Below is my column in the Hill on the opposition to the Supreme Court’s opinion declaring the use of race in admissions to be unconstitutional. The defiance expressed to the decision (and view of the majority of the public) could trigger a nuclear option in states that want to end decades of conflicts over the race-based admissions. It would be a major blow to the autonomy of universities, but administrators and faculty appear undeterred by the possibility of state intervention.
Here is the column:
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” With those words, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the historic decision to ban the use of race in college and university admissions.
This view has long been supported by the public, and polls suggest the decision was viewed favorably by most Americans, including a significant share of African Americans.
Long before the opinion was released, universities were already sensing that the use of race in admissions was coming to an end after decades of intense litigation. Some quietly formed teams to plan how they might evade such a ruling and continue to use race in admissions.
Under the preexisting standards for the use of race in admissions, schools spent decades assuring the courts that race was not being weighed heavily and had only marginal effects on admissions. However, after the ruling, schools declared that Black and Latino admissions would “plummet” if they were no longer permitted to use race as a criterion for admission.
Those arguments have deepened the distrust over how universities will adjust to the ruling in seeking to preserve current diversity numbers.
Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who previously called the conservative justices “partisan hacks,” was recently criticized for suggesting that he might be willing to lie about the weight given to race at this school. He told students: “I’ll give you an example from our law school, but if ever I’m deposed, I’m going to deny I said this to you. When we do faculty hiring, we’re quite conscious that diversity is important to us, and we say diversity is important, it’s fine to say that.”
Although Chemerinsky later insisted that he had been joking, the comments highlighted a concern that schools would be less than honest in manipulating reviews to achieve diversity goals.
Indeed, one of the earliest moves to blunt any constitutional ruling may have come from the former head of the California university system, Janet Napolitano. After citizens of one of the most liberal states in the union voted in 2020 to block affirmative action in education and hiring, Napolitano moved to drop the primary method used to expose racial preferences: standardized tests.
Before that, she had assembled a handpicked task force in 2019 to study the issue. But the task force found the opposite of what it had been designed to find. Standardized testing, it turned out, proved to be the single most accurate indicator of college performance, including for non-white students. Napolitano overrode those conclusions and ended the use of the standardized college tests anyway.
After this recent ruling, many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to “reimagine” admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged “to pivot” in order to continue to reach diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring in order to shield racial criteria for admissions.
That has led many citizens to ask what can be done. After all, most people oppose such use of race in admissions. Even liberal states such as California and Michigan have made it unlawful by referendum. Now, the Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional as well. Yet most believe the fight will continue as schools creatively construct new pathways to accommodate racial discrimination.
In the academic echo chamber, these discussions are playing well with their audiences, but less so with the public. Worse yet, they assume that there is not much that can be done to thwart their efforts. They are wrong.
There is a nuclear option. This is for states to take over admissions in public higher education.
States could require the use of standardized testing and codify admissions criteria, including requiring transparency and annual certifications from school officials.
For example, a state could publish an admission grid, wherein applicants are placed into “bands” based on the combination of their standardized scores and grade point averages. They could then allow for other factors to be given a set amount of weight to adjust the ranking in each band based on extracurricular or individual accomplishments. This could be limited to, for example, a 10 or 15 percent step-up from the baseline score in ranking.
Offers of admission would then be based on the ranking, made on a rolling basis downward to fill available seats.
There are obvious costs to such a system. Some students do not perform well on standardized tests. Others have particularly impressive background stories. It is possible to create a percentage of acceptances for such exceptional cases. However, they would be limited in number and require annual reporting on the specific exceptional findings. Laws could also limit the degree to which exceptional criteria can be used to increase a ranking by more than one or two bands.
Some schools would also likely want to allow greater differentials for one category of applicants: athletes. Some schools raise massive amounts of revenue through sporting programs such as football and basketball. They will likely insist on continuing to recruit students largely on the basis of their athletic rather than academic achievements. That is a long-standing debate, but the use of transparent, objective criteria will expose just how much of a “bump” such athletic ability is allowed in admissions.
When it comes to students, the state can assert an interest in protecting them from political, racial, or other bias. Taxpayers fund these schools to maintain higher education opportunities in their states. Academics often treat the taxpayers as an ATM with no voice on what their money is buying, even while creating openly hostile environments for conservative and libertarian viewpoints.
The choice remains with these schools as they openly plan new ways of weighing race. The frank discussion suggests that citizens are mere captive audiences, and that neither public polling nor Supreme Court precedent will change the policies. However, citizens can break the glass and take greater control over admissions if this defiance continues.
Moreover, such laws can expose long-concealed systems of bias in selection. Unlike many schools, like Harvard, that spent years withholding data, state schools could become completely transparent on the weight they have been giving to various criteria.
A state-mandated system would come at some cost. It would limit the value of non-academic achievements, though even that can be adjusted to allow variation, so long as exceptional “bumps” are recorded and disclosed.
A nuclear option could also face complications in some states, where school charters or statutes give schools control over admissions. However, while some states have dedicated funds that go to schools, most can decide how much money will go to higher education. Taxpayers are not a captive audience. They can condition funding on the adherence to objective and transparent admissions.
I hope that it does not come to such a showdown. But these defiant statements from administrators and academics just may trigger an equal determination in states to put an end to the use of race as an admissions criterion.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Twitter: @jonathanturley
“Some schools would also likely want to allow greater differentials for one category of applicants: athletes.”
In my experience, college athletes are the largest weak link in the academic chain as well as the behavioral chain on college campuses. There are a LOT of athletes on college campuses that really don’t belong within 100 miles of an academic or learning environment, but they are there because football and basketball teams are big money-makers for the schools.
In contrast, professional baseball has a farm system of its own and doesn’t depend on college athletic programs to the extent that pro foolball and basketball does.
Maybe it’s time for the NFL and NBA to create their own farm systems and stop piggybacking on universities to raise the crop of youngsters used (exploited) by billionaire pro sports team owners to create more wealth for themselves. Only a small percentage of college football and basketball players make it to the pros, and I wonder what happens to all those who fall short of that dream. Most weren’t really in college to learn anything, but were there just trying to get a shot at the wealth and fame of pro sports, and when they don’t make it, I have to wonder if they aren’t worse off than if they’d never played colleged sports.
Without having the carrot of wealth and fame via pro sports dangled in front of them, they might have taken their studies more-seriously and actually learned something in college, or in the alternative gone to a trade school.
There are a LOT of athletes on college campuses that really don’t belong within 100 miles of an academic or learning environment,
Football and men’s basketball, fund all the rest of college athletics. All those other athletes are very much above average in standardized test scores.
That doesn’t conflict with what I wrote. The POINT is that while being money-makers for the schools and being farm teams for billionaire pro sports owners, those college football and basketball players drag the MENTALITY (and morality) of the campus down, and leave a great many college football and basketball players with nothing (or less than nothing) to gain from having spent their time in college, playing sports and learning next to nothing.
“. . . those college football and basketball players drag the MENTALITY (and morality) . . .”
BS.
They *elevate” the morality. They are excellence in action, and they give spectators a vision worth looking up to.
From my some 25 years experience in higher education, college athletes (including fball and bball players) are as a group well-behaved and respectful. It is the activist students who tear down the mentality and morality of a campus. Second only to the activist faculty.
Your smear of those athletes as knuckle-dragging dolts betrays an envy of physical prowess.
How about this. Scholarships ONLY if you pass the same admissions process everyone else has to meet.
That makes WAY too much sense. They’ll never go for it.
There has been a minimum level on the SAT’s in place for scholarship athletes since the late ’80’s at the D1 level. Can’t meet it? Do some Juco/post grad prep time to get your number up. Please keep up with the nuances of the system.
“Maybe it’s time for the NFL and NBA to create their own farm systems and stop piggybacking on universities to raise the crop of youngsters used (exploited) by billionaire pro sports team owners to create more wealth for themselves. ”
At least in basketball.
I played basketball in college on scholarship. First of all, it’s basically a full time job so you can’t compare the realities of an athlete with a college student that doesn’t have such a pull on their time. I had a dorm roommate who’d been valedictorian of his class in high school but spiraled in college despite not being involved with athletics. He got so tomahawked before one of his finals he tried to do a flaming shot and missed his mouth, sparked up one side of his face. Still showed up for the final and tried to beg out of it. Gone by the end of the semester…, so college is rough on people no matter the demographic.
What I meant to say is the NBA effectively has a few farm systems available. There’s the G league. There are a couple high level club programs in the States. A couple high school kids went straight to playing in Europe for a couple years before jumping in the draft.
Then they should be employees.
They barely qualify as students in the sense of sports being an activity pursued along with their education.
Sure, go for it. And then legacies can qualify as lawn furniture.
In a very real sense, they ARE employees, only instead of being paid in money via a salary or wage, they are being given a “scholarship” which, in practical terms, is just a minimum wage to play college sports, because only a microscopic percentage of college football or basketball players have the academic brainpower to compete at a high level in sports and simultaneously do well academically.
1.6% make it to pro sports. That leaves 98.4% who were in college but learned next to nothing because they were devoting virtually all of their time to playing football or basketball. Then, after 4 years, that scholarship salary ends, leaving them 4 years older but having learned next to nothing. And we hear no more about them.
On the contrary, playing sports at a high level sharpens the mind as well as the body. Seems you have trouble getting around the cultural realities some athletes come from and mistakenly label it as lack of brain power. Rather you’re just being elitist.
Silly nonsense posted by a paid provocateur. No reputable website would allow people like you to post comments.
Actually, the nonsense is posted by you. Your speculation on the nuances of college athletics is quite simplistic and comical. I lol @ the idea of athletes drifting off into nothingness…, another way of saying that is they graduated and entered the workforce.
And truthfully, at the D1, and even high level D2, scholarship players get ‘run off’ their scholarship every year if there are problems with their role on the team.
You’re blaming the victims of a system for problems within that system
I repeat: No reputable website would allow trash like you to post comments, much less pay you to post comments.
Meanwhile:
“The NCAA graduation rate for athletic scholarship student-athletes (any amount of money received) that graduate from the college they enroll in full time as freshman is roughly 60% within 6 years of enrollment. This means that 40% of all college athletes receiving scholarship money, transfer, leave their school, or do not graduate within 6 years.”
https://www.varsityedge.com/why-college-athlete-fail/
Anon
you mis understand. These people are saying that without being talented athletes these students would never meet the academic requirements needed to be in college. My Google search showed that 40% of those athletes fail to graduate. Culture has nothing to do with study habits or work ethics.
You do know that D1/D2 athletes get tutors automatically, correct? Schools want to protect their investment after all. Also, I can see you also don’t understand that someone can be ‘run off’ their scholarship (and in any higher level program will be run off)? This lord of the flies reality in college athletics contributes mightily to those graduation rates you spoke of….
Let’s explain: say you’re a highly recruited basketball player coming out of high school, but essentially you’re a ‘tweener’. You played the 4 in high school (what was once referred to as a ‘power forward’) but you arrive in the program you’ve been recruited to and find that, in the next level up, you’re really a 2 or 3 by size parameters (shooting guard or small forward)…, much change in how you have to play your game, let’s just say that…
This shift puts you down on the depth chart a little bit. If the school wasn’t in such a win now mindset they’d let you develop into your new position over a couple of seasons…, but no. They want you ready absolutely right now…
Add the cultural factor…., you’ve come from a public high school that isn’t really awesome at preparing their students to the highest level academically and perhaps you grew up in a neighborhood that forces you to essentially learn a new language when you get to college…
Your life is stressful!!! To a degree the average admittee doesn’t have to deal with at all. Add to that, the school’s coach doesn’t have the patience to let you learn the nuances of playing the 2 or 3 inside of one season (in addition to the cultural stresses) and what they do is make your life miserable to drive you off so they can recruit over your head for the next season. That’s if they don’t straight revoke your scholarship. Yes, it’s possible to do that…
See how this drastically affects graduation rate when charting from initial admission? Now you can say the transfer portal, a relatively new development, should affect this data positively, but it’s really only been around a couple years so will take a little more to get true data on this…
Or you can watch fox news and hear talking heads rail on about the knuckle dragging (often black) athletes dragging the institution down when, in reality, that athlete is contributing much more financially to the institution than any average student.
Probably time to bring your views more into reality on the subject.
“Silly nonsense . . .”
Nice ad hominem (per usual). Always a symptom of intellectual impotency.
Well, there are some athletes that do in fact go on after college to become quite successful.
Daniel E. ‘Rudy’ Ruettiger comes to mind. There is a movie about him.
Ever watch the end credits to the movie Miracle?
Also seems to me, athletes tend to have a good understanding about performance, team work, leadership and a degree of strategy. Those with a good sense of strategy generally go on to become coaches.
Just an observation.
There are always exceptions. You’re talking about a minuscule percentage of people — virtually negligible in comparison with the vast wasteland of those who show up to play sports, learn almost nothing academic, and are spit back into society 4 years later and 4 years older with no marketable skill or knowledge.
Again, you’re ignoring the reality of getting run off your scholarship. It’s a business and high level athletes are treated as such….
You’re talking to someone who post playing career went on to coach for 15 years.
Many non athletes are “tossed back” into society with no ‘marketable’ skill. College isn’t a trade school. My other careers I learned outside the context of college. Out in the world of elitists such as yourself.
“. . . playing sports at a high level sharpens the mind . . .”
That is spot on!
Those playbooks, individual assignments, and game plans are intricate and complex. To master them requires a high degree of mental focus.
As well as learning to crisis manage and think on your feet. It’s a high pressure existence for sure.
Actually, I can speak from the basketball angle of being a little guard in a big person’s game…, someone who was more than once literally knocked out from getting run through a back pick and meeting up with a 6’10” players forearm to the back of the head….
Well, let’s just say that every student had to run through active physical resistance from gifted athletes in order to reach the lecture auditorium? Perhaps a bit of an extreme example…, but not really totally out of place.
This in no way denigrates what the hardships of what any student deals with on any level. Life’s often very tough for people no matter their background.
“That leaves 98.4% who were in college but learned next to nothing . . .”
You are clueless about what it takes to be a college athlete.
The fact is they learn a critically important life skill: How to set an important goal, then take sustained action to achieve it.
There’s a good reason companies like to hire those “98.4%.”
“. . . youngsters used (exploited) by billionaire pro sports team owners . . .”
Salary range for *second-round* NBA pick: $1 million to $1.5 million.
I’d love to be “exploited” like that.
You left out the most important values created by college sports: Entertainment, school spirit, achievements worth looking up to.
OT, but related,
Arizona State University faces crisis as donor pulls money, lawmakers probe free speech concerns
https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/arizona-state-university-faces-crisis-donor-pulls-out-and-lawmakers-probe-free
Why not just do away with the college education requirement for a job?
There are computer “bootcamps” that train/educate the student for computer programing/sys admin/cyber security, that can be done in less time for less money and still get a well paying job with a tech company.
Apply that to other careers.
So-called higher education is now higher indoctrination camps. Make them irrelevant.
Companies used a degree as a filter, reduce applicants.
In the 1800’s only the idle rich could afford to get their kids a degree. State colleges grew and expanded and the pool of candidates for college had to grow in order to fill the seats. But still, only the idle rich could afford liberal arts degrees.
There is no reason colleges cant fund all the student loans that can be discharged by bankruptcy.
I can see the gov requiring Endowments underwrite all the loans. As a percentage of their endowment. 2% would not be noticed….if all the loans were lost in bankruptcy. But colleges on the hook for loans would clean this up.
Well said, Dr Turley. Keep ’em honest.
There’s a lot of certification and other requirement that are both costly and subject to undermining by motivated staff. The better solution is for admissions to be removed from direct control by university administrators and everyone currently in those department fired. Then the admissions criteria can be developed and administered by people who do not report through those intent on racial discrimination.
A state-mandated system would come at some cost.
America’s Left are the British Redcoats. Our former “betters”, the British, are in a perpetual state of crisis when it comes to state mandated institutions like health care. Americans need to vote out of office politicians who are intent on being our tomorrow’s betters
A National Treasure, Tarnished: Can Britain Fix Its Health Service?
“As it turns 75, the N.H.S., a proud symbol of Britain’s welfare state, is in the deepest crisis of its history.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/world/europe/uk-nhs-crisis.html
Three comments. 1) If standardized testing is the best indicator of college performance, why do we use other factors in granting admission? In Germany college admission is offered almost exclusively to students who perform well on the Abitur, a stringent and comprehenisive standardized test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur
2) If racial diversity is an aide to learning, why do countries with little or no racial diversity out-perform us on standardized tests? Here is a list of countries with higher scores the the USA on standardized tests in 2018: China; Singapore; Estonia; Japan; South Korea; Canada; Finland; Poland; Ireland; United Kingdom; Slovenia; New Zealand; Netherlands; Denmark; Germany; Belgium; Australia; Switzerland; Norway; and Czech Republic. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scores-by-country 3) The real nuclear option is not state control of college admissions, but the abolition of state colleges. Let colleges survive on the fees paid by students (or other private sources) and admit whomever they want as students. But the rest of us will not pay for their schooling.
Edward, absolutely?
Ither (sic: Scottish) way the Collages & States Play it, 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 it produce a Student that “knows how to compete” effectively in this World?
[Educational-Efficacy] Or will the Students produced be reliant on some type of: Advantage, Privilege, or Allowance too succeed in this World?
I think colleges and universities should be allowed to decide who attends the institution. In Boston Harvard would probably keep their policies for incoming freshmen the same as they have been. But for example, suppose Northeastern University decides to accept incoming freshmen on academic achievement only. That’s their business also. This would let the educational market decide how schools would be rated and probably what institutions top high school students would want to apply to.
“I think colleges and universities should be allowed to decide who attends the institution.”
Not if they are publicly funded. Public funding means public input. Public funding means government, which means legislative and judicial oversight.
Sorry Sam, left that part out. Free market doesn’t allow government money.
When I was an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley back in the 80s, my pre-law advisor (a Chinese-American) told me that the Univ. looks the other way on “struggle stories” because they have to. She said virtually every black student at Cal came from an upper-middle class, (or wealthy) family with educated parents, but they all wrote personal essays claiming to be from the ghetto. It was obvious they weren’t, simply by looking at home addresses and high schools attended, but the Univ ignored it, because in the 60s when they actually admitted ghetto students, they all flunked out in their first year. Thus, in order to graduate some blacks, they have to admit blacks with privileged backgrounds. She said the ones from middle-class backgrounds will tend to cluster in “cocoon majors” like African-American Studies where they self-segregate and have an assured success, and the black students from elite backgrounds are the only ones who venture into classes with whites and Asians, such as business and science. I knew a black student there whose mother was a black physician and his father was a white physician from England. He graduated from Bethesda Chevy-Chase High School, one of the wealthiest in the U.S. He majored in chemistry at Cal, but told me he only needed a “C” average to get into medical school. He was admitted to med school at U.C. Davis and flunked pediatrics and pharmacology his first year, but was allowed to repeat them in the summer. After that, he buckled down and graduated; went on to a residency at Michigan. But he told me the same story, that black med students from lower educational backgrounds flunked out permanently. So faced with this dilemma, I think top-ranked colleges will continue to admit privileged blacks and Hispanics and look the other way on their obviously false “struggle stories.”
Just another example of where government involvement has led to a mess. Get federal money out of colleges and shut down the Department of Education.
* Liked by 5
“. . . quietly formed teams to plan how they might evade such a ruling and continue to use race in admissions.” (JT)
They’ll do exactly what they’ve done in the past — concoct a con game. To wit:
The applications from a certain geographical area (which just happens to be predominantly black) get a blue sticky circle on their folder. The blue stickies have priority status. Why, allegedly, do those applicants get a blue sticky? Because they’re from a geographical area disproportionally harmed by “climate change.”
Presto: Black applicants are magically transformed into “economically disadvantaged” ones. And any claims of racism or flouting SCOTUS are defanged.
(And, yes, I’ve seen it personally. It’s like watching a sleight-of-hand con artist. And they actually were blue stickies.)
Why not legalize discrimination, just like how marijuana was legalized, and see what happens? Why not apply the concept of choice to other areas of life, not just that of abortion?
Would that allow for private business to ask blacks to sit at a separate lunch counter? I mean, since these POC already want separate dorms and graduation ceremonies for their particular race, would it now be fine to deny POC entrance to hotels and nice restaurants, separate seating for them on airplanes etc. Do these dense little noggins not see where this will go if unchecked. Just how blinkered and uneducated have so many become as to not even understand the basics?
There is a perfectly functioning remedy already available. Torts.
No need to change laws. SCOTUS has just determined that colleges that accept public funding can not discriminate on the basis of race. If a student beleives there admission was denied on the basis of Race – they can file a lawsuit. If they win they can collect damaged.
It is highly likely that any efforts by colleges to discriminate based on race will result in class action lawsuits.
The current cases were brought specifically because of discrimination against asians.
Is there any doubt that the parents of college age asian students are prepared to take Harvard to court if their children’s admisstions are negatively impacted by race ?
The long term best solution to this problem is to eliminate public funding of education.
Then colleges can do as they please
But they will be answerable to students and their parents who are responsible for funding.
All we are seeing in colleges is the horrible unintended consequences when the state messes with free markets.
Free markets are not perfect.
They are just better than anything else.
Just my opinion, but the problem with state intervention is that university administrators and faculty have been simmering in the pot of race-based admissions for over 30 plus years. Their institutional bias is already baked in the cake. They won’t change.
DeSantis just placed Christopher Rufo on the board of New College. This will be interesting to follow.
I disagree with the professor. The nuclear option is needed now! I have argued that for some time. States chartered so-called universities and then funded them and then set them adrift. It’s time to haul them in and re-institute the illumination of sunlight on admissions. BY law re-institute standardized testing for all state and private institutions in your state or they get no charter. There are some people who seemed to do poorly on standardized testing but they can be trained and educated on how to do better. A key feature is “Know the material”. Strange but true.
You also need to institute grading reform and make it clearly open to scrutiny and understanding. As far back as the 1960’s there were professors rigorous in their fairness of grading and others who would pick and choose who they passed or graded well or not.
If Universities receive state or federal monies then that can be forced to do so. Make it by law so if they break the law, and many will, then they can be fired. Should open up slots of other more diverse thinking people.
Limit tenure to a finite number of years and lay out specific goals for renewal of tenure as it gets ready to expire. Put hiring at the Dean or Board levels with limits and outline clearly the means of how you asses.
Tenure has obviously not been well used to protect diversity of thought and so it should be limited or removed. Having treated a few Deans and College professors over the decades, I know that many tenured professors stay very productive on the job but many retire on the job. You can see the same thing in medical groups and law firms when senior partners attain perks that make them, in fact, tenured.
Remember in many universities the Dean of a school often controls resources of personnel and space. A good Dean will use that power to removed unproductive faculty that are tenured. Let’s make their jobs easier within limits.
Janet Napolitano-“Don’t confuse me with facts”. Standardized tests work and work well. They expose lack of knowledge no matter how it’s gained. Seemed to nail my math deficiency every single time.
Lastly accrediting commissions need to be brought to heel and fast.
Why the need to make a system so complicated that it invites difficult to define and monitor admission/selection loopholes like “Some students do not perform well on standardized tests” or “Others have particularly impressive background stories.”? The difficulty with these two examples is that, in general, there is really no reliable and reproducible way to confirm that a ‘poor standardized test taker’ really knows their stuff or that there is general agreement as to what constitutes a ‘particularly impressive background story’.
A more direct solution:
Any faculty determined to be engaged in or attempting to circumvent admission policies designed to eliminating racial discrimination will lose tenure and become ineligible for tenure at any future time.
Any university employee determined to be engaged in or attempting to circumvent admission policies designed to eliminating racial discrimination will be terminated and become ineligible for re-hire.
Any university determined to be engaged in or attempting to circumvent admission policies designed to eliminating racial discrimination will become ineligible for any and all taxpayer funds.
Then, there is accreditation. The institute must adhere to federal law in order to participate in federal student loans and to have final Department of Education approval for accreditation.
The schools myst also be held accountable for legacy admissions. I am familiar with at least one wealthy person making a multimillion dollar donation and presto! His son was admitted to the institution’s well-known medical school.
Must
Was the son academically qualified?
He was but I don’t think he was a standout-brilliant student. Dad is a well-known and gifted surgeon as well as this person’s older brother. He managed to complete the program, residency and surgical fellowship. That is quite an accomplishment, however he had dad helping him open the really good doors so to speak.
There is a lot of wink and nod deals go down every day.
In many places such a showdown is inevitable, the cancer is deep.
Next up, faculty hiring and “diversity statements.” Then, hiring of administrators. It is all inevitable.
Better option to END Federal Aid/loans to college…along with taking away their non-profit status…given they get millions to work there and ARE FOR PROFIT
if there is a use for colleges…then people will pay….else…they can get JOBS.
“Black and Latino admissions would “plummet”. As a Black American I say the above Quote sounds like the “Bell curve” has credibility. We dominate in major sports but require “special consideration” for Academic achievement. Solution ? Follow the Texas example. If you are in the top 6 % of your graduating class you are guaranteed admission to state colleges.. Diversity achieved, problem solved. What say you ?
Well, as you know, there are widely different qualities in secondary schools. To get to the top 6% in some you have to be a genius, while in others, you just need to read and speak English. In time, I suspect parents will learn where to send little Johnny so that he can make the top 6% and get into the University of Texas automatically.
Wise old
Good school / bad school Black or white, my solution is solid. State colleges are getting the best that THEIR state has to offer. Diversity achieved. Not all wil graduate. Now it is a serious insult for me to hear it said that We Blacks need Special help to achieve academically. The top 10% are the best chance of breaking the stereotype. We have too many actors, ball players, and entertainers. That 6% will give us more engineers, doctors and lawyers.