Thursday, December 12, 2002 :::
Kate Malcolm, addressing John Jenkins and his opposition to hardship exemptions, responds You yourself note that the students in areas with minority majorities may not be "prepar[ed]" "as well" by their schools. Is that their fault?
I have a friend who went through law school (kind of), and once commented while preparing a brief, "I don't care about ethics; I care about liability." "Is that why you're in law school, or because you're in law school?" I asked. "You know, Dean, it's a little bit of each," he said.
Anyway, I'm not sure "Is that their fault?" seems like as relevant a question to me as it might once have. If the student isn't going to be a good student or provide other students with an improved learning environment, regardless of whose "fault", if anyone's, it is, it's a waste of class space to admit him.
Insofar as it does mean his scores may be lower than they would be for another student of equal ability who was already given the chance that admission would constitute for him, it does make sense to take it into account; perhaps this is a brilliant student who will flourish when finally opened up to a new world. (This is the argument for the Texas 10% plan, and perhaps is all Kate meant by the question.) The SAT used to try to measure ability rather than acheivement for just that reason. It is also likely that diversity is useful in certain kinds of classroom discussions (and race, even in conjunction with other things, may be a useful proxy for the kind of diversity that is relevant here). As for trying to compensate people for the blows they've suffered, though, I really don't think there's any good in that.
::: posted by dWj at 1:25 PM
