Here\u2019s a book which I started reading, then forgot about until it was due at the library and I pulled out the bookmark out, a slip of paper with notes scribbled on it . \u00a0Hence, I can\u2019t really properly summarize the book, except to share its key idea: \u00a0that it\u2019s unfair for universities, especially elite universities, to use SAT scores (and even academic achievement in general) to determine who they admit, rather then admitting students who are more \u201cmeritorious\u201d in the sense of virtuous (civic virtue, overcoming hardships, fought injustice, etc.).<\/p>\n
She writes extensively on the SATs, and says they\u2019ve been thoroughly discredited as a predictor of college achievement; instead, grades in high school are the marker for future success. \u00a0(What about the concern that that students can have deceptively-good or poor grades due to particularly weak or rigorous schools? \u00a0She doesn\u2019t address this.) \u00a0She also profiles various programs designed to help kids from poor neighborhoods succeed in college, from extensive support (scholarships plus tutoring and counseling) at a college located in a poor neighborhood, for local kids attending there, to the Posse Foundation, which sends inner-city kids to college in \u201cposses\u201d for mutual support.<\/p>\n
Her model is fundamentally that a highly-selective university, as a taxpayer-supported institution (that is, if nothing else, due to its tax exemptions) should use the resources at its disposal not to provide a superior education for the highest achievers, but to provide more resources to support struggling students.<\/p>\n
But here\u2019s the question: \u00a0what is the purpose of a highly-selective university being, well, highly-selective? \u00a0Why not admit kids based on a lottery, or turn to being completely profit-seeking and charge truly whatever the market will bear, without playing games of financial aid?<\/p>\n
In principle, the answer ought to be clear: \u00a0these highly selective universities ought to offer learning experiences with a substantially greater degree of rigor than elsewhere, preparing the best and the brightest to do outstanding work after graduation. \u00a0In principle, this level of rigor ought to mean that lower-achieving students would struggle to keep up, or, if not, simply wouldn\u2019t benefit, so are best off at a less rigorous university.<\/p>\n
But is this really the case? \u00a0Or is a selective university really all about having that key advantage when hitting the job market, what with top investment banking firms and other super-high-paying employers recruiting exclusively at the Ivies? \u00a0If an Ivy education isn\u2019t about, well, the education, but the job market advantage, then Guinier does have a point, not necessarily that they should be required to open up to more \u201cdeserving\u201d students, but, at a minimum, that they shouldn\u2019t get tax breaks and government funds, if they are fundamentally about benefits for the individual students who manage, by family wealth (= knowledge about the \u201ctricks\u201d for admission), to gain admission.<\/p>\n
As usual, what do you think?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here\u2019s a book which I started reading, then forgot about until it was due at the library and I pulled out the bookmark out, a slip of paper with notes scribbled on it . \u00a0Hence, I can\u2019t really properly summarize the book, except to share its key idea: \u00a0that it\u2019s unfair for universities, especially elite […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":1386,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n