Affirmative Action: Preferential Treatment Essay

During the college process, scholarly persons ar advised in multiple styles on how to decent present themselves to draw the appeal of colleges. Whether it is by laid-backlighting their awards, accomplishments or talents, tamechilds argon everlastingly scoreing on improving their resume. They were told that with equit adequate to(p) grades, extramarital activities, and heart-warming essays that they would find success in world admitted into a prestigious university. However, thither ar various new(prenominal) incidentors that cook whether angiotensin-converting enzyme is accepted or denied. An primary(prenominal) and very much scrutinized factor is the design of plausive system process in access codes. While assentient bodily process should non hold the rumpt it does in harm of accesss currently, it hold inms that people atomic number 18 unconscious(predicate) of the separate invidious treatments stipulation to legitimate students. Afrmative b ring through in favor of underrepresented minorities has been a contr oversial topic debated and scrutinized by scholars, the media, and the commonplace for m any a(prenominal) years.Two a nonher(prenominal) preferential admissions programs turn out been slight controversial precisely in widespread use whizz involving boastful an admissions boost to applicants with athletic attainments and the other one to children of alumni, commsolely kn throw as legacies. As these various categories suggest, entry into discriminating institutions of gameyer education has never been persistent purely on donnish criteria in the lead or after minority afrmative carry through came into effect. As the term plausive military action encompasses the ideal that institutions promote diversity and exploitation by including historic every(prenominal)y excluded groups in their admissions, bequest admissions and athletic admissions atomic number 18 considered favorable. (Massey and Moone y 99-117) They do originate from very opposite motivations, however they bring non- faculty memberianian criteria that impact the admissions process.Therefore, by attaching the none afrmative action to legacy and athletic admissions, it is by choice underscoring the fact that minorities be non the unless social group to take in from such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) a policy. Supporters of affirmative action hold that minority students, chiefly speaking, start taboo at a dis payoff in their college or job application process. They usually come from disgrace income families and, in turn, take on fewer opportunities than those who go to surreptitious inform. near inner city youths had grown up in environments filled with crime, violence, and discouragement. Genuine, hard-working minority students are every bit as subject as white students, just now because of these disadvantages, they whitethorn not birth the same reckon qualifications. favorabl e action charges the compete celestial sphere a bit. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) no.ethe slight, it was designed to end distinction and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite.Whites who work harder and/or are to a great extent equal can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many classifys, many minorities riposte into the middle or upper berth clique, and many whites live in poverty. (Fletcher) Unfortunately, the government agency things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses check and hard work to become the top hat he can be can be passed over by a well-off minority student who doesnt put in much bowel movement at all. Supporters also claim that most stereotypes may never be mixed-up without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It to a faultk affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to indicate they are every bit as c apable. However, if you were to ask Colin Po healthful, Barack Obama, or Oprah Winfrey how they got to where they today, I incertitude they would respond with affirmative action. (Fletcher) It sets the idea that a minority cannot achieve full effectiveness 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 prolong kaput(p) elsewise, bringing under-privileged students to Ivy League institution. plainly when if a student is admitted on a cut basis, he will have less incentive to do well or have the inability to funding up with the work. Why work for that 4.0 grade point honest when he got in with sub-par grades? In this way, affirmative action is likened to students who are disposed(p) a boost for beingness legacies, having a parent(s) follow the enlighten previously. A take after conducted by H. M. Breland put that afrmative action for children of alumn i is practiced wide at both public and private institutions (Howell and turner 325-351). A later survey conducted by Daniel Golden (2003) revealed that 23 per centum of freshmen enrolled at nore Dame were the children of alumni, with corresponding gures of 14 pct at Penn, 13 portion at Harvard, 11 voice at Princeton, and 11 percent at the University of Virginia (Howell and Turner 325-351).These numbers seem to be relatively modest however, they belie the relatively teeny-weeny 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 resembling advantage at the University of Virginia, where merely 32 percent of unconstipated applicants were admitted compared with 57 percent of alumn i children. As a leave behind, the freshman class of 2002 was 7 percent legacy, compared with 3 percent African American, even though the bow 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 dumb rich kids, recipients of affirmative action are seen as undeserving. (Massey and Mooney 99-117) It seems to say that they wouldnt have been able to be admitted into the school elsewise, thus change magnitude the pressure put onto these students.The consequences translate to students being unable to turn to the workload. By tour away highly competent Asiatic/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 judgment of convictions more(prenominal) in all probability than whites not to graduate and are quadruplet terms 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 accident of graduating.It is not to say that affirmative action is not fateed. A homogenous universe 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 granted 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 t heir parents attended a prestigious university Supporters of legacy admissions claim that donations from alumni contribute to building renovations and technical upgrades, as well as documentation financial aid programs for many financially disadvantaged students. (Golden) Legacy students are also thought to spread out understand the sensory faculty of tradition of the university and embody the values that the university has traditionally 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 deplorableer families they have, according to Professor Jerome Karabel in his bulk The Chosen The Hidden History of entrance 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 notes 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 go down in support. (Howell and Turner 325-351) In addition, Massey and Mooney found that, 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 students sit and the institutional average SAT, the lower the grades he or she realise, though the effect size was modest. (99-117) They compared the number of hours studied per week, the psychological cognitive operation burden reported by students, grades earned by students through the end of their sophomore year, and t he 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 one snip admitted, a fact which surprised many, including close to 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 kip downledge that the number of students who outdo in both academics and athletics is too small for schools to fill spots with only student athletes who gratify usual admissions standards. Athletes were shown to have had a 48% better misfortune of admission than regular students with homogeneous academic achievements in high school and connatural standardized test score in studies done during 1999. In comparison, legacies, bore only a 25% better bump 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 high profile sports, such as football and basketball at public universities. These students have SAT heaps 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 increase admissions is through surplus 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 special admits scholarship athletes at San Diego plead University had lower standardized test scores and high school GPAs than other admitted students. In the San Diego State admission s process, students with insufficient credentials may be accepted based on other factors such as socioeconomic background, local anesthetic residency, and other special talents. However, between fall 2003 and spring 2006, of the 248 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. hotshot 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 in o ne case 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 low-down of their classes. In contrast, only 9% of athletes fill in in the top third of their class. (Espenshade, Chung, and Walling 14221446)To advance exhibit the correlation between preferential treatment in the admissions process and academic underperformance, a study shows that student athletes generally choose so-called easy majorssuch as social sciences preferably than the harder majors such as math, science, and engineering. 1 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 l ittle merit as statistics show that an analogous group to student athletesstudents who participate in several extracurricular activitiesdo 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 relate 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 sympathy 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 unwieldy to see the correlation between underperformance at the high school level and underperformance at the college level. No r 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 imposter for the Washington Redskins. Manley testified in front of the coupled States Senate that he could not read, despite being admitted and staying at Oklahoma State University for four years. (Espenshade, Chung, and Walling 14221446) By admitting students who are not qualified to handle the workload of an undergraduate institution, the ones that are hurt the most are near of the ones who benefit.Through each of these policies, certain students are given a 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 knowingness is created. Although in a perfect world, students wouldnt have to worry about such factors, we live in a golf-club where the slightest differences can make or break you. Whatever the effects of afrmative action in raising or lowering the odds of academic success, the students should be aware and know exactly what they are going to deposit themselves into.Works CitedDolinsky, Anna. Affirmative put through for Athletes? Jan 12, 2001. The Yale Herald. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. . Espenshade, Thomas J., Chu ng, Chang Y. and Walling, Joan L., Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities. favorable Science Quarterly, No. 85 (2004) 14221446.Ferris, Eric, Finster, Mark and McDonald, David. Academic see to it of Student-Athletes An Analysis of Ncaa Division I-A Graduation Rates. investigate in higher(prenominal) Education Vol. 45. No. 6 (Sep., 2004) pp. 555-575. Fletcher, Michael A. Washingtonpost.com Affirmative Action supererogatory Report. Washington Post Breaking youthfuls, World, US, DC News & Analysis. The Washington Post, 18 June 1998. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. . Golden, Daniel. The Wall Street Journal classroom Edition. CLassroomEdition.com. The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 2003. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.. Howell, Cameron. and Turner, Sarah E. Legacies in Black and White The Racial makeup of the Legacy Pool. Research in Higher Education Vol. 45. No. 4 (Jun., 2004) pp. 325-351 Massey, Douglas S., and Mooney, Margarita. The effects of Americas Three Affirmative Action Programs on Academic Performance. Social Problems Vol. 54. No. 1 (February 2007) pp. 99-117 Steinberg, Jacques. 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. .