Remember the racist cupcakes? Fordham University fights back with its own bake sale

posted at 4:45 pm on October 7, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Interesting. About a week ago, when the University of California-Berkeley College Republicans hosted a bake sale with a pricing structure based on common college admissions practices, opponents of the sale cried “racism.” That’s because the pricing structure dramatically revealed that some minority students have an easier time obtaining admission to universities, thanks to affirmative action — and critics of the bake sale didn’t like that the publicity stunt revealed that truth. Surprisingly, most of the backlash didn’t come from the white students who were charged $2 a cupcake as Asians were charged $1.50, Hispanics $1.00, blacks $0.75 and Native Americans $0.25.

Now, Fordham University students plan to host a bake sale in response to the Cal-Berkeley event. Dubbed “The REAL Affirmative Action Bake Sale,” the sale’s pricing structure will take all admissions factors — including family income, legacy status and athletic ability — into account. The results? Children of the very wealthy will have to pay just $0.25 for a cupcake and athletes will have to pay just $0.50. Legacies and under-represented minorities will pay $1.00 while general admission will be $1.30 for women and $1.25 for men.

Mark Naison, professor of African and African American Studies at Fordham, explains why this structure is actually more reflective of what drives the college admissions process:

According to James Shulman and William Bowen, in their book The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, recruited male athletes, in the 1999 cohort, received a 48 percent admissions advantage, as compared to 25 percent for legacies, and 18 percent for minorities (the comparable figures for women athletes were 54 percent, 24 percent, and 20 percent, respectively). Not only do athletes get a larger admissions advantage, Bowen and Shapiro report, they constitute a larger portion of the student population than under-represented minorities at the nation’s top colleges, averaging 20 percent at the Ivy League colleges and 40 percent at Williams. And the vast majority of the recrutited athletes at those colleges who get those admissions advantages are white, including participants in sports like men’s and women’s lacrosse, golf, tennis and sailing, which few minorities play in.

But it was not the material in The Game of Life which most outraged my students, it was the analysis offered in a book I used in my course for the first time, Peter Schmidt’s Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning The War Over College Affirmative Action. According to Schmidt, higher education has become a plutocracy, where “a rich child has about 25 times as much chances as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better.” In the last twenty years, Schmidt claims, universities have quietly given significant admissions advantages to students whose parents can pay full tuition, make a donation to the school, or have ties to influential politicians. Schmidt’s statistics, showing 74 percent of students in the top two tiers of universities come from families making over $83,000, as compared to 3 percent come from families making under $27,000 a year, enraged my students.

Frankly, the Fordham Bake Sale sounds awesome. It reflects that underrepresented minorities receive advantages — but it also points out all the ways the college admissions process isn’t exactly an academics-based meritocratic one. Instead, it reflects all the ways college has become about so much more — and so much less — than education. Personally, as much as I love college sports and all the other traditional trappings of “the college experience” from rec centers to on-campus concerts, I wonder whether that might not be a shame. I’m inclined to agree with American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, who writes that the elevation of the bachelor degree to an almost-entitlement for middle class kids does a disservice to individuals who might not be academically-minded but who offer other abilities to society. Instead of making those individuals feel like they have to go to college to have a job worth working, we ought to offer them opportunities to develop their non-academic abilities and provide them with ways to use those abilities to contribute to society. In effect, college sports do that for athletes who might not otherwise go to college (and, arguably, from an academic perspective, shouldn’t go to college) – but that they’re tied to educational institutions is misleading. Murray proposes to abolish the B.A. as a right-of-passage piece of paper and bring back true universities, centers to cultivate research and thought.  That’s dramatic and controversial, but well worth considering. In the meantime, both the Berkeley and Fordham bake sales did what they were designed to do — spur discussion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That’s dramatic and controversial, but well worth considering. In the meantime, both the Cal-Berkeley and Fordham bake sales did what they were designed to do — spur discussion.

You don’t suppose the Fordham event had something to do with diverting the impact/message of the Cal sale, do you?

Mark Naison, professor of African and African American Studies at Fordham, explains why this structure is actually more reflective of what drives the college admissions process:

a capella on October 7, 2011 at 4:53 PM

No, that’s stupid…

Everybody should pay a baseline .50 to reflect their tax dollars going to support these colleges. Children of the very wealthy should be paying $1.30 to reflect the additional costs they support, the poor should be paying an additional .60, women and minorities .40 and the athletes should be GIVEN the cupcakes.

Skywise on October 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Any time my Rams can best the elite snobs (right or left) in Berkeley I cheer. Though from my last trip back for Homecoming three weeks ago it is evident that white females are not paying full price for the cupcake, as Fordham College,40 years ago an all male institution, is now 61% female. Still, kudos to Prof Naison. In the Jesuit tradition he’s asking us to think.

xkaydet65 on October 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM

If I were a rich kid, I’d buy the whole table of cupcakes at .25 each, and put up a table right next to them and sell them for .75 cents each.

Capitalism.

portlandon on October 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Wouldn’t it be an NCAA violation to give discounts to athletes?

rw on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

a capella on October 7, 2011 at 4:53 PM

The Fordham sale makes the stronger point, though. It ought to divert attention from the weaker argument.

ernesto on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Um, Tina… you’ve been snookered hard. The children of the rich are able to get into college easier because their parents have more to invest him them. That’s not affirmative action. For you to post on this and and not point that out is kind of sad.

The results? Children of the very wealthy will have to pay just $0.25 for a cupcake and athletes will have to pay just $0.50. Legacies and under-represented minorities will pay $1.00 while general admission will be $1.30 for women and $1.25 for men.

ninjapirate on October 7, 2011 at 4:58 PM

..so, the big jocks on football scholarships belly up to the bar and clean out all of the cupcakes at $0.25 each leaving not a crumb behind for the other “less privileged”.

Check out this take on how those who work their tail off (arrive at class early) have to take a back seat to those who are “disadvantaged”. (“Todos que no intenien Ingles pase en el frente de la clase, por favor.”)

The War Planner on October 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Just think … the entire mess is a result of “liberal” policies.

darwin on October 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Um, Tina… you’ve been snookered hard. The children of the rich are able to get into college easier because their parents have more to invest him them. That’s not affir/mative act/ion. For you to post on this and and not point that out is kind of sad.

The results? Children of the very wealthy will have to pay just $0.25 for a cupcake and athletes will have to pay just $0.50. Legacies and under-represented minorities will pay $1.00 while general admission will be $1.30 for women and $1.25 for men.

And for the love of God, please remove affir/mative act/ion from the spam filter… what idiot put it there?

ninjapirate on October 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM

The only thing wrong is that everyone is allowed to buy a cupcake.

It’s tougher to factor in the perspective students who are told ‘Well, we like your SAT scores and your GPA, but we would prefer to enroll [insert - ethnicity / gender / orientation / religious belief / whatever - here that doesn't include you].

TimBuk3 on October 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Capitalism.

portlandon on October 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM

..ausgeseichnet!

The War Planner on October 7, 2011 at 5:00 PM

What is the price for a minority that takes full responsibility for itself? English/Danish Orthodox Christian. There are very few of us

Hening on October 7, 2011 at 5:00 PM

The tragedy is the manner in which the leftist colleges have become gate-keepers of economic well-being -often pressuring good students to lie about social, political and environmental issues in order to get a fair grade.

Then again it might legitimately be a fair thing to call lying education if the chosen profession is either lawyer, journalist, environmentalist,historian, climatologist or most definitely,-political science, whose students need to develop skills in all manners of lying to suceed in their field.

Don L on October 7, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Instead of making those individuals feel like they have to go to college to have a job worth working, we ought to offer them opportunities to develop their non-academic abilities and provide them with ways to use those abilities to contribute to society. In effect, college sports do that for athletes who might not otherwise go to college (and, arguably, from an academic perspective, shouldn’t go to college) – but that they’re tied to educational institutions is misleading. Murray proposes to abolish the B.A. as a right-of-passage piece of paper and bring back true universities, centers to cultivate research and thought.

This.

Well said Tina. I went back to school to get my BA, all on the advise of parents, friends, and superiors that I worked under. Got the paper, and promptly moved up 0 levels within the company. Plus I didn’t learn anything other than what I already knew – hard work with the skill set / talents you have been blessed with is really all you need.

meoky on October 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM

How about a bake sale where they all pay the same amount, but the engineering students get a bag full of food and the wymyns studies students get an empty wrapper?

pedestrian on October 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Wouldn’t it be an NCAA violation to give discounts to athletes?

rw on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Yes.

Somebody ought to have a bake sale with inflation-adjusted prices reflecting what a baby boomer paid for their degree compared to what an incoming freshman will pay.

The administration and faculty will hate that one even more than the Republican bake sale.

forest on October 7, 2011 at 5:04 PM

I’d stand right over the cupcakes coughing and sneezing…everyone loves extra “sprinkles.”

Christien on October 7, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Wouldn’t it be an NCAA violation to give discounts to athletes?

rw on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The NCAA recently amended rules that previous to the change – disallowed muffins, bagles, and the like as improper benefits.

Seriously.

meoky on October 7, 2011 at 5:07 PM

I dated a girl from Fordham once. She was wacky. But in a fun way.

angryed on October 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Well said Tina. I went back to school to get my BA, all on the advise of parents, friends, and superiors that I worked under. Got the paper, and promptly moved up 0 levels within the company. Plus I didn’t learn anything other than what I already knew – hard work with the skill set / talents you have been blessed with is really all you need.

meoky on October 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM

But that sheepskin on the wall makes a statement. Plus you had to pay for the frame.

I have a friend who was a teacher and got laid off. He then went for his masters, and then his special Ed endorsement. He still can’t get a job. He could keep going, but why? He would just have his doctorate and be waiting tables at a restaurant.

“Excuse me,Doctor. Can I have some more water?”

portlandon on October 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM

The Fordham sale makes the stronger point, though. It ought to divert attention from the weaker argument.

ernesto on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The stronger point being that children of wealth are inherently superior, and should be punished for it?

You knuckleheads will never figure out that no one wants to play a game that always ends up in a tie.

John the Libertarian on October 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Does this take into account the donation $ the uni expects to receive from the rich kid’s parents? Does this take into account the sports related sales $ the uni expects to receive from the athlet’s activity? Does this count university $ only, or does it fold in loans and federal grants? In other words, can I make the case that the numbers are cooked to present a particular perspective that does not hold up under scrutiny?

Seems to me if someone insist on equal outcomes then basketball and football teams should match the exact racial percentages of the nation, regurdless of ability to play. Good luck with that.

AnotherOpinion on October 7, 2011 at 5:10 PM

So what happens if I qualify for the dirt cheap cupcakes, but want to pay full price? What if I don’t want the female discount?

I qualify for plenty of government assistance, but I don’t take it because I can get by on my own. Do I have to sacrifice? You bet. But for the record, there are people in this world who don’t dive for every handout offered them and I’m proud to say that I’m one of them.

sisterchristian on October 7, 2011 at 5:14 PM

The athlete thing starts in high school, which is a bit weird since they can’t bring in income through the games. Instead of money, “talented” athletes get to sleep through classes. It a bit of a generalization since it only applies to really good athletes but it happens.

Cindy Munford on October 7, 2011 at 5:15 PM

DOJ today challenges Alabama. GO ALABAMA!

Limerick on October 7, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I didn’t think wealthy folks got a break on tuition, just on actual admittance.

Cindy Munford on October 7, 2011 at 5:17 PM

College education is now a joke. The price for the education is far greater than the money you earn. Not only that student loans is one of two debts you can’t default on.

A four years college education cost over $200k. That’s a nice house your could have gotten with that money.

I know a girl that got out of college. Her four year education cost her over $260k. She have to pay $600 a month for the next 30 years. She basically a slave to the government.

jdun on October 7, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Schmidt’s statistics, showing, 74 percent of students in the top two tiers of universities come from families making over $83,000, as compared to 3 percent come from families making under $27,000 a year, enraged my students.

Who cares. You don’t have students anyway … you have comatose sheep who are constantly told they must be outraged at something.

If they felt so enraged they should have collected money or voluntarily given their own tutition money to the closest “victim”.

darwin on October 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Not to mention all the paperwork and having to learn a new arcane institutional language just to get a damn cupcake.

Ordering a medium cup of coffee black at Starbucks will be simple by comparison.

ElRonaldo on October 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM

I’d set up a table next to them with a wide assortment of baked goods made from scratch, and give them out for free. Higher-quality items, baked with the key ingredient–love–and food bringing people together, instead of used to make a political point.

Christien on October 7, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Fordham apparently doesn’t value correct grammar, punctuation or quality writing skills from outraged teachers of enraged students.

Midas on October 7, 2011 at 5:34 PM

10 years in Admissions, 3 as a Director, 3 institutions (2 private)… admissions is ALL ABOUT RACE.

mankai on October 7, 2011 at 5:34 PM

It ought to divert attention from the weaker argument.

ernesto on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

… says the expert on making weak arguments.

Midas on October 7, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Testing. Accion affirmativo.

Mason on October 7, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The rich may be favored, but they still have to PAY! So why are their cupcakes the cheapest?

Paul-Cincy on October 7, 2011 at 5:40 PM

a rich child has about 25 times as much chances as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better

Maybe because “highly selective” schools cost $40k+ a year right now?

Naaaaaaaaah…. that can’t be why.

strictnein on October 7, 2011 at 5:44 PM

It all sounds very confusing. CAN I PLEASE JUST GET A BROWNIE?

Kensington on October 7, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Who cares. You don’t have students anyway … you have comatose sheep who are constantly told they must be outraged at something.

If they felt so enraged they should have collected money or voluntarily given their own tutition money to the closest “victim”.

darwin on October 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Also, there’s a likelihood the kids from more well-off families are more genetically gifted in intellect.

mikeyboss on October 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM

darwin on October 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Exactly. It’s no longer halls of higher learning. It’s cult indoctrination into communist ideology.

capejasmine on October 7, 2011 at 5:54 PM

The rich may be favored, but they still have to PAY! So why are their cupcakes the cheapest?

Paul-Cincy on October 7, 2011 at 5:40 PM

.
They get the least benefit from aff!rmative act!on?

ExpressoBold on October 7, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Creating a caricature straight out of the leftist sketchbook, slapping a gold star on it, and calling it reality. LOL. I’m so sick of these people.

Ryan Anthony on October 7, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Ah, yes…spurring discussion is such an important value!

Except when it is idiotic, uninformed discussion, it isn’t worth a crap. You’re such a sucker, Tina.

Consider the possibility that academic factors might play a powerful role in the supposed admissions preference of kids whose families earn more than $83,000 and year and who are more often white. Isn’t that what college admissions are supposed to be based on?

My kids are white; our household income is over $83,000 a year; and — surprise! — my girls both graduated in the top then in their classes and tested in the 99th percentile on ACT and SAT.

GFY Naison; you’re a race-victim and a liar.

Jaibones on October 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Yeah…I know my typing sucks. I was in the “top then” of my typing class…

Jaibones on October 7, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Murray proposes to abolish the B.A. as a right-of-passage piece of paper and bring back true universities

Ain’t gonna happen. Not under the current crop of administrators.

GarandFan on October 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM

If I were a rich kid, I’d buy the whole table of cupcakes at .25 each, and put up a table right next to them and sell them for .75 cents each.

Capitalism.

…which would also be an awesome demonstration: the bake sale representing the crazy tiered admissions practices of Universities trying/having to favor certain students, with the capitalist approach treating them all equally AND providing the cupcakes for less than the $1+ most of them would normally pay.

sockpuppetpolitic on October 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM

take all admissions factors — including family income

You mean if I work my butt off so that my kids can go to a good school that I may actually be able to afford it?

Cool.

CW on October 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM

The Fordham sale makes the stronger point, though. It ought to divert attention from the weaker argument.

ernesto on October 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

No not really. Whatever happened to being colorblind to race? You and yours are the real racists.

CW on October 7, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Shouldn’t liberals be outraged at the price structure of this new bake sale and shouldn’t they have applauded the price structure at the Berkeley bake sale? They are really gonna twist themselves into a mental pretzel.

Buddahpundit on October 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM

If I were a rich kid, I’d buy the whole table of cupcakes at .25 each, and put up a table right next to them and sell them for .75 cents each.

Capitalism.

portlandon on October 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Ummm, I actually did that when I was in high school. All the schools in the area were holding bake sales. Instead of bringing something to sell I scoped out all the other schools stuff and bought up a lot of their popular items and then resold them at a profit for our school…I wasn’t rich but it was capitalism.

Oldnuke on October 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM

. Schmidt’s statistics, showing, 74 percent of students in the top two tiers of universities come from families making over $83,000, as compared to 3 percent come from families making under $27,000 a year, enraged my students.

Okay am I missing something here? Now Berkley is a tax supported school but Fordham is private(although it may get some government funding.) That said, since when do people get into a college they can’t afford except by virtue of a scholarship. If the kid whose family can’t afford to send him/her to a specific college, that’s news? Hell, I got accepted at Vassar but didn’t get a scholarship so I ended up at a less expensive and perhaps less prestigious school. It’s always been that way. Alumni always get preference, especially if they give alot of money.
So this professor is saying any student with the proper grades should be able to go to any school? If that’s the case why bother to have so many different schools, just make them all one big chain/franchise.

Deanna on October 7, 2011 at 6:18 PM

It’s a shame they lack the creativity and intelligence to come up with their own concepts rather than borrowing from conservative ideas.

Shay on October 7, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Schmidt’s statistics, showing, 74 percent of students in the top two tiers of universities come from families making over $83,000, as compared to 3 percent come from families making under $27,000 a year, enraged my students.

What are the odds the wealthier kids are actually more prepared for college?

Contrary to public high school standards, most colleges require you to actually know how to read.

BobMbx on October 7, 2011 at 6:26 PM

If that’s the case why bother to have so many different schools, just make them all one big chain/franchise.

Deanna on October 7, 2011 at 6:18 PM

And then make them free. Utopia.

BobMbx on October 7, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Mark Naison, professor of African and African American Studies at Fordham…

$200,000 and that worthless degree will get you a spot in a Wall Street protest.

MNHawk on October 7, 2011 at 6:32 PM

A private university can do whatever it wants. That’s not what’s at issue.

Tzetzes on October 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Ummm, I actually did that when I was in high school. All the schools in the area were holding bake sales. Instead of bringing something to sell I scoped out all the other schools stuff and bought up a lot of their popular items and then resold them at a profit for our school…I wasn’t rich but it was capitalism.

Oldnuke on October 7, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Excellent.

Work smarter, not harder.

Capitalism works, every time.

portlandon on October 7, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Intelligence, like the family fortune, can be inherited. Rich people’s children are more likely than others to get into expensive universities like the one’s their rich parents attended. Shocka!

Knott Buyinit on October 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM

An auto robotics tech,non union ,makes $50.00 an hour six days a week. No sheepskin learned on the job. College is a wasteland of useful idiots.
Try getting an AC tech when it has been 100 degrees for weeks.
Get a haircut and a real job in 4 years these guys own a house that is paid off and can support a family very nicely.

Col.John Wm. Reed on October 7, 2011 at 8:45 PM

It’s interesting that the author of the book doesn’t specify “underrepresented” minorities, or what kind of sports attract different ethnicities.

Latinos are blacks are underrepresented. Asians are not. They routinely make up 30-40% of the student population at elite universities. At some the UCs they take over near 50%. But Asians make up less than 5% of the nation’s population, but they tend to earn high income. Meaning if they were larger in number, had english speaking parents actively donating to the school, and show greater interest / talent in sports, they would certainly outmuscle even their white counterparts.

As is it, lots of rich white students pursue in golf, Lacrosse, water polo, and secondary sports that doesn’t interest other groups as much. Blacks rule the basketall and football arenas that are crucial identities to the school. These athlete students outnumber and receive better deals than the “underrepresented” minorities because they increase profit and prestige for the school. Ashton Kutcher earns millions while hard working Latino baker makes less. Sad, but it’s just how it is.

Mad Kimchi on October 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Every college has its own admissions criteria, and the Fordham students are wrong not to acknowledge that. If they are going to display Fordham’s own college admissions strategy, fine, but whatever equation they come up with won’t come close to matching the criteria currently used at Berkeley, UCLA, and Irvine (where more than 40% of the student body is Asian), or the criteria which California might impose on the UC System.

I would expect anybody who’s rich to be able to afford the academic coaching they need if they are successful in reaching the top tier of candidates — and I would also expect that colleges would tend to award slots based on the amount the student or his/her family is willing to pay. That’s also evident in the UC System, in which many admissions slots are awarded to out of state (or even out of country) students — because they will be paying three times the rate of in-state students for tuition. Even in the supposedly non-profit education industry, capitalism is hard at work.

unclesmrgol on October 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM

They’ve got a point. Athletes should not have a quicker path to college, except for the fact college is a business and prestige is largely based off of income.

scotash on October 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM

What is the price for a minority that takes full responsibility for itself? English/Danish Orthodox Christian. There are very few of us

Hening on October 7, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Right-leaning Reformed Jews?

annoyinglittletwerp on October 8, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Now, Fordham University students plan to host a bake sale in response to the Cal-Berkeley event. Dubbed “The REAL Affirmative Action Bake Sale,” the sale’s pricing structure will take all admissions factors — including family income, legacy status and athletic ability — into account. The results? Children of the very wealthy will have to pay just $0.25 for a cupcake and athletes will have to pay just $0.50. Legacies and under-represented minorities will pay $1.00 while general admission will be $1.30 for women and $1.25 for men.

I like the idea, but by the time you make the pricing structure reflect the actual funding rules for various groups, everyone would wind up with at least 3 potential prices for cupcakes depending on exactly which groups they claim to be part of. So much for making a clear point with the bake sale.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM

If their cupcake pricing were anything close to reality then it would look like this:

Children of the very wealthy will have to pay just $25.00 for a cupcake and athletes will have to pay just $50.00. Legacies and under-represented minorities will pay $100.00 while general admission will be $130.00 for women and $125.00 for men.

bour3 on October 8, 2011 at 3:17 AM

But it was not the material in The Game of Life which most outraged my students, it was the analysis offered in a book I used in my course for the first time, Peter Schmidt’s Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning The War Over College Affirmative Action. According to Schmidt, higher

no matter how you spin it Affirmative Action. Is racist. You can’t affirm someone based on race without discriminating against someone based on race

According to Schmidt, higher education has become a plutocracy, where ” a rich child has about 25 times as much chances as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better.”

What stops the other 75% from enrolling in a college, enrolling is filling out the paperwork application.

DSchoen on October 8, 2011 at 3:22 AM

I’ve always said, rich limo-libs support affirmative action because it doesn’t effect THEIR kids. They can buy or network their way around it. They can afford the costs of the policy with the added benefit of diluting the competition for their kids by granting admissions to less qualified applicants over those that might give the legacies a run for their money.

Affirmative action, like most liberal policies, is about protecting the established ruling class from upstarts.

coondawg on October 8, 2011 at 6:22 AM

” a rich child has about 25 times as much chances as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better.”

Very misleading since this does not mean that the wealth was all that mattered. These applicants, for whatever reasons, often had better academic qualifications and good indicators of probable success.

Anyway, I’m for university acceptance based almost entirely on indicators of academic aptitude and not at all on race (zero “Affirmative Action” or anti-White discrimination). While other nations, notable east Asian, are concentrating on encouraging & cultivating their brightest and most capable youth, in the PC USA, where politicians pander to racial voting-blocks, the least capable are the chief object of educational efforts, which tend to short change and under develop the really capable. Our pernicious educationists get all upset over high dropout rates, which probably are not high enough considering that the great many that should be learning a worthwhile trade.

I recommend this video of Charles Murry discussing “Real Education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmTr2EMt66c

Chessplayer on October 8, 2011 at 11:48 AM

” a rich child has about 25 times as much chances as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better.”

Very misleading since this does not mean that the wealth was all that mattered. These applicants, for whatever reasons, often had better academic qualifications and good indicators of probable success.

Anyway, I’m for university acceptance based almost entirely on indicators of academic aptitude and not at all on race. While other nations, notable east Asian, are concentrating on encouraging & cultivating their brightest and most capable youth, in the PC USA, where politicians pander to racial voting-blocks, the least capable are the chief object of educational efforts, which tend to short change and under develop the really capable. Our pernicious educationists get all upset over high dropout rates, which probably are not high enough considering that the great many that should be learning a worthwhile trade.

I recommend this video of Charles Murry discussing “Real Education

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmTr2EMt66c

Chessplayer on October 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM

what idiot put it there?

It’s racist to describe the current President in those terms so it was banned.

andycanuck on October 8, 2011 at 12:22 PM

This is so brilliantly … academic. So, athletes get admissions preference. And for whom does that produce overrepresentation in the student body? Not middle-class white males.

This is one of those things it would be impossible to sustain a huff over. The fact is that using race as a discriminator in college admissions is a matter of public policy, unlike all the other forms of tiebreaker adduced by the Fordham cupcake pricers. (Which is an awesome name for a rock band, BTW.)

Illuminating the realities of race preferences is making a point about public policy. Pointing out that colleges give admission preferences to high-performing athletes, on the other hand, is a separate issue. So is pointing out that rich people find it easier to pay for their kids’ college than poor people do.

Not everything that affects admissions or college attendance is analogous to any or all of the other things that affect admissions or college attendance. Some factors are issues of public policy, and therefore things it’s worth making a political point about. Others are not. Pretending that all factors are the same in this regard is just mushy-headed and — wait for it — sophomoric.

J.E. Dyer on October 8, 2011 at 12:42 PM

BREAKING NEWS …………….. everyone does not need to go to college to be make a good living. Whe need trained people trained in the trades. I am always in need someone who can fix my heat pump, car, run an new electrical line, etc. What really need at Technical schools who can give us some highly trained, skilled tradesmen.

SC.Charlie on October 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM