25 years old and deep in debt

[mongers]

You misunderstand, g. In general, I don't think anyone should be judged on things they have no control over.

That being said, since society as a whole is still mostly slanted toward the Saltines, the graham crackers and Ritz crackers should have a bit of a leg up in the admissions office. Basically, until educations are at least on par across the board, there has to be some way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for the more exotic crackers in the world.

I don't know if getting a small advantage at college admissions offices really is going to change that situation much.  The kids who are getting the advantages based on crackerness are already getting good enough educations to be college material so are not the ones who need help.

This is indeed the problem with most forms of racial preference - they tend to help those who do not need it.

This is really a subset of a larger problem: that programs to benefit the disadvantaged often miss the mark.

Canada is rife with social assistance programs that end up "helping" the middle class (even upper middle class!) much moreso than the disadvantaged - for the very simple reason that navagating the bureaucracy to obtain access to the programs is a significant chore and one that those already in the middle/upper middle classes are far better able to do that chore successfully.

Worth quoting. 

This is a problem in quite a few areas of public service provision over here. 

Various NHS reforms, intended to make it 'fairer' end the 'postcode lottery', result in more complex 'admission'/'application' procedures that the pushy middle/upper middle class are most adept at navigating. 

School admissions are another area, afflicted by this issue.

[Malthus]

There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".

Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Haven't most reputable studies in the last 15 years shown that affirmative action at the elite schools just tends to help wealthy minorities who already had significant advantages in life, and at the lower tier schools it often results in the less wealthy minorities getting into schools beyond what their upbringing or primary/secondary education prepared them for and thus they end up with massive first/second semester college drop out rates?

Interestingly I read one of the best systems so far demonstrated was at the University of Texas. They have a program where every student in the top 10% of the graduating class from any public high school in the state of Texas gets in, period. What this means, is the high schools in heavy black (or more common in Texas) heavy Hispanic neighborhoods are guaranteed to get at least a few students who have the option to go to UT--one of the best schools in the country. What this has lead to is a lot of the kids who precisely should have such an opportunity, poor minorities who excel in their own surroundings but are missing on most advantages available to the wealthy, end up going to a very good school and doing well there. (There is a lot more controversy about how UT handles its non 10%er admissions, as they use a racial preference criteria that has resulted in a white student suing the university. I believe that case was recently argued before the SCOTUS but yet to be ruled on.)

But in general I think "dumb" racial "points" systems where race gets you a bonus in admissions is vastly inferior to a system that gives you bonuses based on socioeconomic background. That tends to cover kids both majority and minority that are disadvantaged unfairly, and will obviously disproportionately help minorities who are more likely to be poor, but without giving an unfair boost to wealthy minorities or an unfair penalty to impoverished whites.

[merithyn]

Not at all but you are talking about lowering the bar. After all, they are currently selecting people with lots of activities and other resume type stuff that this disadvantaged kid doesn't have...and presumably it is because that's the type that they think will thrive at their schools. You're then asking them to take on riskier applicants for the sake of society?

I'm saying that I don't think that it's "under the bar" to not have all of the extracurricular activities. I think that life experience is life experience, and for some that's extracurricular activites, and for others it's taking three city busses to get to school. I don't necessarily think that one is "better" or "worse" than the other. They're simply different, which will provide diversity, which I feel is essential to a good education.

As for the "riskier" applicants, I think that the benefits outweighs the risks. Not for the sake of society, though that's a strong benefit, too, but rather for the university in question. Taking on kids with differing life experiences, education, and backgrounds forces the universities to constantly re-examine how they approach a number of subjects. It prevents them from complacency, one of the biggest criticisms of the Ivy League schools as it is.

[merithyn]

There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".

Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.

[merithyn]

Haven't most reputable studies in the last 15 years shown that affirmative action at the elite schools just tends to help wealthy minorities who already had significant advantages in life, and at the lower tier schools it often results in the less wealthy minorities getting into schools beyond what their upbringing or primary/secondary education prepared them for and thus they end up with massive first/second semester college drop out rates?

Interestingly I read one of the best systems so far demonstrated was at the University of Texas. They have a program where every student in the top 10% of the graduating class from any public high school in the state of Texas gets in, period. What this means, is the high schools in heavy black (or more common in Texas) heavy Hispanic neighborhoods are guaranteed to get at least a few students who have the option to go to UT--one of the best schools in the country. What this has lead to is a lot of the kids who precisely should have such an opportunity, poor minorities who excel in their own surroundings but are missing on most advantages available to the wealthy, end up going to a very good school and doing well there. (There is a lot more controversy about how UT handles its non 10%er admissions, as they use a racial preference criteria that has resulted in a white student suing the university. I believe that case was recently argued before the SCOTUS but yet to be ruled on.)

But in general I think "dumb" racial "points" systems where race gets you a bonus in admissions is vastly inferior to a system that gives you bonuses based on socioeconomic background. That tends to cover kids both majority and minority that are disadvantaged unfairly, and will obviously disproportionately help minorities who are more likely to be poor, but without giving an unfair boost to wealthy minorities or an unfair penalty to impoverished whites.

Remarkably, I agree on all point.

[garbon]

As for the "riskier" applicants, I think that the benefits outweighs the risks. Not for the sake of society, though that's a strong benefit, too, but rather for the university in question. Taking on kids with differing life experiences, education, and backgrounds forces the universities to constantly re-examine how they approach a number of subjects. It prevents them from complacency, one of the biggest criticisms of the Ivy League schools as it is.

That might make them less of a target for their detractors but that doesn't seem like it'd actually help the university in any way that I think they strongly care about.

Also, I'm going to disagree with you in that a big part, I think, is that they think the people they are selecting are more likely to stick around for the four years. I've no idea if that's actually true - but I wouldn't leap to say it isn't.

[MadImmortalMan]

I barely missed out because I was white and male.

I call bullshit.   I blame your lack of extracurricular activities. 
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?

But I was in the marching band! 

[Caliga]

But I was in the marching band! 

NERD!

[CountDeMoney]

But I was in the marching band! 

So was I, and you see where that landed me, don't you?

[Caliga]

But I was in the marching band! 

So was I, and you see where that landed me, don't you?

NERD!

[garbon]

But I was in the marching band! 

So was I, and you see where that landed me, don't you?

In the most exclusive club of all - a regular on Languish.

[Ideologue]

There is a genuine problem with resume-padding being a prerequisite for being judged among the "best".

Eventually, you get kids whose whole lives have been artificially sculpted by their parents into the bonsai shape of a perfect university applicant. I find it hard to believe that such kids are actually going to be "the best" as opposed to kids who, at least in part, took some real risks and did some actual stuff on their own.

Probably wrong.  Those kids may be insufferable, and in suffering, but they're going to be the one out of fifty, or more, from these latter generations that genuinely achieves the American dream (whose parents hadn't already achieved it for them).

I mean, since you'll just pooh-pooh the idea that elite universities be nationalized and their liberal arts schools be burned to the ground anyway.

[Ed Anger]

I barely missed out because I was white and male.

I call bullshit.   I blame your lack of extracurricular activities. 
But I guess goofing on all those Future Business Leaders of America members in the cafeteria seemed like fun at the time though, right?

But I was in the marching band! 

Best damn band in the land. 

[Eddie Teach]

But I was in the marching band! 

NERD!

I don't think quiz team members have any room to criticize