4 ms·

I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students

I think you also have to determine the purpose of a university. It's either to take the top students, bar none, or it is to educate and uplift poorer students (economically and educationally). Mixing these two doesn't work.

jedberg 6y ago
Why can't you mix the two? Admit 1/2 your class as top students, and the other 1/2 as people who are being uplifted. That is in fact exactly how admissions at the UC schools work. The first 1/2 of the class is admitted on test scores and grades alone, the second 1/2 is admitted via reading of their essays and considering other factors, such as extracurriculars, economic circumstance, and, until the 90s, race.
microtherion 6y ago
Or you can choose to define "top students" as those who performed best, relative to their starting conditions. You could make an argument that such student are most efficient at using the opportunities they are given, and thus would benefit most from the education.
- samatman 6y ago
  That would work, if the last measure taken was immediately prior to admission. Alas, university doesn't work that way: students continue to be measured throughout their tenure, and those measures are an important component of the next phase of their life, be it work or further education. The evidence is unequivocal: lowering the admissions standards for some section of the student body, results in those students doing poorly relative to students who were subject to the full standards. This shouldn't be surprising, and no, it doesn't seem to matter why the standards were lowered, affirmative action, legacy preference, or otherwise.
compiler-guy 6y ago
Totally the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are many ways to work the two goals together. And understanding it in these very limited dimensions is a complete mistake. The very definition of what a "top student" is varies a great deal.

jedberg 6y ago

Why can't you mix the two? Admit 1/2 your class as top students, and the other 1/2 as people who are being uplifted. That is in fact exactly how admissions at the UC schools work. The first 1/2 of the class is admitted on test scores and grades alone, the second 1/2 is admitted via reading of their essays and considering other factors, such as extracurriculars, economic circumstance, and, until the 90s, race.

microtherion 6y ago

Or you can choose to define "top students" as those who performed best, relative to their starting conditions. You could make an argument that such student are most efficient at using the opportunities they are given, and thus would benefit most from the education.

samatman 6y ago
That would work, if the last measure taken was immediately prior to admission. Alas, university doesn't work that way: students continue to be measured throughout their tenure, and those measures are an important component of the next phase of their life, be it work or further education. The evidence is unequivocal: lowering the admissions standards for some section of the student body, results in those students doing poorly relative to students who were subject to the full standards. This shouldn't be surprising, and no, it doesn't seem to matter why the standards were lowered, affirmative action, legacy preference, or otherwise.

compiler-guy 6y ago

Totally the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are many ways to work the two goals together. And understanding it in these very limited dimensions is a complete mistake. The very definition of what a "top student" is varies a great deal.