How affrimative action helped George W.

[Maharlika]

The president might ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?"

George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants.

"At the undergraduate level," said Bush, "African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body less diverse, not more so. George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was 48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost empty of accomplishments.

Yet bloodlines and connections had put him into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, and even finally provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments. Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bush's life and success up to that point.

And yet seven years later he was President of the U.S. So what is the difference between the kind of affirmative action that got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race is an especially toxic subject.

Of course, George W.'s affirmative action is about race too, at least indirectly.

The class of wealthy, influential children of alumni of top universities is disproportionately white. And it will remain that way for a long time--especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed. A second difference is that the Michigan system is crudely numerical, whereas the favoritism enjoyed by George W. Bush is baked into the way we live.

Between these two extreme examples are all the familiar varieties of preference: explicit racial favoritism without numbers, favoritism based on something as amorphous as social class or as specific as your high school, favoritism limited to recruitment and preparation, and so on. Opponents and supporters of affirmative action actually tend to agree that there is something bad, generally called quotas, and something good, generally called something like diversity.

Their argument is about where you draw the line. Bush calls the Michigan 20-point bonus a quota, and his critics insist that it is not. But both sides are wrong. If your sole measure of the success of any arrangement is whether it increases the representation of certain minorities, then it doesn't really
matter what procedure you use to achieve that result: some people are getting something desirable because of their race, and an equal number of people are not getting it for the same reason.

Of course a series of somebodies didn't get into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School because their blood wasn't as blue as Bush's, and other somebodies didn't get a chance to own the Texas Rangers or to use the capital Bush borrowed to buy his share of the team because these somebodies were nobodies. Life is unfair.

A legitimate criticism of affirmative action is that it politicizes life
chances and focuses blame on race. If you get turned down by Yale to make room for a George W., you're not even aware of it. But if you get turned down by the University of Michigan, you're likely to blame affirmative action (if you're white), even though the numbers say you probably would have been turned down anyway.

So ask yourself: Would you rather have a gift of 20 points out of 150 to use at the college of your choice? Or would you rather have the more amorphous advantages President Bush has enjoyed at every stage of his life?

If the answer to that isn't obvious to you, even 20 extra points are probably not enough to get you into the University of Michigan.

Edit - I forgot to add that the preceding texts were not originally written by me. Got it from a close friend (Fil-Am).

[Tamerlane]

I remember the media in America did an interview on a guy who waited and waited to get into Yale, he had great scores but only afterwards did he find out that some important person's son beat him to it. Guess who

Not sure what happened to him after that incident, but he took it all in good spirits.

EDIT - Since this is somewhat of a Bush bashing thread. I can't help but not recall a certain episode from Micheal Moore's The Awful Truth in which he tried to confront the then Presidential candidate whilst he was holding a press conference. In true Micheal Moore style, he didn't have a press pass and waltzed into the conference however security swooped on him and as he was being led out. Bush childlessly added "Why don't you get a real job!". So Mr Moore doggedly went home and asked his dad if he had any oil companies that he could be boss of. Just like Bush junior and senior.

In reference to your question, I prefer getting things done myself. Self satisfaction is an amazing thing If that means taking the 20 points then so be it. I fail to see how that system could be abused.

[Scayde]

I am totally against quotas, but I am also against cronyism. IMO the only numbers that should determine acceptance into a college are the test scores. Scholarships should be awarded the same way, with the exception of trust scholarships set aside for the children of certain alumni or proffessional hopefuls. The point being, money given away, can be given away acording to the desires of the benifactor, but the admission of a student should be earned by the student as reflected in his test scores. when all things are equal, adn there are more qualified applicants than there is room for, and no budget for expansion of the classes, past highschool records, attendance records, membership in merit organizations, community service records, employment records, service records, and many other sources can be used to allow determination of which students have worked hard and earned the right of first consideration.

But that is just my opinion

[HighLordDave]

One thing to consider with college admissions is that legacy applicants (especially those to private schools) are often given extra consideration because their parents (who were graduates) often are also major donors. It's hard to turn someone's kid down for admission when they have just made a gift that funds a new library.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
One thing to consider with college admissions is that legacy applicants (especially those to private schools) are often given extra consideration because their parents (who were graduates) often are also major donors. It's hard to turn someone's kid down for admission when they have just made a gift that funds a new library.

So true, ..yet this kinda reminds me of the old days when the chruch sold "Indulgences" ......I know that a private institution operates a little differently than a state run school, adn as a private business can admit or withold admission as they see fit, but it kinda chaps me when this behavior spills over into state sponsored school. As institutions which are supported by the taxpayers dollar, I think they should operate on a more open field. ....But of course, that is just my opinion.

[Maharlika]

...it's still quite "popular" here in Thailand...

...especially from private Catholic schools...

...according to some people I know.

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
One thing to consider with college admissions is that legacy applicants (especially those to private schools) are often given extra consideration because their parents (who were graduates) often are also major donors. It's hard to turn someone's kid down for admission when they have just made a gift that funds a new library.

Too much of that, though, and the uni starts losing prestige.

[RandomThug]

Mah I understand your point, or your friends rather. I too dislike the idea of the rich being granted thier normal "Favors" while the lesser have tomanage on thier own. I participated in a local Private Junior College for a short while*. There I got too see some of the richest little spoiled brats alive and It ate at me, I hated them so much I actually left the school.

With your post I ask one question, one I have asked a hundred times over, Where does that leave me.


Middle Class White Male. I have no alumni and I have no plus 20 on the 150 bonus. So should we take away the 20, or the alumni to bring them down to my level? You know Alumni's often donate large sums to school's so the school can benifit and have better pay to teachers, more classrooms etc etc. Alumni's have at one point contributed to the school thier son/grandson/nephew is getting into easier than another. Is it fair? No. Do I like it? Hell no. Does it have better grounds than color of skin? Yes, based on the fact that they have done something for the school.


In a world in which everyone gets lost within the grey we all must remember the clear cut black and white (no pun intended). Your either cut out score wise or not. One or the other, no middle ground NO bonus for being born with darker skin than me.

Reality is simple I can not look for or ever expect handouts other races will see, nor will I have the benifit of having previus family members hard earned money handed down to me. So I say abolish both, let it be the scores and not the politics.

Bah too early for such convo, might edit to suit me better later.


*drop out loser

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Sojourner
Too much of that, though, and the uni starts losing prestige.

True, but you'd be surprised about how many schools would rather let in a handful of subpar legacy students (like Dubya) if it means getting a new science building or an endowed chair or two.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
True, but you'd be surprised about how many schools would rather let in a handful of subpar legacy students (like Dubya) if it means getting a new science building.

Exactly so. And then, of course, the new science building becomes a jewel in the crown that's waved to entice more grant money, and raise prestige, despite the presence of students with inferior grades. Life's interesting, isn't it?

[HighLordDave]

In a lot of these schools, most of the legacy students are in fact just as smart as their parents (or reasonably close because the apple don't fall far from the tree), so the drop-off isn't that great. Plus, their reputations are also generally good and their admissions standards are high enough so that even if they let in a really bad legacy applicant, his or her low test scores and GPA won't noticably affect the agregate scores.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
In a lot of these schools, most of the legacy students are in fact just as smart as their parents (or reasonably close because the apple don't fall far from the tree), so the drop-off isn't that great. Plus, their reputations are also generally good and their admissions standards are high enough so that even if they let in a really bad legacy applicant, his or her low test scores and GPA won't noticably affect the agregate scores.

No, but it's the principle of the thing (and the principal, too, in the bank) that counts, especially when the school administration is fighting affirmative action with one hand, while accepting money from parents to admit Jimmy and his indifferent grades, with the other.

[HighLordDave]

@fable:
The core beliefs of American society summed up in two words: money talks.

[RandomThug]

@Fable
I agree upon the fact its a matter of principles. But that argument can be looked at another way. What about the non rich white kid with better than average grades(grades could be any item such as a better fire fighter or a better "___") yet he is subjected to loosing his spot in his chosen school/firm etc. Because a slightly less Educated Minority gets his extra 20 points that puts him over.

The fact BUSH got what he got shouldn't be a basis of the whole process of alumni students.

And I doubt it is his alone (goal) to bring that type of affirmative action down, it is more likely the republican goal in the sense a majority of those behind bush probably went to great schools and might even been alumni. Show me thier grades and I'll cry "wrong doing".

[Der-draigen]

Just my $.02...

It is wrong to show favor to anyone based upon their family name, connections, wealth, etc.

In the same way, it is wrong to slide school athletes through the system to graduation, when their academic ability -- or rather, the lack thereof -- demands failing grades. We have athletes who can't read actually graduating from high schools in this country. That's not an exaggeration.

It is also wrong to favor someone because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background. Is this not just another version of prejudice, in reverse? If you single the person out for favor, you're still singling them out. This is not progress.

You shouldn't get an extra 20 points if you don't deserve them by earning them. Period.

It's not right that Bush was let into Yale because of his "pedigree". But logically -- I say, logically-- that does not exempt him from making statements against the unfairness of awarding points for skin color and/or ethnic background.

For example:

Say for instance that I swear all the time.

And Foul-Mouthed Franny comes up to me and says, "You know, you shouldn't swear. It's not right to do that."

And I say, "Boy, Franny, YOU'VE got some nerve!"

Is Franny wrong for telling me not to swear because it's not the best thing to do?

Logically, no. Franny is still correct. The FACT that he states -- "swearing is bad" -- is still a fact, regardless of the source it comes from. If it's true, it's true, no matter what kind of person says it.

Likewise: The FACT that George Bush is stating -- "It's wrong to award 20 points when academic performance does not warrant it" -- is STILL a fact, regardless of whatever unfair favors were done for the sake of his own family/name/background/etc. in the past.

In logical thinking, you have to ignore the source and look at whether or not the fact remains.

DISCLAIMER: Please let's not turn this into an "Is Swearing Wrong?" thread. It was just an example.