That would certainly change things. I don’t see it stopping until there’s equal acceptance rate from all high schools. Then colleges will have to lower the bar to avoid failing unprepared kids.
I was lucky enough to be accepted to both Cal and Stanford for grad school. Despite what people say about a Cal-Stanford rivalry, there is a great deal of cooperation between the two schools, especially for overworked grad students stressed out about oral boards.
We had once-monthly meetings with the Stanford students to help each other study, and the stories Stanford grad students told us about grading their undergrads were insane. Essentially, instructors said that if they gave out anything lower than a B-, they expected to hear from the students’ parents. Several instructors had been called and yelled at by parents dissatisfied with the grade their child was given. One instructor even had a parent show up to her office to demand a grade be changed. The Stanford grad students essentially said that the campus-wide policy was to only give a C+ when absolutely necessary. Whereas, at Cal, we gave out Cs and Ds all the time.
The primary difference between the two schools is cost: Cal costs a fraction of what Stanford does and most Cal students also work while going to school. Stanford students, on the other hand, often had parents paying for their (very expensive) schooling. And when parents pay hundreds of hundreds of thousands of dollars for an undergraduate degree, they expect something in return. That expectation is for their son or daughter to not be disadvantaged in the workforce by a terrible college gpa. Stanford University knows this and seems to comply.
All this will not matter anymore. Thanks to ACA5 just approved by California legislators that will repeal proposition 209, soon the race based admissions will become norm in California. This comes right after doing away with SAT/ACT as requirement for admissions in UC System. The worst hit will be students of Asians parents who will see a significant drop in admissions to Universities in California.
Supreme Court has already rule again schools using diversity quotas to rig the admissions game. Of course, that’s probably why they want test scores gone. It’s the most objective way to evaluate everyone, so it’s the easiest way to prove rigging admissions demographics. The irony is data shows admitting kids to schools they aren’t qualified or prepared for results in higher dropout rates. Those kids could have graduated from a different school.
I have not followed this matter in great detail, but from whatever little I understand, ACA5 will repeal proposition 209 passed in 1996 and amend the constitution of the CA to allow race-based selections for admission into Universities and state jobs. I do not know if SC has any jurisdiction over it. But, it is like the repeal of portions of PROP 13. Bearish for the real estate in the neighbourhood where education is prized and bad for candidates who seek admissions and jobs based purely on qualification.
Most other states have affirmative action. It’s not the end of the world. I’d prefer preferential treatment based on socioeconomic status. A black kid from a wealthy family is not more deserving that a poor white kid. But I don’t make the policy and it is what it is.
Nobody uses crude point-based systems that robotically give you certain points based on race anymore. They all have some sort of “holistic” system that claims to look at the whole profile of applicants. If it were that simple how come most state schools still have affirmative action?
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University’s point system’s “predetermined point allocations” that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed” and was therefore unconstitutional.
There is no such a thing as 100% meritocracy. About 1/3 of Ivy League admissions is legacy. And you can always buy your way in like Trump’s son in law.
From the above link, it appears that the Gratz vs Bollinger did not make use of race in admissions illegal. They have ruled nothing against giving racial preference in admissions. They only ruled illegal the 20 points the University of Michigan was awarding to the students from the target groups. Do I get it right? On an individual basis, race of a candidate can still be used for promoting that student for admissions.
Ivy league schools are private school and use personal funds. They can give admission to anyone they like. Taxpayer funded institutions are not the same.
