Keix (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
keilexandra) wrote2009-06-02 03:20 pm
keilexandra) wrote2009-06-02 03:20 pm
Entry tags:
Questions and Admissions, by Jean H. Fetter
Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Admissions Decisions at Stanford
by Jean H. Fetter
276 pages (hardcover)
Genre: Nonfiction/Education/College
Fetter was, to my knowledge, one of the first admissions "insiders" to write publicly about college admissions practices that many would have preferred to keep private. Although this book was published in 1995 and competition has increased tenfold since then, it still provides useful insight through an unmatched depth in both analysis and case studies.
For instance, in the 1960s, minority students were judged "outside the competition" along with athletes and faculty children--meeting "basic entrance requirements" but not necessarily "more qualified than all rejected applicants" (93); while increased representation in the applicant pool obviously renders this approach impractical, I wonder to what extent it is still true today (i.e. "special consideration" groups only competing within the group for admission). Fetter once reversed an admissions decision (from denial to acceptance) when it was discovered that the applicant qualified as a faculty dependent; similarly, Stephen Carter was offered law school admission after an initial denial because he "was originally assumed to be white" (103). Daniel Golden's Price of Admission, a much more recent publication, confirms many of these preferences.
Such a comprehensive admissions survey would not be complete without a discussion of affirmative action, and Fetter does so admirably (albeit with some dodging). She cites Ira Glasser's three reasons for AA:
Of the three justifications for "positive" discrimination, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has declared #3--the striving for diversity--as the only legal rationale for affirmative action in a college admissions context.
In approx. the 1985-1995 time period, Fetter admits to determining applicant ethnicity from other information (e.g. standardized test records) for special consideration, even if the applicant declined to self-identify on the application: "If a minority student chooses not to self-identify as a member of a minority group to which we give special consideration, should he or she receive that consideration? My opinion is that if we are reasonably sure of the ethnicity, the answer is yes" (103). On pages 106-7, Fetter poses a scenario of 3 unexceptional student hypotheticals from the admissions pool, each middle-class but of three different ethnicities (black, Asian, white). Unfortunately, she never gives a concrete answer as to what decisions she would have made; in subsequent discussion, she does argue that middle-class blacks are still disadvantaged by racism. [Opinionated Note: Asian students are hardly exempt from societal racism, yet because their representation is deemed sufficient, they receive no "special consideration."]
Discussion at length on pages 111-36 using the statement-comment format:
* Affirmative action in college admissions means admitting minority students who are less qualified than white students.
Fetter argues that holistic admissions precludes any such determination of qualification. She points out that no admissions officer would admit a student who had a high chance of failure.
[ON: Isn't any selective admissions process inherently determining who is most qualified (or most desired by the institution)? This represents a double standard, since students without "special consideration" must go far beyond this bar in demonstrating holistic achievement.]
* Affirmative action policies are unfair to white students and amount to reverse discrimination.
An analogy here is useful. Fetter says: "...So how should a college compensate for any prior unfair treatment of women? In the zero-sum exercise of selecting a freshman class, if some colleges and universities are now going to include more women, it obviously follows that in most cases they will have to admit fewer men. Is this policy unfair to the men who are not admitted? I don't think so" (119).
[ON: Her analogy is a bit too simplistic. How are the women being chosen for admission? Are they equally qualified, holistically? Caltech, which is obscurely known for its unusual admissions policies--no preferences for legacy, race, gender; nothing except talent and socioeconomic status/obstacles overcome--has to my knowledge not yet been sued for gender discrimination.]
* Beneficiaries of affirmative action programs suffer lasting self-doubts.
Minority students suffer the stigma of affirmative action; others often assume that they were admitted solely under special consideration. Fetter argues that this is sad but ultimately AA benefits them.
[ON: Not solely under special consideration, of course; however, as Fetter's anecdotal evidence supports, some students would not have been admitted without such special consideration. Otherwise the consideration wouldn't be "special" (131-2).]
* Affirmative action means quotas of admitted students.
Unequivocally false.
[ON: I generally agree, although the presence or non-presence of de facto quotas is difficult to establish. But to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional under current Court rulings, and there hasn't been a disgruntled whistleblower yet.]
* Critics of affirmative action are racist. / Practitioners of affirmative action are racist.
Both generalizations both laughable.
[ON: Defining racism as purely racial prejudice, everyone is racist anyway. Defining racism as power + prejudice, only white people--critics and practitioners both--could possibly be racist. Fetter cites several black critics of affirmative action.]
* Affirmative action does not benefit those for whom it was intended, the truly disadvantaged minorities; affirmative action programs should be based on class, not race.
Fetter argues that "moving into a middle-class suburb does not eliminate prejudice, discrimination, or racism" (127). Practically speaking, systemic socioeconomic preference is too difficult to implement and would give lie to "need-blind" admissions. Since current practices still consider (albeit not specially) first-generation to college and other indicators of socioeconomic status, in an ideal world one would give low-income students direct "special consideration" and further implement the spirit of need-blind by ignoring the financial aid budget in admissions.
[ON: This is, incidentally, exactly what I most support. Fetter's argument against it is unconvincing, conveniently disregarding the Asian applicants disadvantaged by affirmative action; Asian and white applicants alike may also be targeted by prejudice or discrimination (racism debatable depending on one's definition), because low-income students are often residing in racially-tense neighborhoods. Fetter does not address the comparison of a middle-class black student vs. a lower-class white or Asian student, which I find central to the argument for socioeconomic affirmative action. "Need-blind" admissions are already technically a lie, since socioeconomic status already acts as a small plus factor (operative word being small) at the elite schools. I also have yet to see an application without a "financial aid" checkbox. The issue here that Fetter sidesteps is the huge financial commitment that socioeconomic affirmative action would require from an institution, particularly those that meet full demonstrated need.]
* Without affirmative action programs, there would be very few minority students enrolled today.
Former Harvard president Derek Bok has claimed that without affirmative action, only 1% of Harvard's entering class would be black. Fetter does not attempt such an estimate, but she does admit that "specific calculations aside, it is undoubtedly true that without the special consideration, the number of entering minority students at Stanford would be smaller than it is today; if it were not true, we could certainly not claim anything 'special' about our affirmative action considerations and should eliminate the item from our criteria" (131-2, emphasis original).
[ON: The ends does not justify the means.]
* The era of affirmative action in college admissions should soon come to a close.
"...any program introduced to address historical injustice must, almost by definition, have some finite lifetime, but affirmative action is also a current safeguard against continued racism in this country, and it helps to alleviate the underrepresentation of minority groups" (133).
[ON: For once I agree with Fetter; if affirmative action is accepted as right and proper, then it absolutely needs to continue. However, I perceive AA as racially discriminatory and fundamentally unethical, far from right and proper.]
* Affirmative action in college admissions does not address the fundamental problems of society in the United States.
True.
[ON: The difference lies in whether affirmative action helps more than it hurts the ongoing process of addressing the fundamental problems of society.]
No mention or discussion is made of subcategory distinctions--people from Spain as Hispanic, African nationals as African-American, Filipino and Hmong as Asian-Americans.
Fetter's book is 15 years dated, an eternity in college admissions. But for those seeking an in-depth introduction and/or solid grounding in the theory behind college admissions, I highly recommend this.
by Jean H. Fetter
276 pages (hardcover)
Genre: Nonfiction/Education/College
Fetter was, to my knowledge, one of the first admissions "insiders" to write publicly about college admissions practices that many would have preferred to keep private. Although this book was published in 1995 and competition has increased tenfold since then, it still provides useful insight through an unmatched depth in both analysis and case studies.
For instance, in the 1960s, minority students were judged "outside the competition" along with athletes and faculty children--meeting "basic entrance requirements" but not necessarily "more qualified than all rejected applicants" (93); while increased representation in the applicant pool obviously renders this approach impractical, I wonder to what extent it is still true today (i.e. "special consideration" groups only competing within the group for admission). Fetter once reversed an admissions decision (from denial to acceptance) when it was discovered that the applicant qualified as a faculty dependent; similarly, Stephen Carter was offered law school admission after an initial denial because he "was originally assumed to be white" (103). Daniel Golden's Price of Admission, a much more recent publication, confirms many of these preferences.
Such a comprehensive admissions survey would not be complete without a discussion of affirmative action, and Fetter does so admirably (albeit with some dodging). She cites Ira Glasser's three reasons for AA:
1. legal remedy redressing past/present discrimination
2. temporary compensation of opportunity
3. visible representation of minorities
Of the three justifications for "positive" discrimination, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has declared #3--the striving for diversity--as the only legal rationale for affirmative action in a college admissions context.
In approx. the 1985-1995 time period, Fetter admits to determining applicant ethnicity from other information (e.g. standardized test records) for special consideration, even if the applicant declined to self-identify on the application: "If a minority student chooses not to self-identify as a member of a minority group to which we give special consideration, should he or she receive that consideration? My opinion is that if we are reasonably sure of the ethnicity, the answer is yes" (103). On pages 106-7, Fetter poses a scenario of 3 unexceptional student hypotheticals from the admissions pool, each middle-class but of three different ethnicities (black, Asian, white). Unfortunately, she never gives a concrete answer as to what decisions she would have made; in subsequent discussion, she does argue that middle-class blacks are still disadvantaged by racism. [Opinionated Note: Asian students are hardly exempt from societal racism, yet because their representation is deemed sufficient, they receive no "special consideration."]
Discussion at length on pages 111-36 using the statement-comment format:
* Affirmative action in college admissions means admitting minority students who are less qualified than white students.
Fetter argues that holistic admissions precludes any such determination of qualification. She points out that no admissions officer would admit a student who had a high chance of failure.
[ON: Isn't any selective admissions process inherently determining who is most qualified (or most desired by the institution)? This represents a double standard, since students without "special consideration" must go far beyond this bar in demonstrating holistic achievement.]
* Affirmative action policies are unfair to white students and amount to reverse discrimination.
An analogy here is useful. Fetter says: "...So how should a college compensate for any prior unfair treatment of women? In the zero-sum exercise of selecting a freshman class, if some colleges and universities are now going to include more women, it obviously follows that in most cases they will have to admit fewer men. Is this policy unfair to the men who are not admitted? I don't think so" (119).
[ON: Her analogy is a bit too simplistic. How are the women being chosen for admission? Are they equally qualified, holistically? Caltech, which is obscurely known for its unusual admissions policies--no preferences for legacy, race, gender; nothing except talent and socioeconomic status/obstacles overcome--has to my knowledge not yet been sued for gender discrimination.]
* Beneficiaries of affirmative action programs suffer lasting self-doubts.
Minority students suffer the stigma of affirmative action; others often assume that they were admitted solely under special consideration. Fetter argues that this is sad but ultimately AA benefits them.
[ON: Not solely under special consideration, of course; however, as Fetter's anecdotal evidence supports, some students would not have been admitted without such special consideration. Otherwise the consideration wouldn't be "special" (131-2).]
* Affirmative action means quotas of admitted students.
Unequivocally false.
[ON: I generally agree, although the presence or non-presence of de facto quotas is difficult to establish. But to do so would be blatantly unconstitutional under current Court rulings, and there hasn't been a disgruntled whistleblower yet.]
* Critics of affirmative action are racist. / Practitioners of affirmative action are racist.
Both generalizations both laughable.
[ON: Defining racism as purely racial prejudice, everyone is racist anyway. Defining racism as power + prejudice, only white people--critics and practitioners both--could possibly be racist. Fetter cites several black critics of affirmative action.]
* Affirmative action does not benefit those for whom it was intended, the truly disadvantaged minorities; affirmative action programs should be based on class, not race.
Fetter argues that "moving into a middle-class suburb does not eliminate prejudice, discrimination, or racism" (127). Practically speaking, systemic socioeconomic preference is too difficult to implement and would give lie to "need-blind" admissions. Since current practices still consider (albeit not specially) first-generation to college and other indicators of socioeconomic status, in an ideal world one would give low-income students direct "special consideration" and further implement the spirit of need-blind by ignoring the financial aid budget in admissions.
[ON: This is, incidentally, exactly what I most support. Fetter's argument against it is unconvincing, conveniently disregarding the Asian applicants disadvantaged by affirmative action; Asian and white applicants alike may also be targeted by prejudice or discrimination (racism debatable depending on one's definition), because low-income students are often residing in racially-tense neighborhoods. Fetter does not address the comparison of a middle-class black student vs. a lower-class white or Asian student, which I find central to the argument for socioeconomic affirmative action. "Need-blind" admissions are already technically a lie, since socioeconomic status already acts as a small plus factor (operative word being small) at the elite schools. I also have yet to see an application without a "financial aid" checkbox. The issue here that Fetter sidesteps is the huge financial commitment that socioeconomic affirmative action would require from an institution, particularly those that meet full demonstrated need.]
* Without affirmative action programs, there would be very few minority students enrolled today.
Former Harvard president Derek Bok has claimed that without affirmative action, only 1% of Harvard's entering class would be black. Fetter does not attempt such an estimate, but she does admit that "specific calculations aside, it is undoubtedly true that without the special consideration, the number of entering minority students at Stanford would be smaller than it is today; if it were not true, we could certainly not claim anything 'special' about our affirmative action considerations and should eliminate the item from our criteria" (131-2, emphasis original).
[ON: The ends does not justify the means.]
* The era of affirmative action in college admissions should soon come to a close.
"...any program introduced to address historical injustice must, almost by definition, have some finite lifetime, but affirmative action is also a current safeguard against continued racism in this country, and it helps to alleviate the underrepresentation of minority groups" (133).
[ON: For once I agree with Fetter; if affirmative action is accepted as right and proper, then it absolutely needs to continue. However, I perceive AA as racially discriminatory and fundamentally unethical, far from right and proper.]
* Affirmative action in college admissions does not address the fundamental problems of society in the United States.
True.
[ON: The difference lies in whether affirmative action helps more than it hurts the ongoing process of addressing the fundamental problems of society.]
No mention or discussion is made of subcategory distinctions--people from Spain as Hispanic, African nationals as African-American, Filipino and Hmong as Asian-Americans.
Fetter's book is 15 years dated, an eternity in college admissions. But for those seeking an in-depth introduction and/or solid grounding in the theory behind college admissions, I highly recommend this.