Comments on: Bush Accepts Democratic Talking Point

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:27:32 +0000

Matt: It seems to me that Edward’s argument is a classic tu quoque. The point is to say that those awful Republicans aren’t really in favor of merit—they’re in favor of helping themselves, as legacies to ivy league schools,etc. Edward’s argument, then, isn’t an argument in favor of merit; it’s an argument that merit isn’t how we normally do things, so race preferences aren’t an exception. As for my previous comment, I was thinking of this line from Bowen and Bok’s famous work: “”Deciding which students have the most ‘merit’ depends on what one is trying to achieve.” That’s the approach I see so often in academic circles—but apparently that’s not how people think in Wisconsin, and I’m thankful for that.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:49:24 +0000

I’m a Democrat and believe strongly in meritocracy. I just happen to define merit in many ways. So in my definition of merit, neither W nor Condi Rice would be at the top of a meritocracy.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:09:06 +0000

No. I mean, Thomas, what are you talking about? This is objectively a Democratic talking point—the article mentions that Democrats, including Edwards, are talking about it. And I just don’t understand your most recent remark. You really do seem to spend your days in a world of your own devising.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:37:08 +0000

Matt, you spend your days in a place where the word “merit” always appears with the scare quotes, don’t you?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:28:58 +0000

The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both. Thomas, that is unusually rank bullshit, even for you.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:28:54 +0000

The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both. Thomas, that is unusually rank bullshit, even for you.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:05:52 +0000

Where in the quoted piece did Bush accept a Democratic talking point? The Democrats oppose reliance on merit, believing the concept fanciful or racist, or both. They don’t want to throw over legacies, or do away with race-based preferences in admissions. They’re perfectly comfortable with those systems. rea, why is it that the journalists at the event and covering it for CNN seem confused about the difference between quotas and affirmative action? Why is it that they felt they must press Bush to supply the distinction? Isn’t it as obvious to them as it is to you?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:12:14 +0000

quote Harvard and other Ivy league schools still give preference to legacies. A certain number of slots are reserved each year for children of wealthy alumni who would not otherwise qualify. It was revealed in the 90’s that the admit group with the lowest grades and SAT scores was not the athletes but rather the legacies. end quote That’s right, of the four groups in admissions, minorities are the second highest, not the lowest. The belief is that if you get rid of legacy admissions, you will open up slots for more students, including more minorities who are better qualified than the white kids in the legacy slots. Is that true? I’m not sure. But … What is interesting is that moving to “top 10%” has resulted in a lot of kids not getting in, but the kids who do get in in Texas seem to work harder. And the hidden class bias which often came up in quota style admissions seems to be going away. So, for the poster who said: quote But say you don’t like race as a factor. How about hard work? Shouldn’t a kid from a non-college background, say, urban ghetto or barefoot rural, who manages to get good grades, but maybe not stellar, holds down a job in high school not for luxuries but to help support the family, stays out of trouble, etc., be given a chance? Aren’t those the kind of qualities that also spell success in both society and college? I would argue that those kids have as good or better a chance of college success than the kids who have gotten straight A’s, done volunteer work, extracurricular music and sports, etc. My own experience is that the students aware of how hard they or their parents have worked to make it possible to get an education tend to take it much more seriously. Seems to be right. More experimentation, federalism, not top down mandates, will tell us alot. I’m not sure that some states should not be allowed to have quotas just to allow comparison with those who don’t.

By: bull

bull — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 22:09:27 +0000

btw, the grammar in my last sentence in my post above is appalling. I’m horrified. I’ve already kicked myself several times and may very well cry myself to sleep tonight.

By: bull

bull — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:49:13 +0000

Kind of a smarmy link to a smarmy article. Do you really not understand the difference between quotas in particular and affirmative action generally? Obviously, affirmative action could take the form of quotas (that is, if not unconstitutional), but it could also take many other forms. All I can think is they were laughing because they have a reflexive dislike of W and believe him stupid, and so before thinking they smirked and sneered at his obvious ignorance when it was they, not him, who was ignorant.

By: rea

rea — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:31:46 +0000

Tony, there have been no quotas in US affirmative action programs since the mid-70’s, when the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in the Bakke decision. The present day issue is concerns the extent to which race can be taken into account as a factor, through means other than quotas.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:38:14 +0000

Didn’t Brown just make a hihg profile announcement that it was scrapping legacies? I thought everyone knew about legacies. Certainly, all my colleagues who went to Harvard etc, and have kids, know plenty about them. Affirmative action for the already-advantaged. If Bush opposes them he should adopt a ‘name-and-shame’ policy. Otherwise it’s just words.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:02:59 +0000

It is not uncommon for legacies to not know about the extra admission help.
Sometimes because the admissions office actively creates false impressions about its policies. When I was applying to college (‘87-’88) the people that the Harvard admissions office sent around said that legacy status could be used as a tie-breaker. While I was there a discrimination lawsuit forced the release of the admissions records, which AFAICT private colleges usually keep top-secret. As I remember, it turned out that legacies were admitted from a separate pool, and the admissions from that pool were much higher (43 percent to 16 percent in the class of 1993).
I just dug up this paragraph from a 9/18/91 Boston Globe story: Yet even those stark numbers paled before still more unseemly testimony to how much weight the “legacy” label gives an otherwise flimsy file. This evidence consisted of the bald-faced comments scrawled by Harvard admissions officers on the folders of various legacy applicants. “Lineage is main thing,” went one evaluation; judged another: “Without lineage, there would be little case. With it, we will keep looking.” Other scribblings gave a still more eyebrow-raising glimpse of a controversial practice in action: “Double lineage but lots of problems”; “Double lineage who chose the right parents”; “lineage tips it, i guess.” One official even wrote: “Classical case that would be hard to explain to dad.” In each of these cases the applicant was admitted. So it does sound as though some schools admit people entirely because they’re legacies. And Harvard is known for its self-respect.

By: Anjali

Anjali — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:00:03 +0000

Moriveth comments: “Legacy admissions, like affirmative action, result in students getting in who would otherwise would not without that additional “plus” (permitted in the case of race by the SCOTUS). P.S. Apologies for pointing out the obvious.” Well, that’s an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Legacy refers to an extra “plus” for students whose parents attended this institution. This extra “plus” is in ADDITION to the “plus” that they already have—which in most cases includes their social status, privilege as a white person (as most legacy cases are), and wealth and education from their family). Affirmative action on the other hand, refers to either a “plus” if you look at it that way, or a “reparation” for all the generations of crap that we gave to black slaves and their descendents. I would argue that most of these students would have gotten in without that “plus” had their families in this generation and in generations past had access to all the things that white people have access to, and access to the other factors I mentioned above.

By: Joe O

Joe O — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:27:35 +0000

Most schools give extra points for legacies. I would be surprised if Chris D’s school didn’t. It is not uncommon for legacies to not know about the extra admission help. It is not in the student’s or the school’s interest to have employers consider legacies to be less qualified than other potential employees. There are a lot of weird issues that make school admission less than the meritocratic ideal. I went to Johns Hopkins and apparently they have a relatively fixed number of financial aid packages. A first tier of students is accepted irregardless of the parent’s ability to pay. The second tier of acceptances is only sent to students whose parents have enough money to pay the full ride. This is probably common for selective schools that don’t have the endowment of an ivy league school.