I think we are asking the wrong question with AA. The question shouldn't be, why is Harvard apparently taking lesser qualified Black students and rejecting more qualified Asian students. The question should be, why isn't Harvard, with its $53b endowment, not taking all of them? Our patriarchal society creates an atmosphere of scarcity when there needn't be. Harvard's endowment amounts to $2m per student (Princeton is $4m). I randomly picked one public school, Louisiana State, and found its $700m endowment covers over 37,000 students, or less than $19,000 per student. We should be questioning the role of higher education, the responsibility of elite institutions to the cause and the absurdity of allowing them to horde riches tax-free.
A couple ideas: 1) Charge elite schools a luxury tax if there endowments exceed a pre-set ratio, with the taxed funds going to the poorest schools. 2) They can avoid the tax by increasing enrolment. I'm sure there's more once we open up the conversation.
I agree with you. They should certainly be expanding their class and covering the expansion. UNC has a mandate from the legislature to increase enrollment. I think I read an op-ed in the Times recently that suggested something similar and also noted that there ought not be anything sacrosanct about their untaxed endowment.
I appreciate very much your nuanced take on this issue and on the decision. One thing I haven't seen mentioned much, if at all (though I admit not looking hard for it yet) is the effect the SCOTUS decision has on white students, specifically, the lack of diversity of perspective and experience that comes from interacting in class and elsewhere on campus with an ethnically, racially, religiously and class diverse group of students (and faculty for that matter). The dominant white, Christian, European heritage (and mostly middle class) experience in the US is limiting in so many ways that I've come to understand as a "card carrying" member of this demographic. It undermines our democracy. It makes us oblivious of the history, contributions, leadership and potential of so many other people who aren't part of the dominant demographic.
The point is that Affirmative Action not just provides an important boost for students from racially marginalized groups, but through living, studying and working together in a campus setting, also broadens and deepens the perspective and understanding of the historically dominant (and privileged) white groups.
With AA for race now gone in admissions, my hope is that admissions offices will learn from the California and Michigan experiences and be able to evaluate applicants based on economic background/class and perhaps how a student has overcome adversity in making admission decisions and creating diverse student bodies.
I've seen others make this argument about student loans. Now it seems as if we're stuck on a treadmill we can't get off, unless there were a state/federal commitment to taking on more of the costs. There's no question that schools, especially elite ones, have engaged in a facilities arms race which only perpetuates the cost spiral.
Dale, Thanks for this. The issue you raise has often come up in defenses of affirmative action, but I agree that it's been a very small part of the discussion since the ruling. It will be a loss, but a hard to measure one and, therefore, easy to overlook.
Also, more should be said about the unintended consequences of the guaranteed student loan program. Research will show that up until about 1972, tuition and other costs at colleges and universities increased yearly at a rate approximately equal to the CPI rate of increase. But then after the student loan program was established, which greatly increased the number of students who could now pursue a college degree, the costs for going to college began to increase at a much faster rate than general inflation. Colleges and universities responded to this increased demand by (naturally) expanding faculties, but they also greatly expanded the size of administrative staffs and expanded campuses to provide more non-academic services to students. The result was that tuition and costs are now upwards of four times what they would have been had costs continued their historic rate of increase. So I am sympathetic to forgiving student debt in proportion to their current income, since in my opinion, higher education took advantage of the loan program to needlessly expand in ways which may not have been necessary. You may remember that I am a retired professor of physics from Wagner College in New York City.
I think we are asking the wrong question with AA. The question shouldn't be, why is Harvard apparently taking lesser qualified Black students and rejecting more qualified Asian students. The question should be, why isn't Harvard, with its $53b endowment, not taking all of them? Our patriarchal society creates an atmosphere of scarcity when there needn't be. Harvard's endowment amounts to $2m per student (Princeton is $4m). I randomly picked one public school, Louisiana State, and found its $700m endowment covers over 37,000 students, or less than $19,000 per student. We should be questioning the role of higher education, the responsibility of elite institutions to the cause and the absurdity of allowing them to horde riches tax-free.
A couple ideas: 1) Charge elite schools a luxury tax if there endowments exceed a pre-set ratio, with the taxed funds going to the poorest schools. 2) They can avoid the tax by increasing enrolment. I'm sure there's more once we open up the conversation.
I agree with you. They should certainly be expanding their class and covering the expansion. UNC has a mandate from the legislature to increase enrollment. I think I read an op-ed in the Times recently that suggested something similar and also noted that there ought not be anything sacrosanct about their untaxed endowment.
I appreciate very much your nuanced take on this issue and on the decision. One thing I haven't seen mentioned much, if at all (though I admit not looking hard for it yet) is the effect the SCOTUS decision has on white students, specifically, the lack of diversity of perspective and experience that comes from interacting in class and elsewhere on campus with an ethnically, racially, religiously and class diverse group of students (and faculty for that matter). The dominant white, Christian, European heritage (and mostly middle class) experience in the US is limiting in so many ways that I've come to understand as a "card carrying" member of this demographic. It undermines our democracy. It makes us oblivious of the history, contributions, leadership and potential of so many other people who aren't part of the dominant demographic.
The point is that Affirmative Action not just provides an important boost for students from racially marginalized groups, but through living, studying and working together in a campus setting, also broadens and deepens the perspective and understanding of the historically dominant (and privileged) white groups.
With AA for race now gone in admissions, my hope is that admissions offices will learn from the California and Michigan experiences and be able to evaluate applicants based on economic background/class and perhaps how a student has overcome adversity in making admission decisions and creating diverse student bodies.
Correction in the second sentence "the loss of diversity of perspective and experience"
Tom,
The cartoon is on point!
I've seen others make this argument about student loans. Now it seems as if we're stuck on a treadmill we can't get off, unless there were a state/federal commitment to taking on more of the costs. There's no question that schools, especially elite ones, have engaged in a facilities arms race which only perpetuates the cost spiral.
Dale, Thanks for this. The issue you raise has often come up in defenses of affirmative action, but I agree that it's been a very small part of the discussion since the ruling. It will be a loss, but a hard to measure one and, therefore, easy to overlook.
Here is a cartoon, which summarizes the issues of AA and legacy admissions, which you mention in your excellent essay: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10100532792542025&set=a.568449266705
Also, more should be said about the unintended consequences of the guaranteed student loan program. Research will show that up until about 1972, tuition and other costs at colleges and universities increased yearly at a rate approximately equal to the CPI rate of increase. But then after the student loan program was established, which greatly increased the number of students who could now pursue a college degree, the costs for going to college began to increase at a much faster rate than general inflation. Colleges and universities responded to this increased demand by (naturally) expanding faculties, but they also greatly expanded the size of administrative staffs and expanded campuses to provide more non-academic services to students. The result was that tuition and costs are now upwards of four times what they would have been had costs continued their historic rate of increase. So I am sympathetic to forgiving student debt in proportion to their current income, since in my opinion, higher education took advantage of the loan program to needlessly expand in ways which may not have been necessary. You may remember that I am a retired professor of physics from Wagner College in New York City.