The Shade Cast By Affirmative Action On People Who've Earned Their Way Up
Shreya Shankar writes at Code.LikeAGirl:
It's the dreaded time of the year again -- when I go back to school, and some guy I really respect casually mentions how I got my tech internship because I'm a girl. Or when career fair time rolls around and recruiters take one look at my face and hand me a different flyer that advertises their diversity program. Or when some talented male freshman who has been programming since he was 10 scoffs that he can't get an internship at Google or Facebook, saying "[he] could have easily gotten it if [he] was a girl."I'm grateful for for the opportunities I receive, but I can't help feeling bummed when I hear these comments. As a diversity program participant, I know it sucks to feel like a pawn in the game of affirmative action, sacrificing my feelings for future women in tech to enter a level playing field. Get over it! Many of my female mentors and role models have advised. You're qualified! You're smart! And you did a "real" software engineering internship at Facebook!
But hearing this does not fix the problem.
Here's a reader who wrote in to The Atlantic:
I'm a female black professional who, by any objective measure, earned spots in honors programs and a well-regarded university for graduate school. While I would not say I have been "shamed" by affirmative action, as one reader suggests, the practice has at various points intensified my experience of impostor syndrome.For instance, I recall having secured an internship with a prestigious institution and sneaking a peek at the resumes of others who had applied. I was surprised by the amount of relief I felt in seeing that my resume was, in fact, stronger than the others. The institution also had an internship program reserved for minorities and I had begun to be bothered by the possibility that perhaps I couldn't with confidence say that I was just as capable as others who had been hired.
Another reader writes in The Atlantic:
I am a black student who went to an Ivy League School for undergrad and now applying to graduate school. I am very split about affirmative action. On one hand, I hate it. I am never recognized for any of my accomplishments, never given the respect I feel is due because of affirmative action. When I got into my Ivy League undergrad (and unlike Abigail Fisher, I was actually in the top 10 percent of my class when I was applying to college). I took the second hardest course load in my school, had a 2250 SAT, and pretty much knocked the Verbal section out of the park by getting a cool 800.But the same classmates I went to school with, spoke to, and beat in competitions grumbled behind my back: "It was affirmative action." That cut me deeply in a way that I have never forgiven them.
I do believe that even without affirmative action, I, and many other smart black students, would have had a good chance of getting into a top school. Instead, affirmative action seemed to tarnish my achievements like a black mark. More than that, some students I went to school with underperformed because they "had AA" or were told to rely on "AA." So I'd like to see AA go.
On the same hand, I do not want to see AA go. Why? Because our college system is not fair. At my Ivy, I met some very dumb people who were legacy admits (why should you go to school because your father or mother went there?), development admits (mom and dad gave the school money), prep students who play obscure sports (polo, squash, sailing, horseback riding, etc.) and mediocre sons of professors, famous people, or CEOs.
Yet there is no outcry over that. No one cries over precious school spots going to Bobby Goldberg from Andover who plays squash for Yale. But a black girl whose race was the tipping factor? Cue the cries of unfairness.
Code.Like... via @SteveStuWill
The reference to "legacy" students is the two wrongs fallacy.
In other news, you will never encounter a SJW who will say that AA will ever end. The hoax of "diversity" is just too valuable to let go.
Radwaste at December 14, 2017 2:47 AM
To add to what Radwaste said, the college and University systems could handle the tiny percentage of Legacy admits who were there on daddy’s dime.
What it couldn't handle was a veritable flood of unqualified athletes and minority students from poor high schools who were admitted to bolster the athetic programs and the diversity goals.
The effort to fill the coffers with all those taxpayer dollars and triple the college admin posititions had the unintended consequence of both politicizing academics, and dumbing down the curriculum so that people who should never have been admitted to college in the first place, would become credentialed,
We need an exam based system like the British have. We already have that for lawyers, doctors and engineers, but to restore trust and competency in all other academic areas it needs to extend to pretty much every field.
Isab at December 14, 2017 3:53 AM
Affirmative Action does not benefit the people it was intended to benefit. The ideal beneficiaries were poor African-Americans who needed a boost to get into college and move into the middle class. But it's the middle class and above African-Americans who benefit, the ones who already have the grades to get into college.
A poor, barely-educated African-American person is not going to get that middle management slot over an educated, middle class African-American person. But, with Affirmative Action, that educated, middle class African-American person might have an edge over the other middle class people vying for the job.
And what does Affirmative Action do to poor whites? Are you telling me the children of Will Smith and Denzel Washington need a boost because their prime spot in the socio-economic order will be taken by a poor white Appalachian coal miner or his kid?
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 5:18 AM
@Isab: We need an exam based system like the British have. We already have that for lawyers, doctors and engineers, but to restore trust and competency in all other academic areas it needs to extend to pretty much every field.
Do you mean for college admissions or for college graduates? For admissions, I thought that was what the SATs and ACTs were for. If you're talking about a test for graduates, I can only imagine the furor that would erupt when somebody tries to get hundreds of colleges to agree on exit exams for literature, art, etc.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at December 14, 2017 5:40 AM
Interesting. Now, for a fun experiment, compare the resumes of those who had applied and were rejected against those in the minority program who had been accepted.
Question: did they turn away better qualified candidates based on the color of their skin?
Another question: how did you manage to "sneak" a peek at the other resumes? prestigious institutions who carelessly leave resumes laying around are not that prestigious, and you probably should have run away then and there.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 14, 2017 6:16 AM
The hoax of "diversity" is just too valuable to let go.
Especially in higher ed, as those Title IX coordinator jobs paying 6 figures to former gender or racial studies students can't exist without it. And building a small fiefdom with the additional supporting staff is just more icing on the diversity cake.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 14, 2017 6:19 AM
Do you mean for college admissions or for college graduates?
The latter, and the colleges and universities would have nothing to do with the credentialing. Isab mentions three specific occupations:
For health care, to provide care you must pass the boards.
For lawyers, to practice law you must pass the bar.
For engineers, there is the professional engineer examination. You can still practice engineering without the PE designation, but you can charge more with a PE.
The first two are done by state, the latter by an engineering association.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 14, 2017 6:28 AM
"At my Ivy, I met some very dumb people who were legacy admits ..."
"Yet there is no outcry over that."
Then you aren't listening. Legacy and other groups mentioned get the exact same treatment as AAs because it is the exact same thing. Don't want to be treated like the retarded kid who only got their position because of daddy's money and power, then you'll have to give up the benefits that came with it. Even if that daddy is Uncle Sam. If you didn't compete on a level playing field you won't be treated like you did.
Ben at December 14, 2017 6:32 AM
No one cries over precious school spots going to Bobby Goldberg from Andover who plays squash for Yale.
Sure there is
lujlp at December 14, 2017 6:32 AM
No one cries over precious school spots going to Bobby Goldberg from Andover who plays squash for Yale.
For example, no one *ever* criticized George W Bush on this basis.
dee nile at December 14, 2017 6:53 AM
The British exam system is already under fire for being exclusionary. And it can be gamed pretty easily.
Also, there are something like 7 universities in the entire UK while there are 57 in Ohio alone.
The MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test) and LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) are graduate school admissions tests. Those folks already took the ACT or SAT for undergraduate admissions.
And for graduate school admissions, we already have several tests. We have the aforementioned LSAT and MCAT, as well as the GRE and GMAT.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 6:58 AM
Admission to graduate school for engineering requires that you take the GRE (Graduate Records Examination), which is basically the generic grad school admissions exam.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 7:05 AM
"For admissions, I thought that was what the SATs and ACTs were for."
Nah. Nearly all universities today have "holistic admissionss" policies, which is basically a carte blanche for the admissions office to make it up as they go along. I would guess that at most schools, the bottom 20% of students had lower test scores than the top 20% of applicants who were not admitted. There may at times be good reason for this, but for the most part, it's a cover for the admissions office to engage in social-justice crusades. (And yes, they'll also sneak in any students whose admission could bring big-dollar donations to the school.)
When you point out the problems with AA, the Left will tell you that the solution is more AA. In fact, if they're being honest, they will tell you that AA will never accomplish its aims until it can do down to the level of thought policing. That's why so many companies today are administering "implicit bias" tests to employees of politically non-preferred identity.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2017 7:34 AM
Admission to graduate school for engineering requires that you take the GRE (Graduate Records Examination), which is basically the generic grad school admissions exam.
MCAT = Medical College Admissions Test (medical schools)
LSAT = Law School Admissions Test (law schools)
GMAT = Graduate Management Admissions Test (business schools)
GRE= Graduate Records Examination (all other graduate schools)
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 7:05 AM
These dont really matter. The first time I attended law school my LSAT scores were good enough for admission to a second tier law school, The second time I took it, they probably would have gotten into a first teir law school, and if I had been a minority I would have gotten automatic admission. That was 15;years later. The class was the same size but the quality of applicants had gone way down. Half my class would,have never been admitted under the standards in 1979.
The professional schools have been affected just as badly by AA and the federal grants and loans bug.
The only real control is the bar exam, and some states have gamed that as well.
Isab at December 14, 2017 9:11 AM
"For instance, I recall having secured an internship with a prestigious institution and sneaking a peek at the resumes of others who had applied. I was surprised by the amount of relief I felt in seeing that my resume was, in fact, stronger than the others."
I wonder what cut the other resumes were from. Whenever we would hire we would do 3-4 cuts of resumes. First cut gets rid of those obviously unqualified, 60-70%. 2nd cut was those qualified but not exceptional, another 25%. 3rd/4th cut were weeding it down to the handful to get an interview.
So if he saw the resumes from the first cut, sure. from the 4th cut?
Joe j at December 14, 2017 9:31 AM
True. My dad took the PE in the '70s and my sister in the '90s. Guess which one had a harder exam.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 10:07 AM
Isab,
The question for me is other than medicine, law, and engineering why would anyone care about the quality of the degree? History, philosophy, and literature you are never going to find a job in those fields. Or at least the very vast majority will not. Instead the degree acts like a basic IQ/perseverance test. And not a very good one at that. Marketing and business degrees? You can weed those out pretty quickly in the workplace. Even in engineering the majority of workers aren't licensed.
If you work in a field where the end user is at risk of dying or injury and cannot evaluate your skills beforehand we tend to require certification. Hence medial professionals and some engineers. Most civil engineers get licensed because they work on roads and buildings. Only some mechanical engineers get licensed. Aircraft designers being an obvious group. But people who design screw drivers and phone casings are almost never licensed. Electrical engineers are almost never licensed. Same with software engineers. If your web page doesn't load hire someone else.
I don't see a need for exit exams. But I do see a need for reducing federal funding in education. When you aren't paying with your own money it makes a difference. From K-12 all the way up to graduate the more federal money and influence the lower the quality.
Ben at December 14, 2017 10:09 AM
"So if he saw the resumes from the first cut, sure. from the 4th cut?"
She in this case. And honestly, who knows? Perhaps she was the most qualified and would have easily earned her spot without help. But that is the problem at the heart of AA. Who knows? No one can tell. We all know she didn't compete fairly. She didn't have to meet the same requirements. Maybe she did meet the more stringent requirements. But at this point no one can prove that so her accomplishment is permanently tarnished by not competing fairly.
Ben at December 14, 2017 10:14 AM
"...how I got my tech internship because I'm a girl."
"...saying "[he] could have easily gotten it if [he] was a girl."
"...the practice has at various points intensified my experience of impostor syndrome."
"But the same classmates I went to school with, spoke to, and beat in competitions grumbled behind my back: "It was affirmative action."
I can sympathize with what this guy is saying. Nothing new about any of it. As I understand it, the only reason I get anything when far more qualified people don't is because of racism.
Ken R at December 14, 2017 10:30 AM
“Isab,
The question for me is other than medicine, law, and engineering why would anyone care about the quality of the degree? History, philosophy, and literature you are never going to find a job in those fields. Or at least the very vast majority will not. Instead the degree acts like a basic IQ/perseverance test. And not a very good one at that. Marketing and business degrees? You can weed those out pretty quickly in the workplace. Even in engineering the majority of workers aren't licensed.”
When the pool of degree holders in any subject is diluted by the illiterate and unqualified, it means that hiring by credentials, as mandated by Federal law, becomes a very iffy proposition.
Most of the degrees you are talking about used to have general applicability in the teaching and business fields. (English majors make pretty good insurance adjustors if they can write up an accurate report)
Unfortunately a lot of the soft degree holders end up working for the federal, local, and state governments, many of them as teachers, ( And you wonder why the public education system has been steadily declining)
Back in the day, if you had a college degree and wanted to teach, you were hired on the spot. Now if you dont jump through a SJW brainwashing ed cirriculum you cant even get a teaching certificate.
Isab at December 14, 2017 10:42 AM
“The British exam system is already under fire for being exclusionary. And it can be gamed pretty easily.”
I assume this means that it is working. Doesn't have to be perfect, just better than what we have here.
Do you honestly think Conan that any objective criteria would be worse than the totally subjective system we have now?
Isab at December 14, 2017 10:47 AM
I was lucky enough to take a class at UCLA from Thomas Sowell, who warned that AA did nothing to help blacks, and instead devalued their efforts across the board. He also observed that the individuals "benefiting" from AA often paid a personal price for being mis-matched with their fellow students.
This proved true when I started law school in 1979. A number of black students had been admitted under an AA program. They stuck out like sore thumbs academically, and had a tough time. Those that graduated had trouble passing the bar, and few did. One very lovely young woman ended up committing suicide not long after graduation.
One wonders why women are seeking the same treatment. Perhaps they believe that men can be forced to respect them.
Jay R at December 14, 2017 11:38 AM
WRT holistic admits: Straight white males have no holistics. This is well known.
Legacy admits are annoying as a concept, but there's no such thing as getting into legal trouble for having too few legacy admits. And legacy admits aren't going to meet and decide there are too few of them so they occupy the provost's office or vandalize the library.
Richard Aubrey at December 14, 2017 12:11 PM
Perhaps I'm too young Isab. It has always been teaching certificates for teachers for me. So school exit exams, especially government created school exit exams, doesn't look like it brings much to the table. You need a third party with an interest in maintaining and improving standards. If the fed is writing these tests I just expect them to be SJW exams and those with the wrong ideology need not attend.
As for back in the day when having a college degree got you almost any job, back then there weren't near as many degree holders. Today ~30% of working American have a bachelors or higher. Back then closer to 5% did. Supply and demand. If you vastly increase the supply you also decrease the value.
Ben at December 14, 2017 12:44 PM
We have objective tests set up for admission to college. They're called the SAT and the ACT. Colleges are able to weigh the results as they wish in admissions decisions.
Would you have the federal government mandate the weight that entrance exams should carry in college admissions decisions? Would you have the government be able to dictate through testing who should and should not be admitted to a university or college and who should be sent to vocational school?
I don't know if the kind of objective criteria you envision would be better or worse than what we have now, but I would worry about vesting too much power in the hands of the bureaucrats creating and overseeing those criteria.
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2017 1:33 PM
@ LW - Gosh. That's just awful.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 14, 2017 2:05 PM
I have a possible alternative: Base the number of scholarship admissions on that year's employment figures in the field.
Why anyone would spend a bunch of money on a student loan in a field with zero employment prospects is beyond me, but these people aren't just being stupid for themselves. They're occupying seats that drive up the cost of all instruction.
If you want to spend your OWN money on useless degrees, go ahead.
Radwaste at December 14, 2017 3:20 PM
“Would you have the federal government mandate the weight that entrance exams should carry in college admissions decisions? Would you have the government be able to dictate through testing who should and should not be admitted to a university or college and who should be sent to vocational school?”
No, But I would radically cut financial aid so people with no job prospects and no college apptitude would not be spending tax payer dollars on a four year vacation.
We need to bring back the apprentice system.
Isab at December 14, 2017 3:43 PM
"I would radically cut financial aid so people with no job prospects and no college apptitude"
Let's start with the military and the lawyers.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 14, 2017 3:51 PM
Let's start with the military and the lawyers
We need trigger pullers. Pilots. Compent watch officers. Navigators.
Is that you, Gog? Nor is it me unless it is the zombie apocalypse. In which case, the Devil take the hind most.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 14, 2017 7:05 PM
"Let's start with the military and the lawyers."
This reminds me of the protests some snowflakes make now and then about recruiters being allowed in high schools.
There is no way a protestor could offer a fraction of the training a qualified student could get from an advanced program in the services - and most of those programs translate very well to jobs after the enlistment or commission expires.
Radwaste at December 14, 2017 7:48 PM
Isab I want a little more clarification on your point of view. You mention how most of these soft degree holders end up working for the government. If that is your concern then rather than an exit text for colleges how about an entrance test for civil servants? Most companies I've worked for have a test of some kind for new employees in entry level positions. Businesses already don't trust that schools are actually teaching the basics so they test for them themselves. How useful this is is debatable. But it is common practice in the private sector. The public sector used to do the same. I don't know if they still do.
I have no issue with various groups deciding what is important to them and testing for it. I would be fine with a civil servants exam. Be it federal, state, or even city based. But like Conan I have a hard time believing any federally mandated college exit exam will be anything but an ideology purity test. The GRE is already a joke for hard science majors.
Ben at December 14, 2017 8:22 PM
"translate very well to jobs after the enlistment or commission expires"
I went into the military because, although homeless at 18, I was told by the university that assistance programs were only available to "poor black students".
Subsequently I served four years in an elite tech unit, complete with Top Secret clearance, and came out to a job offer with a major communications company. The alternative being to sleaze along with the NSA. Blech.
The offer was rescinded the week before I was to start work - the company had been mandated by the government to hire a pair of black high school dropouts and train them in my stead. To say my potential manager was furious over the loss of an experienced candidate would be an understatement.
No wealthy elites suffered from my being denied education or employment. As much as I'm supposed to despise black people because of this, I refuse, if only to reassure myself that whatever machinations the wealthy and powerful are trying to hide by setting us against one another, I'm not buying it.
We're spending three trillion dollars to continue avenging 9/11. There is no shortage of money. IMHO, if a student wants to be a lawyer or a military officer or a basket weaver or an actor, go, and fulfill your destiny with your nation's support.
TL:DR - racial quotas are inventions of the government to set us against one another.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 14, 2017 11:02 PM
Isab,
Evidently those colleges/universities could handle it since there are the ones giving out the scholarships to those athletes/minorities. Also the legacy/nepotism(you know, GOOD OLE' BOY networks which are very much alive and happens way more than you apparently want to believe or accept. But we most definitely know that the minorities in mentioned in the article are definitely qualified to be where they are.
Annonymous at December 14, 2017 11:16 PM
Isab,
Evidently those colleges/universities could handle it since there are the ones giving out the scholarships to those athletes/minorities. Also the legacy/nepotism(you know, GOOD OLE' BOY networks which are very much alive and happens way more than you apparently want to believe or accept. But we most definitely know that the minorities in mentioned in the article are definitely qualified to be where they are.
Annonymous at December 14, 2017 11:16 PM
The good ole boys haven’t controlled the College’s and universities since the 60’s.
Most colleges and public universities, except the elite heavily endowed ones are balancing their books on the backs of the federal government. And they are doing a piss poor job of it. Many will be out of business in the next ten years.
Issb at December 15, 2017 1:55 AM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/is-the-higher-ed-bubble-starting-to-pop.php
Isab at December 15, 2017 2:01 AM
"Subsequently I served four years in an elite tech unit, complete with Top Secret clearance, and came out to a job offer with a major communications company. [...] The offer was rescinded the week before I was to start work - the company had been mandated by the government to hire a pair of black high school dropouts and train them in my stead.
Ah. Very interesting getting your POV. It clarifies for me a lot of the things you have written here. I'm not being sarcastic. We may not agree on the value of the military in general, but I agree with you that we're spending a lot of money on engaging in fights where we have no clear goals and we don't appear to be gaining anything by fighting. That's been a bipartisan problem for a long time. I think a lot of people in Washington are way too sensitive to "world opinion", even though said world opinion generally seems to be against us no matter what we do.
"TL:DR - racial quotas are inventions of the government to set us against one another."
You'll get no argument from me.
Cousin Dave at December 15, 2017 7:10 AM
It only took one black "doctor: at Duke to woke me up. If I ever am in a doctor's office again and a black guy comes in to take care of me, I'm walking right out. They're not just doing quota admissions, they're giving quota diplomas.
Alan at December 19, 2017 8:50 AM
It may not be entirely due to Affirmative Action. The quality of applicants is down across the board. With more colleges and students attending college, we're not getting just the academic elite in college anymore. We're getting the mediocre and lazy.
College is no longer four years "prostrate to the higher mind" but a four-year bacchanal. Who wouldn't want to go to college? Spring break, fraternity parties, party schools, classes spent watching The Simpsons and porn.
The US has more colleges per capita than any country in the world. To pay for that, we need more and more students. And to get those students to stay (and pay) for the four or five years it take to get a degree, we can't have too many "weed out" courses.
Conan the Grammarian at December 21, 2017 7:08 AM
Leave a comment