Glenn you made the same argument I have been making about legacy admissions. You either have a market-based system of admissions or a socialized system. While I understand the arguments regarding the unfairness of legacies, those arguing against it are arguing for a socialized system. These are the same people that argued against a different socialized system (affirmative action) who are now arguing that admissions should be socialized according to their standards.
The fact is we live in a capitalist, market-based system which means those who provide services in the market need to be able to run their business according to what is good for their business. Sure, the scales should not be tipped too far in one direction. But the institution has their own needs and I don't understand the argument that its customers should determine the methodology they use for admissions, if that method works against their interest.
By the way, I am someone who supports some method of affirmative action. Our universities and workplaces need to reflect the nation's population. I saw John's debate with Randall Kennedy and I'm with Randall on this one. The problem is, and you address this in the episode, the attempt to make the correlation a perfect one obliterates the concept of merit and ends up being discriminatory. I suspect had Harvard merely doubled the number of minorities they admitted rather than increasing it by a factor of 5x, the lawsuit wouldn't have been brought. What did them in is they are ideologues who insisted on socializing the process (adjusting the shares to make the groups equal).
Glenn you made the same argument I have been making about legacy admissions. You either have a market-based system of admissions or a socialized system. While I understand the arguments regarding the unfairness of legacies, those arguing against it are arguing for a socialized system. These are the same people that argued against a different socialized system (affirmative action) who are now arguing that admissions should be socialized according to their standards.
The fact is we live in a capitalist, market-based system which means those who provide services in the market need to be able to run their business according to what is good for their business. Sure, the scales should not be tipped too far in one direction. But the institution has their own needs and I don't understand the argument that its customers should determine the methodology they use for admissions, if that method works against their interest.
By the way, I am someone who supports some method of affirmative action. Our universities and workplaces need to reflect the nation's population. I saw John's debate with Randall Kennedy and I'm with Randall on this one. The problem is, and you address this in the episode, the attempt to make the correlation a perfect one obliterates the concept of merit and ends up being discriminatory. I suspect had Harvard merely doubled the number of minorities they admitted rather than increasing it by a factor of 5x, the lawsuit wouldn't have been brought. What did them in is they are ideologues who insisted on socializing the process (adjusting the shares to make the groups equal).