|
In response to
"If the amount of melanin in a person's skin isn't putting them ahead of people with less melanin then why are we considering it at all?"
by
Ender
|
Not necessarily. And that's the point. How are you not getting this. Is your view that it should be just a formulaic determination based on grades
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Dec 10 '15, 16:41
|
and SAT scores? Because admissions directors would tell you that's nuts. In fact there are schools out there that are dropping SAT's altogether as a requirement because they don't find them to be determinative of performance. Admitting kids to a school is more like a GM putting together a football team. Sometimes you are looking beyond pure measurable. You're looking at character, special skills, what does this particular need to fill a hole. Sometimes the player with the faster 40 isn't the best fit for your system. Why does one team draft a guy in the 2nd round when another team has him as a fourth rounder. That's what's going on here. And when you are building a student body diversity (not just color, but ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) is meaningful. It benefits everyone. There is also a recognition that the system skews in favor of white kids (for a host of reasons) in the real world and so when making evaluations to bring balance to the system, among all the many criteria being subjectively considered, a check mark is added in favor of diverse students (just as other checkmarks get added to white students for things beyond their sole objective merit). Again, it is not (nor is the case at issue alleging) that it is the criteria. Those were the old cases where there were quotas. That's not what's at issue here.
|