The New Republic

So now the curve has graduated from the classroom to public policy. Great! Are the racial demagogues going to start complaining about how the system is rigged for white/Asian achievers, who "ruin the curve"?

- jm_rice

May 29, 2007 at 2:45pm

According to the figures of the article to which the post links, black enrollment has increased over 13% and hispanic enrollment has increased almost 22%. Yet the article dismisses these increases ("Minority enrollment at UT has not changed significantly"), and the post states that the overall effect has been to decrease the number of minority students. That's certainly possible, as the rather impressive increases may be due to other factors, but I think some justification for this statement might be called for.

- clifton

May 29, 2007 at 3:07pm

And while I'm on the topic, I think the post avoids the central issue: namely what the true purpose of a state's flagship institution should be. If it to be the best university the state can produce, if it should focus on creating world class research, and drawing innovative people and companies to Texas, then clearly the University should admit the best prepared students, even if they all come from a few top suburban schools. Let the rest of the school system worry about improving the children of the inner cities and rural areas. But if the purpose of the University of Texas is to serve the general educational needs of students throughout the state, then I don't see what's wrong with the 10% plan. Sure some students who are only talented enough to make the 15% in the suburbs will get left out, but why is that worse than leaving out students who are talented enough to make the top 10% in farming country? And I should point out that having 100% of UT's student body being top 10% students isn't a realistic concern, as a moment's thought about the numbers involved will reveal. Now it's 66% of freshman. To go to 100%, the population of Texas would have to expand by 50% without the University of Texas expanding its class size at all. Clearly, this is ridiculous.

- clifton

May 29, 2007 at 3:21pm

The state of Florida adopted a similar 10% plan under then Governor Jeb Bush, after affirmative action considerations were abolished at state universities, thanks in part to the efforts of businessmen and anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly.

In 1999 I confronted Mr. Connerly during his speech and open forum at Nova Southeastern University in Davie Florida. I asked Mr. Connerly about the predicted drop in admissions of minority students, specifically to postgraduate law and medical schools. I got no substantive answer from Mr. Connerly as to these predicted consequences of ending affirmative action considerations.

Low and behold, in 2002, when the first preliminary numbers started coming out, the number of minority students being admitted to law and medical school had dropped by between 17 % and 26 % overall, and by more than a third (34% to 37%) at the top tier law and medical schools in Florida, schools that already had only 1% to 2.5 % minority enrollments to begin with.

While law and medical schools along with four year universities across the state had already been searching for ways to up their minority enrollments, they immediately redoubled their efforts at the urging of educators, the governor and legislators. As of 2005 this effort had met with with some success at increasing the numbers of Black and Hispanic students admitted to postgraduate programs, but from an overall perspective the numbers were still down.

In light of such trends resulting from the abolition of affirmative action, it's important to consider that taking the top 10% from high schools across the state and dumping them in universities and colleges does nothing to address the problems faced by students who receive substandard elementary and secondary education before reaching college. Such students must often struggle in remedial classes for the first two or three years of their education, and are much less likely to go on to graduate programs. Minority students are overrepresented in this group, most often coming from the poorer worst-performing school districts across the state. Being given a free pass to university does not make up for 12 years of substandard education. For those students who do overcome these difficulties, it's especially important to give them consideration when applying to graduate programs

It's also important to consider the ramifications for society as a whole when taking actions that reduce the number of minorities becoming doctors and lawyers. In Florida there is already a glut of legal professionals serving the larger and more affluent urban areas, like South Florida, Orlando, Jacksonville etc., while the poorer rural areas are often severely underserved, relegating their populations to public hospitals and local clinics supported by federal dollars. Even in the cities, the ratio of doctors and lawyers serving the wealthier communities is extremely high, while their less well-off counterparts, perhaps right across the tracks or across the street have far fewer qualified professionals serving their needs.

There's a important motive for encouraging a specific group, like Black women, to pursue careers in the medical field. On average Black females tend to choose specialties which are often most needed by these underserved communities, specialties like obstetrics, gynecology and pediatrics. Women in general tend to choose these specialties at a much higher rate, something like 75%, but minority women specifically tend to wind up serving minority communities where these services are most needed.

It's difficult not to be cynical about an emerging community of white male doctors, who on average tend to serve white affluent communities, for no better reason than the income such choices provides, allows them to buy a nice house and a new Porsche within five years of completing medical school. I believe it's important for our society to encourage minorities and women who come from less affluent and privileged backgrounds to pursue the medical and legal fields because on average these graduates tend to return to their communities and serve them at a much higher rate than white middle-class males. That's just the reality here in the US.

As a society, we need to ask ourselves do we have an interest in providing these fundamental services to everyone in our community, and what lengths are we willing to go to continue making this happen.

In addition, encouraging minority admissions to the top tier law and medical schools across the country helps promote greater minority representation at the most influential levels of these fields, politically and academically. I believe our society has a vested interest in pursuing such a course as well.

- AaronBBrown

May 29, 2007 at 10:08pm

I suppose this is a rather academic discussion for non-Texans and those who applied for college admissions prior to the Hopwood decision. I have a personal vendetta against the 10% rule. Through a rather atypical series of events, I ended up applying to UT's undergraduate program with no high school class rank. Despite having an SAT at the 99th percentile, and what I would consider a strong application in other respects, I was rejected. I'm still upset about it. My rationalizing instincts tell me that this was largely due to space requirements, and the 10% rule. One of the stranger consequences that I've seen come out of the 10% rule is that there's actually an incentive for students to attend "worse" high schools. My school was suburban and competitive, in an area with a high percentage of white-collar professionals, and the often-stereotyped Asian over-achievers. A few miles away was a heavily industrial, lower income area with a . Perhaps this was simply local rumor---I didn't know anyone personally--but as far as I know, in order to beat the system, a few students would find ways to transfer to the less competitive school to secure their college admissions. With regard to the previous comment... "But if the purpose of the University of Texas is to serve the general educational needs of students throughout the state, then I don't see what's wrong with the 10% plan." Texas public universities do in fact serve this purpose. The UT system itself is much larger than simply UT-Austin, and has large branches in Dallas, Arlington, El Paso, and San Antonio, among others. Separate public universities in Texas (like A&M, UNT, UH, TWU, SFA, and TSU) also contribute to this end. It's never been a question of access, since nearly anyone in this state can get into a public university. UT-Austin is the "flagship" because it has the best overall graduate programs, the most financial muscle, and the most prestigious faculty of the state universities. (Not to mention the Longhorns.) The question is whether it uses these resources effectively.

- guyminuslife

May 29, 2007 at 10:19pm

As one who has suffered plenty of academic rejections, plus plenty of academic successes, been a college trustee, founded a primary school, and had four different successful careers, let me assure you that there is plenty of life after rejection at UT. It is possible to get a top-flight education at any one of 400 to 500 colleges and universities. Contrary to the myth peddled by colleges as part of their marketing effort, once you get past Harvard, Yale, and, perhaps, Stanford, the prestige of the university you attend has very little to do with your life's outcome. Ten years later, no one is interested in where you went to college. It is only the Harvard graduates who somehow manage, within 5 minutes of starting a conversation, to say something to let you know they went to Harvard, e.g., "When I was living in Cambridge . . ." When I hear this, I always feel like asking, "So, the on ly successful thing you ever did was get into Harvard, huh?" Have you noticed by the way the Martin Peretz does this constantly? A clear indication of his intellectual insecurity, no doubt well-earned in his case. I spent one semester as a visiting student at Harvard Law School and was truly shocked to discover how inferior the education was to the law school where I got my degree. And the students were, in large numbers, lazy and indifferent, also a sharp contrast. I have a theory that, once you adjust for the socio-economic status of their parents, Harvard graduates far under-perform their peers. And I think the reason why, as I saw vividly in the law school, is that once they are admitted, they figure they already have it made and the motivation for striving wanes. When I read about people who do really interesting things, relatively few of them come from the so-called "elite" institutions. So, cheer up. The hustle, ambition, and thirst for knowledge of the student is far more important than the label on the diploma. Recognize too that rewards are not distributed equitably in our society. It is not the first time you will be short-changed according to some abstract calculus. And you will no doubt often be the one rewarded when others were in some cosmic sense more deserving. Adjusting to this rejection is the beginning of wisdom and the first real step on your path to success.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 5:07am

To second what roidubouloi said, once the cap and gown of graduation comes off, it does not really matter which school you go to. As an employee who does interviews for my company, I check to see if you have relevant experience, and if you have a degree, I check to see what your major was, not where it came from.
As someone who worked full time and attended college, at the University of Texas at Dallas (which is located in Richardson), the day I graduated changed my status at work by - wait for it - giving me a diploma that everyone else already had. A degree offers many indications to employers: evidence of diligence and a certain acquired base of knowledge, but its your own ability to learn and perform that really matter, and those cannot be taught by any school.

- anonevent

May 30, 2007 at 10:36am

I guess we are saying that, obviously, it would be nice to go to the school of your choice, and if you don't get in, you hope that it isn't for reasons of quota. In the larger scheme of things, does it really matter? That's pretty subjective. I mean if you had you heart set on mannying Jill, and she said "no", you might have still got married, had great kids, and all that -your material outcome might not have been affected -by you may still think of what might have been. College might be a little like that. The counterbalance is an underclass yearning for role models, and in need of a path to produce them in sufficient quantity to reach some sort of critical mass.

- raycon

May 30, 2007 at 12:32pm

Lets take a look at the elephant in the corner. Affirmative action, be it through 10% or otherwise, results in blacks clustering at the bottom of grade range and asians at the top. Majors are not created equal. Math and physics are harder than English, Psych, and African-American studies. This means that asians are overrepresented in math, physics and other technical majors and underrepresented in English and Psych. Conversely, blacks are overrepresented in the other subjects. There are other problems. Affirmative action reinforces stereotypes in a negative way. Everyone knows that blacks get lower grades and asians get higher grades. This is not secret knowledge. Yes, there are exceptions. But you can make good money by betting liberals that black students get lower grades by white students. The house has a real edge here. Wouldn't it be nice to drop affirmative action? That way when it comes time to form study groups or find lab partners, that people won't avoid black students? So that blacks won't feel like they have to hide in the corners, embaress themselves, let the group down?

- jibaholic

May 30, 2007 at 12:39pm

Heh. I think I delved a bit too far into my personal gripes there. The more general pronouncement was that I think the 10% rule limits the University's options as to picking non-traditional applicants (like myself, or various others with different kinds of backgrounds) which might strengthen the school as a whole. If the interest were truly diversity, which, judging from the article and what I can attest to, it isn't, it's a goal more readily achieved by more direct, more traditional means than the current subterfuge.

- guyminuslife

May 30, 2007 at 1:48pm

It would be interesting to evaluate how many students throughout the state are the first in their families to go to college as a result of the policy, and how many former 10% students acquired knowledge that helped them to get what they want out of life. Texas has many strong public universities, and two systems, UT and A&M, very well funded via the Permanent University Fund, AKA oil money. The 10% rule may threaten UT's status as the public school with the power to confer the most prestige, but it may enhance the school's abilities to change lives and build the economic base and brain trust of the state. If you live in Texas and simply must go to UT, spend your first year at one of the city college systems, where you will save money and learn in small classes taught by fully-qualified, English-speaking faculty. After that, it is easy to transfer to UT for your sophomore year.

- stoney_s

May 30, 2007 at 2:06pm

But it also has the very noble purpose of spreading the benefits that attach to a UT education more widely and reducing the stratification of our society. Picking great linebackers for the Longhorns also entails some costs, denying an enrollment spot that might also go to non-traditional applicants. The great lie of college admissions is that there exists an objective standard of merit that the institution departs from only for specific purposes. The institution selects whatever mix of students it thinks will advance its undubitably competing goals. If you happen to fit, you get in. If you don't, you don't. The thing that is shameful is that they all convey to vulnerable young people the idea that they are making decisions based on "merit" and that rejection is therefore a judgment about merit. They don't and it isn't.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 3:47pm

You made an interesting point in one of your earlier posts, namely that the 10% law provides an incentive for students to transfer to worse schools to beat the system (though you said you didn't know if anyone did this). It seems to me that if this practice were common, it might be a good thing for the state's education system in general. Part of what makes many schools bad is that there is no culture of achievement within the school. But if there's an incentive for good students to switch to bad schools, it might be that everyone benefits. I should say that I'm a postdoc at my state's flagship institution, and from a purely selfish standpoint, I would much rather have you, someone who didn't quite make the top 10% in his school, but who is nonetheless well-prepared for college, than someone from a crappy urban or rural school, who may have a lot of talent but only has essentially a 9th grade education, in on of my classes. But does that serve the aims of the institution? I honestly don't know. I think it may depend on what those aims are.

- clifton

May 30, 2007 at 3:47pm

I think you may be too idealistic in assessing the value of a state's flagship institution. Sure, maybe you can get as good of an education going somewhere else and working hard, but will you find fellow alumni that will look kindly on you in the hiring process? When faced with a stack of 50 resumes some of which need to be immediately discarded, will yours make the first cut? It would be nice to have some figures on this, but I suspect that name recognition and alumni contacts are a big part of the value of a college.

- clifton

May 30, 2007 at 3:54pm

"But it also has the very noble purpose of spreading the benefits that attach to a UT education more widely and reducing the stratification of our society." The 10% plan does nothing to eliminate the "stratification of our society" because it only transfers the feelings of aggrievement. I work in a community college and though I studied at a flagship state school, I just find this talk about who "deserves" to be at a place like UT-Austin utterly disagreeable. While it would never fly in this society the only way to achievement "fairness" (if there is such a thing) is to have open admissions (like a community college) and force students to make academic progress. While it is seen as "noble" to be seen as helping black and Hispanic students I find it frustrating that Asians are ultimately punished for academic achievement. Now THAT is stratification (and rather racist).

- saruyamasan

May 30, 2007 at 4:19pm

isn't such a bad thing either. If the experience of inadequate resources were not confined to particular ethnic communities, it might help us recognize that we have a collective interest in the education of all of our children. I was super-duper-hyper-over-qualified for the undergraduate institution of my choice, one of those Ivy things. But I was competing not against the general pool but against others of similar demographics and was not admitted. I had to settle for a second-tier Ivy and left there rather quickly once I realized the limitations of that type of education. Further, despite a 4.0 as a Freshman, I still couldn't transfer to my still preferred choice because at that time, having just gone co-ed, they were only accepting women as transfers. I got hit once by being sorted into a demographic pool and then a second time because of my sex. It didn't kill me because I was already coming from a highly advantaged background, two college-educated, professional parents and one of those celebrated suburban school systems. And that has made all the difference. Had I just slid into a traditional high-end slot, I would have been just another whatever. Having been forced to think about my future and make my own, I have had a life of variety and success I do not believe I would otherwise have achieved. Heck, it never even would have occurred to me. The sort of discrimination I encountered is what Asians face today. (I have two Chinese daughters too so I am not unsympathetic). But it is simply a mistake to deny the large random aspect of college admissions. That randomization is actually a great strength of American education. I have spent the last three years in France and I am coming home because I don't want my kids to spend any more time in the French school system. Here, they have super high stakes tests at the end of high school, the kids are sorted out according to the level of university they will be permitted to attend (the "Grandes

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 4:49pm

Since I actually do go through resumes and filter down to those I would like to interview, I actually do have experience in this area. In the group I work in, we don't even look at the actual school other than to see if anyone has a degree. We look at the type of degree received and weigh that in as part of the person's experience. I am probably biased in this way because I worked full time and attended college, but I have seen people from "better" colleges not have the kind of experience I would expect out of a senior developer.

- anonevent

May 30, 2007 at 5:17pm

It's been a while since I was in the position of sorting through resumes, but I too never gave much thought to the school attended. I was always interested in evidence of high motivation, first and foremost

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 5:38pm

That's good to hear, and certainly I'm out of my area of expertise, but how common do you think your practices are? My impression is that a degree in computer science from Berkeley is worth considerably more in many peoples eyes than one from a Cal State school.

- clifton

May 30, 2007 at 6:38pm

On the basis of the comments here, one does tend to wonder if colleges are less of academic institutions than social-networking clubs. Although roudubouli's earlier comment makes me chuckle, since I'm sure all but the most aggressive students would be happy to settle for a "second-tier" Ivy. Clifton, one minor note. I did not graduate inside or outside of the top 10%. I had no class rank. I am unsure what my rank would have been had I proceeded traditionally.

- guyminuslife

May 30, 2007 at 6:50pm

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but I see two assumptions that I do not agree with. "If the experience of inadequate resources were not confined to particular ethnic communities

- saruyamasan

May 30, 2007 at 7:26pm

After dumping (i.e. transferring out of) the Ivy League, I went to an extremely non-traditional college, no grades, no traditional majors. When the time came, got into a great law school anyway. It really is what you do with your time in school. A Berkeley degree will carry more weight for a little bit than Cal State only because people rely on universities for sorting and screening. But I would take the A student at Cal State over the B student at Berkeley any day because I assume that anyone admitted to a college could be an A student at that college if they made the effort. The A at Cal State made that effort. The B at Berkeley didn't. The same person, whether coming Cal State or Berkeley, will have comparable opportunities, maybe through different routes, maybe with some more effort. But the one who has to push for it will likely rise higher in the end. The perspiration is more important than the inspiration. Einstein said that. Yesterday, a prima ballerina told me that lots of people have the raw talent; the difference between the prima and everyone else is brains and willpower, said she. I believe it.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 7:36pm

A full explanation would take too much time, but two things: Very few people in American would willing trade the hand they were dealt for the hand dealt to black Americans. You see what you regard as certain preferences. You're not seeing all the disadvantages to be overcome. It is not a bad thing for society to even up the odds a little. I didn't say admissions are random, but the results are more than a little random if you are looking at numerical measures. The reason is that colleges are in the business of trading prestige for money. What they strive to do is to have their graduates well represented in lucrative and prestigious employment, which confers prestige on them and lets them lure the next crop. A lot of what determines future wealth and prestige is socioeconomic status of one's parents, plus a lot of oddball things they look at to diversify their portfolio -- not particularly in terms of the obvious ethnic diversity, but in terms of where their students end up. Whether you happen to fit some profile they are looking for with an eye to their own future, not yours, can be very serendipitous. If you are capable and motivated, you will find enough opportunity to show your stuff.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 7:44pm

I don't want totally to beat it to death, but the point of my story was that I was the same person whether I was accepted at a school for which I was qualified and wanted to attend or at something considered a bit less prestigious or, ultimately, by my choice, a lot less prestigious. The school didn't make me. I was me. You don't need UT to make your life for you. These fine calibrations of prestige are really of interest only to people in the academic system. Yeah, there's a difference between Harvard College and Lackawanna Junior Community College. But that's not the difference we are talking about. If you were capable of doing the work at UT, you are not going to end up at Lackawanna, even if you have to start there.

- roidubouloi

May 30, 2007 at 7:54pm

Mr Levinson - the issue isn't affirmative action per se, it's melanin-based aff action. Nothing wrong with income- or class-based aff action of the sort that the 10% approach approximates.

- teplukhin

May 30, 2007 at 8:09pm

Americans are overwhlemingly opposed to race-based a.a. I doubt that most Americans would have a problem with income- or class-based a.a., which isn't free of problems but at least makes a hell of a lot more sense, in 2007 America, than our current the buppie preference system that does zip for low-income kids of any race.

- teplukhin

May 30, 2007 at 8:11pm

I don't want to seem whiny or monomaniacal. I'm pretty comfortable where I am and where I'm headed. It's simply that the "college college college" thing is beaten to death in us in high school, nowadays, I'm sure, more than ever. Intellectually, I know you're right. But it's still a tough thing to get over, and one that takes, perhaps, a degree of worldliness to realize on a more significant level. That being said, and more topically, it seems like a better idea to have schools apportion points, similar to Michigan pre-Bollinger, and, while it obviously could not consider race, simply have a category for underrepresented in-state high schools. The same ends are achieved, but the hard-and-fast rule is avoided.

- guyminuslife

May 30, 2007 at 8:55pm

It is the first great disappointment that many successful young people encounter in their lives. But you not only get over it, you thrive in a way that the self-satisfied do not. Good luck.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2007 at 12:53am

The reason is that colleges are in the business of trading prestige for money.

I agree that this is a large part of the business of private liberal arts colleges and ivy-league schools. It isn't as big a part of the traditional mission of most state schools. UT is a prestige school for many who went there, but not so much for graduates of Texas A&M.

State schools tend to to well in developing students for fields where measurable achievement is important: medicine, business, trial law and engineering. The prestige schools do well in introducing students to the right people for careers in which achievement is assessed less quantitatively: artist, social critic, ivy league professor, president's cabinet member, supreme court justice.

I spoke to one of Texas A&M's development officers, and he told me that the school had turned down three perfect SAT scores the previous year, as well as a kid whose dad had given several million bucks to the school. A&M's mission is to develop leaders, and the SAT kids didn't fit the profile. The admissions reps created a plan for the rich kid in which he was to go to a community college, buckle down and see if he could meet the academic standards after two years.

I think the fact that George W. Bush was denied entrance to the UT law school on academic grounds, while he was admitted to the Harvard Business School, speaks volumes. Having a scammable entrance procedure is part of the cost of doing business for most of the high-prestige private schools.

And Clifton, no one hiring for a tech company will last long if they habitually prefer Berkeley grads over Cal State grads without looking at what they can do.

- stoney_s

May 31, 2007 at 1:02am

As to admissions policy, I would permit two types of institutions, private and publicly supported. The private would not be allowed tax exemptions, their students would not be eligible for government financial aid, and they would be permitted to use whatever admissions process the liked within the boundaries of the Civil Rights laws. The state supported institutions would have the benefit of tax exemptions and their students would be eligible for aid. Indeed, I would provide sufficient aid so that any student would be able to attend and require the participating institutions to accept as payment in full the government formula full tuition for any student on aid (Medicare for Universities). As far as admission, I would first of all require that applications be evaluated separated from all demographic information. The sex, race, geography, wealth, etc., etc. of the students would not be know to evaluators. I would then allow the universities to set whatever objectifiable minimum criteria they wished, as long as the same criteria applied to all. That is, if you are willing to accept a 500 SAT score from an athelete, then 500 is your minimum acceptable SAT score. No variations based on the ID of the student. "Subjective" criteria would be permitted as long as they were able to be determined without demographic info. For example, if they wanted to require an writing sample, that would be fine so long as the scoring of the essay were demographically blind. For a little wiggle room, I would probably permit a triage system whereby the entry pool could be divided into three equal lots with different criteria permitted for each lot, again so long as the criteria were objectifiable. For example, group 1 might include anyone with an SAT score above X. Group 1 might include anyone with an SAT score above Y and a class rank in the top third. Group 3 might inlcude anyone with an SAT score above Z, a class rank in the top half, and demonstrated writing ability. Finally, once the full admissible pool were determined based solely on the minimum criteria, I would require that admissions be by lottery. We would have a fair system that would afford everyone able and willing a good higher education, demographic diversity (or not in places that insisted on very high minimum admissions standards -- but no ability their part to sift for anyone other than the gifted). No legacy admissions, no marketing or financial plays, no high officials' kids exceptions, and as much "pure merit," whatever the hell that is, as the institution could stand to require without killing itself in the marketplace.

- roidubouloi

May 31, 2007 at 3:53am

There is a deeply-rooted belief out there that third-level educational institutions should be responsible for ironing out the distortions and injustices generated in preceding levels (especially in the 5-8 yr-old group). It's an odd liberal fantasy, true, but it has echoes of a traditional American dismissal of education as secondary to "moral character" or some such nebulous notion. What would do this country the most good (and with implications far beyond UT Austin or even the middle class's ability to game the system for their kids) would be a rigorous and non-discriminatory public preparatory and high school system set up with at least a minimum of national standards and accountability. Maybe roidubulois is right and the French system is stultifying in ways, but they seem to have a sense of purpose in education that we could do with some of here. We may come to regret our national fantasy of casually demanding that colleges and universities resolve the problems that our obsession with "local" authority over education has brought us. Why the 19th century model should be successful in the 21st century isn't so obvious, and neither is, for example, why the science taught in, say, Kentucky should be any different from the science taught in CA.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2007 at 6:30pm

Some food for thought: (1) Diversity in education is a legitimate goal; (2) increased minority representation in the professional class is a legitimate goal; (3) even race-based affirmative action should probably not be considered unconstitutional because there's a real difference between discrimination and reverse discrimination. The former is designed to reinforce a racial hierarchy while the latter is designed to serve (1) and (2). Nevertheless, I lean toward your view. Affirmative action is perhaps best viewed as opportunity compensation for talented kids who did not grow up in circumstances conducive to learning.

- jhildner

May 31, 2007 at 9:03pm

I wouldn't take French education as an example of much of anything. It is more a giant sorting mechanism than anything else. Rigid from top to bottom (in some ways congruent with right-wing American views about education). The idea of education as a means of maximizing the attainment of each individual is alien to the French system. Everyone is taught the same way and this is taken to be egalitarian. If you get it, fine. If you don't, fine. As the society needs cabinet ministers and pooper-scoopers, the system is designed to identify those who should be assigned -- for life -- to each job. Any notion of trying to help each child succeed is missing. The American system fails at this more often than not, but I value the fact that the aspiration is there. Now we have to realize it. One of the reasons the French are justly terrified of competition that might lead to joblessness is that it is even harder there to find new employment, especially in a different field, than it is in the US. Thus, the rigidity of the system hurts French competitiveness from both sides.

- roidubouloi

June 1, 2007 at 10:02am

OK, but at least they don't have the situation where the local school board in, say, Montpellier is demanding that the kind of science taught there should be different from that taught in Lille because the science taught in Lille doesn't fit the Montepellier theological consensus. Again, we produce a lot of individually talented kids here, true, but also a vast number of rather clueless ones who seem to lack some of the basic knowledge literacies that even working-class kids might be expected to have in a modern nation. It seems to me that the wider problem is the dominant idea of success in life. Here, if you're a bus driver, you're a loser, while in France (and elsewhere) the idea of doing a regular job isn't a sign of failure. Not everyone has to have a PhD or be a CEO to live a satisfactory or even a thoughtful life. Our culture creates a snobbery about ordinary work that is extremely destructive. I don't believe that this is something to do with the U.S. model per se, as it wasn't always that way. As a clue, just look at the sitcoms from the last few decades, and see how working people with ordinary jobs -- once a normal setting -- gradually fade from view after the 1970s.

- ironyroad

June 1, 2007 at 1:31pm

We have developed a pathology in which honest labor is neither celebrated nor rewarded, and you are also correct that in France necessary but unpleasant jobs usually provide a living wage and are not regarded with disdain. This reflects the far narrower differences in income there, a matter or state policy, and is something we should be pondering. There are benefits to incentives. There are also a lot of benefits to a more communal and fraternal society. On the whole, I would say that the French are closer to the right balance than we are. And one shouldn't overstate the ways in which France is "lagging." Even average earners can enjoy a very, very nice life-style there, have the same health care as anyone else, and, overall, a high level of education. If I was understood as expressing any such disdain, I apologize. That isn't what I think. My point, rather, was that the French are not eager to develop everyone's talents as a matter of principle. They are content with the notion that there is going to be a range of outcomes and have a system that is dedicated more to sorting them out than to trying to spread the benefits. I find the American aspiration more egalitarian -- hence greater social mobility -- although our execution is so poor that the overall French outcome may be as good or better.

- roidubouloi

June 1, 2007 at 2:58pm

Fascinating experience and insights. May I ask where you are based? Where were the schools that you established and helped administer? thx, t

- teplukhin

June 1, 2007 at 3:00pm

, thanks, except for the reiteration of that now-corrupted buzzword, "diversity." Here in Silicon Valley, there is extraordinary diversity in the high-achieving schools, but to the Diversity lobby, this real, significant, and very broad diversity doesn't count because it comprises East Asians, East Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians and Southeast Asians as well as native-born kids from a variety of races. There is vastly more diversity of the sort that expands a child's outlook to be found in Santa Clara's Millikin (the #2 school in Claifornia, with an API average of 998 out of 1000 possible points) than in any of the RUbe Goldberg deseg klooges hatched up by any of this nation's school board hacks. "Diversity" as used by the aff action lobby and the party is merely a code word for African-American, our side's equivalent of "faith-based", "moral" etc. The sooner we restore that word to its proper meaning, the better off the nation will be.

- teplukhin

June 1, 2007 at 3:09pm

"If I was understood as expressing any such disdain, I apologize." No need, I grasped the point you were making. I agree completely that there is an openness and a belief that any kid can achieve his/her best in American education. But that guiding philosophy sometimes has to survive in pretty thin air, especially in situations where economic fragility, racial/ethnic resentments, and overstressed parents add to the pressure. And I just don't believe that colleges and universities are the natural place to try to put right twelve years of failed basic schooling.

- ironyroad

June 1, 2007 at 6:37pm

that college is too late to repair deficits that accumulated in the first 13 years of school. I believe that the problem isn't local control of public schools as much as it is trying to teach so many children who are not interested in learning. Their lousy attitudes about school come from their parents, who either still hate the teachers from their public education experience, or who aren't available to supervise their kid's educations.

Tep, my experience of diversity is the same as yours, except I would add that it applies to American-born African-Americans, particularly the male ones. A Somali immigrant, or the child of one, isn't really a bona fide African American, at least as far as getting the student worker jobs, scholarship monies, and easier grading standards.

This kind of race pimping is anathema to the black people I hang out with, but it is still flourishing in some colleges.

- stoney_s

June 1, 2007 at 11:20pm

Teplukhin: The school I worked with and the schol I helped to found are on the East End of Long Island. Both still in existence. I was also for eight years trustee of a college in Massachusetts. Ironyroad: Of course college is not the remedy for 13 years of educational neglect, but that casts the issue in an extreme way. There is a very wide range of institutions of higher education and there are always more students who can do the work at any of them than there are places available. "Merit-based" admissions are a myth. The merit involved is typically some combination of personal characteristics and academic achievement that, taken together, suggest that the future graduate will be in a position to confer credit and money on the institution by employment in a field that is prestigious and/or lucrative. There is some connection to "pure academic achievement and potential" (an elusive thing to define, but reasonably objectifiable), but it is quite loose. There are a very wide variety of reasons -- from sex ratio, to sports prowess, to geographical market distribution, to what looks good in the marketing brochure -- for bending those criteria. Almost no university, with the possible exception of MIT and Caltech, selects exclusively, or even primarily, its most academically qualified applicants. Withal, the criteria that universities apply are very closely correlated with the socio-economic status of an applicants parents, because, not surprisingly, it is the children of the most educationally and economically advantaged who most display the characteristics of future economic success. If we do not want to recreate the European class system that so many of our forbears left Europe to escape, it is legitimate to try to spread the benefits of higher education to disadvantaged communities. That does not require accepting students who are unable to do the work.

- roidubouloi

June 2, 2007 at 12:52pm

I meant "real" diversity of the sort you mention, not diversity as "code word." I think some who support affirmative action do you use it in the real way. Others, however, use it for the simple reason that the Supreme Court has disallowed their real motivations -- increasing minority representation in higher strata of society or as compensation for past societal discrimination. The only motivation that the Supreme Court has not shot down totally is diversity....

- jhildner

June 4, 2007 at 12:15pm