Peter: "Mismatch theory" is not a front for racial prejudice ... The problem of data transparency and affirmative action ... Who gets access to affirmative action data? ... Repairing the “broken trust” of America’s racial history ... Would more data transparency actually stop race-based affirmative action? ... Determining the optimal amount of affirmative action ...
I really need your help understanding the argument for private education institutions to not only continue affirmative action policies, but to re-vamp them in the light of today’s racial reconciliation. Why should a Harvard or Yale or Brown even look at race when determining which students to admit? I believe the case is made in this interview, I’ve listened to so many that I can’t keep them straight, that elite universities are able to determine based on applicant percentile ranking among racial peers if they will be successful in STEM programs. The point is also made that elite universities are considered elite because of the number of applicants accepted versus the number of total applicants. It begs the question, why does the race of the applicant event matter? Why are these universities simply not ranking based solely on test scores?
It seems to me the goal would be 100% student acceptance to graduation. That if you get accepted into Brown for example, we have already vetted that you have the ability to graduate in your chosen field. The fact that you do graduate as you said you would is the proof of our candidacy selection program, and your post graduation performance is the proof of our caliber. If people are accepted and change majors, that reduces the effectiveness of the selection process. If people graduate and fail out it also reduces the effectiveness of the selection process. So, if we can predict with overwhelming accuracy the correlation of test scores to graduation, it seems this would be the only measure worth examining.
Why should affirmative action programs and policies have a role in private educational institutions?
I understand how this changes somewhat if we talk about publicly funded universities. I also completely agree with diversity, and the need for different experiences to find alternative solutions for complex problems. But I do not see how this diversity goal is more important than the efficiency problem for a private, elite education system.
I have two scenarios that I want to use to challenge this idea.
First is this: gold and steel are both very important metals with very different applications. We wouldn’t use gold as a reinforcing material, not only because of the cost but because of the material properties. Likewise, we wouldn’t use steel in fine jewelry. So while diversity is a goal, we should consider that individuals are unique, and likewise groups of individuals are unique. You know the saying, the education system is great, but if you judge a fish by how well it can climb a tree it will always fail. We each have important roles we can play in society without forcing actions that are not intuitive to our individual strengths, interests, and capacities.
Second is this: there is a huge difference between the purity of a gas at 99% pure and 99.99% pure. If I’m purchasing nitrogen from a contractor, I have to specify very clearly the purity of the gas in the contract. I cannot wait until the gas is delivered to my site and then claim it isn’t pure enough. It’s starts with the contract, it starts with the production of the gas, not the delivery. If we want to increase the number of black civil engineering candidates at a university, and we don’t test them until they apply the university then how could we expect to have the right number of qualified applicants? I am arguing that affirmative action programs and policies at the point of use are already too late.
If we want to have real change, measurable change, we must rely on private institutions and non profit organizations such as The Woodson Center. These are focused of point of origin, not point of use solutions, where meaningful impact can be made. We cannot wait until the test is administered to prepare for success. Besides that, non profit organizations can do whatever they want, can have whatever goals they want. It is not racist for an NPO to help black families get their kids on the path the STEM programs if that a their goal. It would not have the same adverse reaction as affirmative action programs and policies because they are point of origin, and not point of use solutions.
I think we do need more diversity among civil engineers, but we will never get that if we only have affirmative action programs and policies and the university or workforce level. Unqualified applicants will always, and should always, fail out of the program. If it isn’t the school admissions program, it will be the graduation rate. If it isn’t that, it will be the fundamentals of engineering exam, if it isn’t that, it will be the professional engineering exam. If we for some reason reduce all of those standards, then all we did was reduce public safely and confidence in our building programs. This can be played out in any number of professionals fields.
So please, why are we not challenging the framework of affirmative action? Haven’t we given this enough time? Maybe we should try something else.
Glenn,
I really need your help understanding the argument for private education institutions to not only continue affirmative action policies, but to re-vamp them in the light of today’s racial reconciliation. Why should a Harvard or Yale or Brown even look at race when determining which students to admit? I believe the case is made in this interview, I’ve listened to so many that I can’t keep them straight, that elite universities are able to determine based on applicant percentile ranking among racial peers if they will be successful in STEM programs. The point is also made that elite universities are considered elite because of the number of applicants accepted versus the number of total applicants. It begs the question, why does the race of the applicant event matter? Why are these universities simply not ranking based solely on test scores?
It seems to me the goal would be 100% student acceptance to graduation. That if you get accepted into Brown for example, we have already vetted that you have the ability to graduate in your chosen field. The fact that you do graduate as you said you would is the proof of our candidacy selection program, and your post graduation performance is the proof of our caliber. If people are accepted and change majors, that reduces the effectiveness of the selection process. If people graduate and fail out it also reduces the effectiveness of the selection process. So, if we can predict with overwhelming accuracy the correlation of test scores to graduation, it seems this would be the only measure worth examining.
Why should affirmative action programs and policies have a role in private educational institutions?
I understand how this changes somewhat if we talk about publicly funded universities. I also completely agree with diversity, and the need for different experiences to find alternative solutions for complex problems. But I do not see how this diversity goal is more important than the efficiency problem for a private, elite education system.
I have two scenarios that I want to use to challenge this idea.
First is this: gold and steel are both very important metals with very different applications. We wouldn’t use gold as a reinforcing material, not only because of the cost but because of the material properties. Likewise, we wouldn’t use steel in fine jewelry. So while diversity is a goal, we should consider that individuals are unique, and likewise groups of individuals are unique. You know the saying, the education system is great, but if you judge a fish by how well it can climb a tree it will always fail. We each have important roles we can play in society without forcing actions that are not intuitive to our individual strengths, interests, and capacities.
Second is this: there is a huge difference between the purity of a gas at 99% pure and 99.99% pure. If I’m purchasing nitrogen from a contractor, I have to specify very clearly the purity of the gas in the contract. I cannot wait until the gas is delivered to my site and then claim it isn’t pure enough. It’s starts with the contract, it starts with the production of the gas, not the delivery. If we want to increase the number of black civil engineering candidates at a university, and we don’t test them until they apply the university then how could we expect to have the right number of qualified applicants? I am arguing that affirmative action programs and policies at the point of use are already too late.
If we want to have real change, measurable change, we must rely on private institutions and non profit organizations such as The Woodson Center. These are focused of point of origin, not point of use solutions, where meaningful impact can be made. We cannot wait until the test is administered to prepare for success. Besides that, non profit organizations can do whatever they want, can have whatever goals they want. It is not racist for an NPO to help black families get their kids on the path the STEM programs if that a their goal. It would not have the same adverse reaction as affirmative action programs and policies because they are point of origin, and not point of use solutions.
I think we do need more diversity among civil engineers, but we will never get that if we only have affirmative action programs and policies and the university or workforce level. Unqualified applicants will always, and should always, fail out of the program. If it isn’t the school admissions program, it will be the graduation rate. If it isn’t that, it will be the fundamentals of engineering exam, if it isn’t that, it will be the professional engineering exam. If we for some reason reduce all of those standards, then all we did was reduce public safely and confidence in our building programs. This can be played out in any number of professionals fields.
So please, why are we not challenging the framework of affirmative action? Haven’t we given this enough time? Maybe we should try something else.