the grindstones of our legal system--not pity. Alleged criminals are entitled to counsel not because we feel bad for them, but because we believe in fairness.



John also addresses my point about diversity, with which I fully expected him to disagree.

Here, I disagree completely. A class that has a plethora of talent and races need not have a more valuable educational experience than a class of people who are exactly the same. Define exactly the same? Is that looking alike or thinking alike? Is skin color a proxy for one's belief by default? I don't think so. So called diversity (meaning people of different skin colors) means absolutely nothing. Zippy. The class of people who look alike need not think alike, and they could have discussions far more stimulating than a group of people who agree but who have different skin colors.

I never said that diversity meant "people of different skin colors." I did mean, however, that a class of people who all have 4.0s and 1600s will be far less diverse than a class of people who have varying scores and grades. Do I mean that varying grades are a proxy for diversity of thought? No, not in the direct way that John implies. I mean that we are more likely to see diversity in thought if we see some diversity of scores and grades than if we go completely by "merit." Similarly, I don't think skin color is a direct proxy for one's perspective or beliefs--I have made this argument elsewhere many times before. I think that is inappropriate, implicit stereotyping. However, I do think that as a statistical matter, diversity of skin color will lead to greater diversity of thought.



The crux of John's argument may be "College IS about academic education. That's why other activities are called extra-curricular." I disagree with this completely. But this post has become quite long and I will leave my argument at "this is why I disagree with home schooling." It is also why I think purely on-line schools are a really bad idea. There are a great many things one needs to and can only learn by interacting with other people (especially people who have different opinions). College is a place for that. From a post that Lily put up before, an article from the Weekly Standard about Yale. David Brooks writes,

They are also incredibly entrepreneurial when it comes to student activities. I've long regarded Yale as the best school in America, on the basis of conversations with adult friends who went there. It seems to have the best combination of small classes, a curious intellectual atmosphere, and a fun social scene. (I went to the University of Chicago, which had the first two, but not the last.) But even I was blown away by the richness of student life at Yale. There are periodicals, singing groups, secret societies, theater groups, community service groups, religious groups, debating societies, intramural teams, and so on everywhere you turn. Students start these things themselves. They run them themselves (and many of these groups are really small businesses). They build them bigger and bigger. Even if the Yale faculty disappeared tomorrow, the school would still be a fantastic place for students because of these activities.



Indeed, for many students, I suspect, these activities are the most important part of their college experience. It is through activities that students find the fields they enjoy and the talents they possess. The activities, rather than the courses, seem to serve as precursors to their future lives.

Indeed.

You have read the best review article categorized by and the title . You can bookmark or spread this post by using this URL http://kitchencabinetorganizerplans.blogspot.com/2013/12/thanks-to-john-at-paladins-pad-for.html. Thank You!