Another question for Republicans who are against affirmative action

[nclib]

If qualifications are more important than race in college admissions, then why are legacies acceptable?

Note: I realize that not all Republicans support legacies, but it seems most do.

[Richard]

If qualifications are more important than race in college admissions, then why are legacies acceptable?

Note: I realize that not all Republicans support legacies, but it seems most do.

Legacies?

[KEmperor]

If qualifications are more important than race in college admissions, then why are legacies acceptable?

Note: I realize that not all Republicans support legacies, but it seems most do.

Legacies?

Applicants who get preference because their familes went to the same school.  And I am against them as well.

[angus]

If qualifications are more important than race in college admissions, then why are legacies acceptable?

Note: I realize that not all Republicans support legacies, but it seems most do.

they are acceptable because the majority in society accepts them.  let me speak as a republican who deplores affirmative action as morally reprehensible.  when I was a high school teacher back in the early 90s at a rather expensive college preparatory high school, the faculty was asked to vote on this issue.  The result?  Exactly one faculty member voted against automatic acceptance of legacy students.  It was I.  Of course, the vote was anonymous so no one knew who it was except me, but I remember discussions in the lounge in which all the faculty would say the the dissenter simply didn't understand the economics behind it.   Possibly I didn't.  Possibly I still don't.  But did I find the result "acceptable"?  Of course I did.  It's called the democratic process.  I lost.  End of debate.

[7,052,770]

I'm a liberal and I oppose affirmitive action and legacies.  They're both morally wrong.

[WalterMitty]

i stongly support affirmative action.

legacies should be up to the universities.

[Jake]

I think if two people with the almost same attributes apply to a college, whether a parent went there should tip it for that kid. It's only a college trying to secure itself some donations and maybe a few kids applying to it down the road.

[dazzleman]

I don't think schools that practiced racial discrimination in the past should admit students based on legacy, because legacies are a form of perpetuating that discrimination in those schools.

A black student in a school that practiced such racial discrimination relatively recently would not qualify for a legacy because his/her parents could not possibly have been alumni/alumnae of the school.

In any case, I believe in a meritocracy, so I'm not crazy about legacies in any case.  I think they are accepted mainly for financial reasons.  It's not a burning issue for me either way.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Legacies are wrong and should be, like affirmative action, illegal.  The only kind of bias that should be applied towards any student should be in regards to their financial status.  Students from impoverished backgrounds should be given preference over those who come from wealthier backgrounds.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Are you like for everything that is evil and against everything that is good?  Perhaps I'm being simplistic... but it just seems like you have a tendency to support evil just for the hell of it.

I think if two people with the almost same attributes apply to a college, whether a parent went there should tip it for that kid. It's only a college trying to secure itself some donations and maybe a few kids applying to it down the road.

[dazzleman]

Legacies are wrong and should be, like affirmative action, illegal.  The only kind of bias that should be applied towards any student should be in regards to their financial status.  Students from impoverished backgrounds should be given preference over those who come from wealthier backgrounds.

I generally agree, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

Legacies to prestigious schools effectively are affirmative action for the rich, in most cases.  It is so hard to eliminate the built-in advantages that come from being born into a powerful and successful family, as opposed to a poor family.

I view affirmative action as a safety valve that allows us to ignore the real problems, such as why so many of the people who are the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action don't meet the standards that other people meet.  We need to find a way to address failing schools before a student gets to the point of applying for college.  To accept lower achievement at that point does not solve the problem.

[Jake]

Are you like for everything that is evil and against everything that is good?  Perhaps I'm being simplistic... but it just seems like you have a tendency to support evil just for the hell of it.

I think if two people with the almost same attributes apply to a college, whether a parent went there should tip it for that kid. It's only a college trying to secure itself some donations and maybe a few kids applying to it down the road.

Just the college looking out for themselves. Nothing wrong with that at all. They know that by accepting someone who's parents and maybe grandparents went there, they have a better shot at getting that person's children to follow them and therefore make the college more money.

[muon2]

I would think that whether a school is public or private should make a difference. If the school is public then there should be a clear standard, established by the state or its delegated board, that treats all candidates on their own merits, not on the merits of others. IMO, the situation is different at a private school.

For instance, suppose a small machine shop has had a particular customer for many years. The shop's manpower is limited so they must occasionally turn down potential new customers because they are too busy. Is it wrong to favor that old customer? What if the new customer can put in a bigger order than the old customer? If the old customer's daughter takes over the family business, is it wrong for the machine shop to favor her over other potential customers when the shop is too busy to take on other new customers?

In many ways I think these are the questions to consider for private universities. One rarely hears a complaint about legacies at private high schools, but it is common practice at many. What is the difference between private universities and high schools, or for that matter other private firms? Established private business relationships, not based on special classes like gender and ethnicity, have no reason to be barred.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I really disagree with the concept of "failing schools" when we really have much more instances of "failing parents". 

It is exceptionally difficult for a child to grow up normally if he/she is the product of a single mother who has to work three jobs in order to put food on the table - and thus has little time to involve themselves in the proper rearing of the child.

Legacies are wrong and should be, like affirmative action, illegal.  The only kind of bias that should be applied towards any student should be in regards to their financial status.  Students from impoverished backgrounds should be given preference over those who come from wealthier backgrounds.

I generally agree, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

Legacies to prestigious schools effectively are affirmative action for the rich, in most cases.  It is so hard to eliminate the built-in advantages that come from being born into a powerful and successful family, as opposed to a poor family.

I view affirmative action as a safety valve that allows us to ignore the real problems, such as why so many of the people who are the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action don't meet the standards that other people meet.  We need to find a way to address failing schools before a student gets to the point of applying for college.  To accept lower achievement at that point does not solve the problem.

[J. J.]

I'm going to point out that legacies are an excellent reason to start affirmative action and, ultimately, a good reason to end them.

Let's assume that the Acme University refused to admit members of group X (these could be African Americans, Jews, Asians, whatever).  In 1975, it is forced to admit members of this group (about age 18).  They graduate in 1982 (graduate program), get married and have children in 1984 and 1986.  These children grow up, as children tend to do and at age 18, 2002 and 2004, apply and get in as legacies, not as members of group X.  :-)

I have no problem with afirmative action where it is used to remedy past descrimination.  My problem is, in the example, it's worked.  We should not be giving X groups additional advantages.

[dazzleman]

I really disagree with the concept of "failing schools" when we really have much more instances of "failing parents". 

It is exceptionally difficult for a child to grow up normally if he/she is the product of a single mother who has to work three jobs in order to put food on the table - and thus has little time to involve themselves in the proper rearing of the child.

You're right that failing schools are generally caused by failing parents.

But what if you are a good parent who can't afford to live in anything other than a failing district?  That is the reality for many people in Connecticut, where good school districts come at a very high price.

I am under no illusion that schools can compensate for the large-scale parental neglect that we see in cities, in particular.  My concern is to provide an escape valve for kids and their parents who are interested in education, but are trapped in a horrible school where the marjority of kids and their parents feel otherwise.  In a situation like that, a few good parents cannot help their kids to get a good education, and they need an escape.

[angus]

dazzleman:  the closet bleeding-heart!  good show.  excellent post. 

[dazzleman]

dazzleman:  the closet bleeding-heart!  good show.  excellent post. 

Thanks angus.  I always like to hear your reaction to my comments.

Actually, I've taken a conservative position.  It is liberals who want to keep kids trapped in failing schools, in deference to the teacher's unions.  They want to use the better students in failing schools as pawns, under the supposition that failing schools would get even worse if the better students were offered a way out.

I say it's better to save x% (any number above zero will do) of the kids in failing schools, rather than force them all to sink, in order to satisfy a phony liberal idealism which says that in order to save any of them, we must save all of them.  Clearly, that is impossible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My school was hardly failing at all, and it wasn't one of those disgusting sickening travesties that are private schools. Private schools are only for parents who are elitist f**cks who are afraid their kids might actually interact with poor people. They are a disgusting cancer on America.

[Richard]

My school was hardly failing at all, and it wasn't one of those disgusting sickening travesties that are private schools. Private schools are only for parents who are elitist f**cks who are afraid their kids might actually interact with poor people. They are a disgusting cancer on America.

What if the private school was free to 50% of the people, drawn from a hat with names of those that are poor?

[dazzleman]

My school was hardly failing at all, and it wasn't one of those disgusting sickening travesties that are private schools. Private schools are only for parents who are elitist f**cks who are afraid their kids might actually interact with poor people. They are a disgusting cancer on America.

What if the private school was free to 50% of the people, drawn from a hat with names of those that are poor?

Richius, don't waste your time trying to logic to that guy...

[angus]

dazzleman, I'd made it a point to avoid the somewhat nebulous terms "liberal" and "conservative" in my previous post.  Label it however you want, but it was a very Roman Catholic statement, as far as I can tell.  Socialistic even.  Not that there's anything wrong with the desire to "provide an escape valve" for the poor but industrious.  I agree with you completely, in any case, however you'd care to label it.  There's one position that I've completely changed on since I started posting here:  school vouchers, aka "choice"  I think it has less to do with any fundamental ideological change on my part so much as a gradual acceptance of exactly what you say in your last sentence.  That, and I recently had my perspective altered by the dual experience of parenthood and living in a severely underperforming school district. 

The post just above this one, by Born on the Floor, pretty much summed up my own prepubescent feelings on the matter (though I do hope I had more diplomacy even at the tender age of 12 or however old he is).  Live and learn, grasshopper.

[angus]

youze don't be too hard on him.  He'll come around in his own time.  Most do.

[TomC]

Well, I don't dislike private schools, but to award a few lucky poor kids private school tuition and call that a solution to better schools is soooo smoke and mirrors.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman, I'd made it a point to avoid the somewhat nebulous terms "liberal" and "conservative" in my previous post.  Label it however you want, but it was a very Roman Catholic statement, as far as I can tell.  Socialistic even.  Not that there's anything wrong with the desire to "provide an escape valve" for the poor but industrious.  I agree with you completely, in any case, however you'd care to label it.  There's one position that I've completely changed on since I started posting here:  school vouchers, aka "choice"  I think it has less to do with any fundamental ideological change on my part so much as a gradual acceptance of exactly what you say in your last sentence.  That, and I recently had my perspective altered by the dual experience of parenthood and living in a severely underperforming school district. 

The post just above this one, by Born on the Floor, pretty much summed up my own prepubescent feelings on the matter (though I do hope I had more diplomacy even at the tender age of 12 or however old he is).  Live and learn, grasshopper.

Well, you're right in a way about the terms conservative and liberal.  The traditional definition of liberalism is actually much closer to modern conservatism than modern liberalism, which is a frankenstein monster.

I believe in enlightened self-interest, and I think we'd be better off as a society if we were more successful in educating and help those without a lot of money who are interested in helping themselves.  We sure waste enough resources trying to help those who refuse to do anything for themselves.  I support programs that work, and I don't like to get too hung up on ideology if something really works.  I would view what I propose as a modern equivalent of the GI Bill, which was a huge success.

Your observation on BRTD's mentality is spot-on -- prepubescent.  Very accurate.