A Justice Site
Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: February 1, 2003
Latest Update: February 1, 2003
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
Schools Have Different Status
Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, February 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.
This essay is based on a Wall Street Journal Article by Daniel Golden on affirmative action for the wealthy: Extra Credit: At Many Colleges, The Rich Kids Get Affirmative Action, Thursday, February 20, 2003, P. A 1.This article takes affirmative action in a slightly different direction. We have often talked about corporate subsidies as welfare (recall that Enron was seeking such help from the White House at the time of its collapse), but we've rarely considered actual individual advantages proffered to the wealthy. Time to do so, folks.With all that we're hearing about the unfairness of affirmative action as giving differential preference to one group over another, years after some of the barriers, like slavery and civil rights, have been "overcome," it's important that we take time out for an illocutionary discussion of the issue. Daniel Gordon's article does that for us, from the perspective of college admissions.
Major elite universities are well endowed. That means that over time wealthy people have left them large, very large gifts, used for the construction of buildings (often named after their donors), for libraries, for science and research centers. Now these are private monies, donated by private people, and so they fit into the privatization of education. That doesn't mean that only private universities benefit from such monies. Dominguez Hills has LaCorte Hall, and the new building named after James Welch. UCLA seeks funds from all sorts of corporations, as well as alumni, as do USC and all the rest of our universities. Sometimes the money is specified for certain projects, such as buildings or projects, and sometimes it is left to the general endowment fund at the absolute discretion of the university. Still, that's all privatization. So where does the affirmative action come in.
Simple. Universities, particularly universities with large and prestigious reputations, have status in the world of degrees. A degree from Harvard or Berkeley or Stanford carries more prestige than a degree from CSUDH or UWP. And most such prestigious universities have difficult entrance requirements because they can, because so many people want to get in for the prestigious degree.
Now, that's no problem as long as we perceive the U.S. as a meritocracy in which what you do counts more than who you are. (ascribed and achieved status. Remember that?) That's especially true if the meritocracy is based on test scores. Everybody takes the test. The ones with the best scores get into the most prestigious universities. Right? Well, not exactly. Getting into and graduating from an elite university ain't all that simple, folks.
Some of us manage because we're real smart. We're not the problem, because that was the measurement we used for meritocracy. But some of us are almost that smart, but not quite enough to get the highest test scores. OK, we add grades. Oops. Now we've got more problems. The grades at one school do not necessarily equal the grades at another school. The grades from one teacher do not necessarily equal the grades of another teacher, even at the same school. Why? Lots more than tests should be considered in those grades. Communication, consistency, motivation, competency, etc. So we have a measure in grades that bounces all over, depending on the perspective and the included measures. Would you consider a straight A average at Stanford equivalent to a straight A average at CSUDH or UWP?
- Would you consider a straight A average at Stanford equivalent to a straight A average at CSUDH or UWP?
Consider the measures included in grades, and consider the reliability problem of such measures. Remember that reliability assumes that if one teacher gives you an A on a given project, that other teachers would also give you an A on that project. Or that if you get an A on one essay you'll very likely get an A on another essay. Both of these assumptions can be explained by our expectation that teachers are consistent and reliable in the grades they give; and/or that students are consistent and reliable in the quality of work they turn in.
Consider how a teacher's grading policy might be a little different if she were teaching in a class of very gifted students, who had the luxury of full time study. How might that be different if she had a class of nice, normal kids, struggling to work, go to school, and still have a life? Notice that I've just suggested a correlation between elitism of school and discretionary time for study. So, if I knew whether you were a student at Stanford or at UWP, would I estimate that you would have more or less discretionary time for study? How might that be interdependent with your teachers' perception of you as a student? And how might that enter into the actual measure of your grades?
- In what ways is Stanford different from both CSUDH and UWP?
Consider status expectations for the schools. In what respects are they different? Consider admission standards, the meaning of a Stanford degree in terms of exposure to famous professors and very talented classmates. Consider the number of networking contacts that could be made during a four-year undergraduate program. Kind of like photo ops, you know. Maybe for the rest of your life you could display a photo of you with classmate, Chelsea Clinton. Remember education is not all you get in college.
- In what ways are ascribed and achieved status related to this issue of college admissions?
Remember, ascribed status depends upon who you are, what family you belong to, which ethnic group you belong to, which part of town you live in, your parents' occupation, education, and source of income (inherited wealth counts more than earned wealth), etc. Achieved status depends upon the talents and skills you exhibit. These might be grades you earn, the skill with which you articulate your ideas, your ability to act, or paint, or play music, your success at doing well in school or in athletics, etc.
Consider that we in the U.S. like to think of ourselves as meritocratic. That means that we believe that you get ahead not because of who you know (ascribed status), but because of how well you do your job (achieved status). But there are problems with this approach in a society that is dominated by a hierarchical model of authority. In terms of meritocracy that would mean that the smartest, most successful, most capable people would be at the very top of the hierarchy, with power and authority trickling down to the lower ranks of the hierarchy.
__OPS (127 people) __DEV (24 people) __FIN (12 people) __SALES (1048 people)_A___B __C __D __EA quick look at the above scheme will illustrate that there's not so much room at the top. That means intense competition for positions that ascend the hierarchy, and that makes ascending the hierarchy the primary measure of success. Now that doesn't make too much sense when you figure how many different skills, technical, managerial, and social are needed to keep a large enterprise going. So we multiply the vice presidents until there are so many you can hardly count them, and we build more buildings so we'll have more corner offices.
The room at the top problem affects our entire social system because the hierarchy becomes the primary means of distributing resources. Those on the top get the most, and then it trickles down. This definitely does not promote social justice in Rawls' sense of equal access to resources.
The discussion questions below touch on how equal access is affected by wealth. Daniel Golden writes about "development admits," admissions for those who do not meet the school's specifically stated high standards for academic scholarship, but whose parents are wealthy and have been deemed by the school's admission committee to be likely to make substantial donations to the school, or persuade other wealthy people to do so.
Duke says it has never traded an admission for a donation, but it readily admits the consideration of parents' wealth and willingness to participate in discussions on fund drives as a factor in its consideration of admissions. The question: How different from that is the same school's willingness to consider color as a factor in its consideration of admissions? The assumption of an equal playing field in which race and color play no part is denial, plain and simple. (More references on this later.)