Affirmative Action: Preferential Treatment Essay

During the college process, students are advised in multiple ways on how to properly present themselves to draw the appeal of colleges. Whether it is by highlighting their awards, accomplishments or talents, students are constantly working on improving their resume. They were told that with good grades, extracurricular activities, and heart-warming essays that they would find success in being admitted into a prestigious university. However, there are various other factors that determine whether one is accepted or denied. An important and often scrutinized factor is the use of affirmative action in admissions. While affirmative action should not hold the weight it does in admissions currently, it seems that people are unaware of the other preferential treatments given to certain students. Afï ¬ rmative action in favor of underrepresented minorities has been a controversial topic debated and scrutinized by scholars, the media, and the public for many years. Two other preferential admissions programs have been less controversial but in widespread use; one involving giving an admissions boost to applicants with athletic skills and the other one to children of alumni, commonly known as â€Å"legacies†. As these various categories suggest, entry into selective institutions of higher education has never been decided purely on academic criteria—before or after minority afï ¬ rmative action came into effect. As the term â€Å"affirmative action† encompasses the ideal that institutions promote diversity and growth by including historically excluded groups in their admissions, legacy admissions and athletic admissions are considered â€Å"affirmative†. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) They do originate from very different motivations, but they bring non-academic criteria that impact the admissions process. Therefore, by attaching the label â€Å"afï ¬ rmative action† to legacy and athletic admissions, it is deliberately underscoring the fact that minorities are not the only social group to benefit from such a policy. Supporters of affirmative action claim that minority students, generally speaking, start out at a disadvantage in their college or job application process. They usually come from lower income families and, in turn, have fewer opportunities than those who go to private school. Some inner city youths had grown up in environments filled with crime, violence, and discouragement. Genuine, hard-working minority students are every bit as capable as white students, but because of these disadvantages, they may not have the same paper qualifications. Affirmative action evens the playing field a bit. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) Nonetheless, it was designed to end discrimination and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many stereotypes, many minorities fall into the middle or upper class, and many whites live in poverty. (Fletcher) Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn’t put in much effort at all. Supporters also claim that some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable. However, if you were to ask Colin Powell, Barack Obama, or Oprah Winfrey how they got to where they today, I doubt they would respond with affirmative action. (Fletcher) It sets the idea that a minority cannot achieve full potential without the help of affirmative action and undermines their own abilities. Another claim supporters of affirmative use is that it draws people to places they would never have gone elsewise, bringing under-privileged students to Ivy League institution. But if a student is admitted on a lower basis, he will have less incentive to do well or have the inability to keep up with the work. Why work for that 4.0 GPA when he got in with sub-par grades? In this way, affirmative action is likened to students who are given a boost for being â€Å"legacies†, having a parent(s) attend the school previously. A survey conducted by H. M. Breland found that afï ¬ rmative action for children of alumni is practiced widely at both public and private institutions (Howell and Turner 325-351). A later survey conducted by Daniel Golden (2003) revealed that 23 percent of freshmen enrolled at Notre Dame were the children of alumni, with corresponding ï ¬ gures of 14 percent at Penn, 13 percent at Harvard, 11 percent at Princeton, and 11 percent at the University of Virgini a (Howell and Turner 325-351). These numbers seem to be relatively modest; however, they belie the relatively small amount of applicants legacies hold. When documenting the number of applicants, it is easily seen that children of alumni benefit from greater admissions rates. According to studies by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok (1998), legacies had a two to one admissions advantage over non-legacies. Likewise, Cameron Howell and Sarah E. Turner (2004) document a similar advantage at the University of Virginia, where only 32 percent of regular applicants were admitted compared with 57 percent of alumni children. As a result, the freshman class of 2002 was 7 percent legacy, compared with 3 percent African American, even though the state is 20 percent black. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) The unfairness that follows legacy admissions is what many feel towards affirmative action as well. By giving blacks/Hispanics an obvious advantage in the admissions process, it breeds resentment and underestimation of them. In the same way legacies are generalized as â€Å"dumb rich kids†, recipients of affirmative action are seen as undeserving. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) It seems to say that they wouldn’t have been able to be admitted into the school elsewise, thus increasing the pressure put onto these students. The consequences translate to students being unable to handle the workload. By turning away highly qualified Asian/white students in favor of less qualified black/Hispanic students, it is not fair for either race. According to Dr. Richard Sander, Professor of Law at UCLA, blacks are two and a half times more likely than whites not to graduate and are four times more likely to fail the bar exam on the first try. (Fletcher) To fulfill their thirst for diversity, colleges often recruit students from below the median. As a result, they are ill equipped to handle the pressures of such a rigorous school and have a smaller chance of graduating. It is not to say that affirmative action is not needed. A homogenous population would make for an unproductive and unmoving student body. Diversity is needed for growth and experiences that differ. In this way, you can see the clear advantage of affirmative action over legacy admissions. Despite affirmative action being flawed, the advantage is at least given to, who is supposed to be, the disadvantaged party. Legacy admissions should have no place in the college admissions world. It is giving an advantage to students who are probably are not in great need of it if their parents attended a prestigious university Supporters of legacy admissions claim that donations from alumni contribute to building renovations and technological upgrades, as well as supporting financial aid programs for many financially disadvantaged students. (Golden) Legacy students are also thought to better understand the sense of tradition of the university and embody the values that the university has traditiona lly supported. That sounds good, but how true is it? Three elite schools that are big on legacy preferences – Harvard, Princeton, and Yale – rank near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of students from poorer families they have, according to Professor Jerome Karabel in his book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. (Steinberg) Good students from poor families are often deprived of admission because of the legacy tradition — they are less frequently helped by the additional funds that the legacy tradition brings to the school. Contrary to what legacy defenders argue, it is doubtful that dropping legacy preferences has any significant impact on donations to a university. Texas A&M and the University of Georgia are among the large universities that have abandoned legacy preferences and neither has suffered a detectable decline in support. (Howell and Turner 325-351) In addition, Massey and Mooney found that, â€Å"In schools with a stronger commitment to legacy admissions, the children of alumni were more likely to drop out. Ironically, the only evidence we find of a skills mismatch is for the children of alumni. The greater the gap between a legacy student’s SAT and the institutional average SAT, the lower the grades he or she earned, though the effect size was modest. (99-117) They compared the number of hours studied per week, the â€Å"psychological performance burden† reported by students, grades earned by students through the end of their sophomore year, and the likelihood of students dropping out of school by spring of their junior year. The study concluded that legacies who were given a greater admissions bonus earned lower grades once admitted, a fact which surprised many, including some admissions officials. (99-117) However, although affirmative action and legacy treatment are both found to be large non-academic factors in the college admissions process, athletic skill is one often overlooked and not discussed. It is common knowledge that the number of students who excel in both academics and athletics is too small for schools to fill spots with only student athletes who meet usual admissions standards. Athletes were shown to have had a 48% better chance of admission than regular students with similar academic achievements in high school and similar standardized test score in studies done during 1999. In comparison, â€Å"legacies,† bore only a 25% better chance of admission and minorities stood only an 18% better chance of admission. (Ferris, Finster, and McDonald 555-575) The simplest method to view the different standards used for recruited athletes is to acknowledge the statistics of Division I athletes in â€Å"high profile† sports, such as football and basketball at public universities. These students have SAT scores that average almost 250 points than their non-athletic counterparts. While not as extreme, athletes participating in other sports such as golf, tennis, and swimming average about 100 points less than regular students on standardized test scores. (Dolinsky) The way that a majority of these student athletes gain admissions is through â€Å"special admit† programs designed by the school to accept a group of applicants who do not meet the standard criteria. From 2003 to 2006, more than half of the â€Å"special admits† scholarship athletes at San Diego State University had lower standardized test scores and high school GPAs than other admitted students. In the San Diego State admissions process, students with insufficient credentials may be accepted based on other factors such as socioeconomic background, local residency, and other special talents. However, between fall 2003 and spring 2006, of the 248 â€Å"special admit† students admitted by San Diego State, only 105 were given admission intentionally. The rest of the students granted admission had been the result of various processing errors and of those 105 that were given intentional admission, they were all athletes. (Ferris, Finster, and McDonald 555-575) If there is one thing that is clear, it is that the preferential treatment given to athletes in the admissions process does have its consequences. One potential consequence of admitting student athletes with academic credentials below their peers is the risk of academic underperformance by these athletes. (Dolinsky) Similar to those shown with students of affirmative action, statistics are clear in showcasing that athletes are underperforming once they arrive on college campuses. Recently, as more athletes got into schools through advantages in the admissions process, their collegiate GPAs began to suffer, with a majority of athletes placing in the bottom quarter of their classes. In contrast, only 9% of athletes finish in the top third of their class. (Espenshade, Chung, and Walling 1422–1446) To further exhibit the correlation between preferential treatment in the admissions process and academic underperformance, a study shows that student athletes generally choose so-called â€Å"easy† majors—such as social sciences—rather than the â€Å"harder† majors such as math, science, and engineering. One argument for explaining academic underperformance, other than the fact that athletes arrive at college with noticeably lower academic credentials, is that student athletes face the rigors and responsibilities of playing a sport, practicing, and trying to divide time between athletics and academics. However, this argument may have little merit as statistics show that an analogous group to student athletes—students who participate in several extracurricular activities—do not underperform at the level of student athletes. (Dolinsky) Although this analogy may not account for different types of students who are athletes as compared to those students who are heavily involved on campus, the comparison tends to show that the time that athletes spend with their respective sports does not prove, in itself, to be a clear reason for academic underperformance. Additionally student athletes already receive a multitude of benefits not given to normal students. Often times, they are given priority registration, extra tutoring, and even separate housing. With the benefit of these extra luxuries, athletes should be able to properly their manage their time to balance academics and their sport. It is not difficult to see the correlation between underperformance at the high school level and underperformance at the college level. Nor is it difficult to see the correlation between the admission of athletes having below-average test scores and high school GPAs and underperformance at the college level. Perhaps this is an unfair stereotype, but there is a reason that this stereotype exists and there is evidence to back it up. What is the price that is paid? One example is Dexter Manley, former professional football player for the Washington Redskins. Manley testified in front of the United States Senate that he could not read, despite being admitted and staying at Oklahoma State University for four years. (Espenshade, Chung, and Walling 1422–1446) By admitting students who are not qualified to handle the workload of an undergraduate institution, the ones that are hurt the most are some of the ones who â€Å"benefit.† Through each of these policies, certain students are given a â€Å"pull† in the college admissions office over other students. In comparison, these three programs are very similar in how they offer students an advantage in the system. Each program requires that you fulfill a certain requirement, which is the basis for their policy. They are all affirmative action policies that factor in something non-academic into your rejection or acceptance. With racial affirmative action being the most controversial and widely discussed, it has seemed that the other two have slipped underneath the radar. All three contribute to a discrepancy in the student body that will continue to grow unless awareness is created. Although in a perfect world, students wouldn’t have to worry about such factors, we live in a society where the slightest differences can make or break you. Whatever the effects of afï ¬ rmative action in raising or lowering the odds of academic success, the students should be aware and know exactly what they are going to get themselves into. Works Cited Dolinsky, Anna. â€Å"Affirmative Action for Athletes? Jan 12, 2001.† The Yale Herald. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. . Espenshade, Thomas J., Chung, Chang Y. and Walling, Joan L., Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities. Social Science Quarterly, No. 85 (2004): 1422–1446. Ferris, Eric, Finster, Mark and McDonald, David. â€Å"Academic Fit of Student-Athletes: An Analysis of Ncaa Division I-A Graduation Rates.† Research in Higher Education Vol. 45. No. 6 (Sep., 2004): pp. 555-575. Fletcher, Michael A. â€Å"Washingtonpost.com: Affirmative Action Special Report.† Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. The Washington Post, 18 June 1998. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. . Golden, Daniel. â€Å"The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition.† CLassroomEdition.com. The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 2003. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. . Howell, Cameron. and Turner, Sarah E. â€Å"Legacies in Black and White: The Racial Composition of the Legacy Pool.† Research in Higher Education Vol. 45. No. 4 (Jun., 2004): pp. 325-351 Massey, Douglas S., and Mooney, Margarita. â€Å"The Effects of America’s Three Affirmative Action Programs on Academic Performance.† Social Problems Vol. 54. No. 1 (February 2007): pp. 99-117 Steinberg, Jacques. â€Å"‘Affirmative Action for the Rich’ – NYTimes.com.† College Admissions Advice – The Choice Blog – NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. .