And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students.
I don't think I'm being overly inventive when I say you seem rather inventive.
Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment:
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
Except that it's not the truth ... no schools do that for minority students. It's a strawman.
Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs.
So? Surprise, surprise: when you start adding factors besides pre-college test scores to your admissions criteria you see ... variation in pre-college scores.
The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system.
So you're unhappy that non SAT/GPA factors are taken into account. I'm curious if you've got the intellectual consistency to be in favor of simply ranking all students by their high school GPAs and SAT scores in descending order and taking the first N students. Maybe we don't actually need admissions committees or essays at all ...
Actually, they do. The Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School explicitly allowed that practice.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
* The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :)
Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
The original claim was "They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students."
Grutter said that they could use race to decide admit certain folks according to different criteria than they use for other folks.
Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face.
They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.