When UC Berkeley began accepting applications based solely on SAT scores, the demographics of the accepted students became quite interesting. A disproportionately large amount of East Asian, Indian, and Jewish students were accepted, while there was a disproportionately small amount of white and black students were accepted. Because of this, affirmative action usually sets out to create equal outcome and a more representative student body; the students who benefit most from this are usually black students. It certainly sounds good on paper. However, what good does this really do? By trying to create equal outcome, colleges would accept a black (or other minority) student who have lower SAT scores, lower grades, and less extracurriculars over a white student who was objectively more qualified. This disadvantages white students, even though, as shown by the case in UC Berkeley, they are in a similar position as the black students. We can all agree that there are students from every racial group who are extremely intelligent and qualified. However, those being accepted purely because of affirmative action simply may not have the drive, education and skills to keep up with their classmates. Black students have a significantly lower graduation rate (in higher education) compared to white and Asian students. The reason for this is because the students are simply matched with the wrong school and do not fit into the school they are attending (thanks to affirmative action). The same is true for women who are accepted into STEM fields that they simply are not prepared for. In STEM, women are accepted at a higher rate than men not because they are more intelligent or prepared, but because the system is trying to create an equal outcome. However, it discriminates against students who are truly qualified for the position. Doesn't it make more sense to just accept the person who is most qualified? Well, there's one exception I'd like to pinpoint ... students who come from poverty or extremely poor/difficult/abusive home lives. I believe if a student comes from such an area, and still achieved amazing grades and participated in as much as possible, they are every bit as qualified as someone who had the opportunity to go to private school and didn't have to work part-time, because, in college the same opportunities will be offered to everyone, and students who come from difficult backgrounds will have the resources and environment to excel. Despite situations such as these, I believe everyone should be given an equal shot at being accepted into an institute of higher learning: black, or white, or anything in between! What do you guys think?
Jul 21, 2018
Greetings, fellow Ambassadors, As we know, the July 2018 topic for the Roundtable Discussion is Education Funding. I recently came across this extremely informative resource about education funding. The resource explores how funding has changed over time, and provides statistical data in understanding the changes made over the local, state, and federal level in the USA. Article: http://apps.urban.org/features/education-funding-trends/ As mentioned on their website, the data they they collected "measured the progressivity of school funding as the ratio of two weighted averages of each district’s per-student revenue: (1) weights are the number of poor students; and (2) weights are the number of nonpoor students. For example, an estimate of 1.1 would imply that, on average, poor students attend districts that receive 10 percent more in per-student funding than the districts nonpoor students attend. " (source: http://apps.urban.org/features/education-funding-trends/) What do you all feel about this article and the information put forward by them? Ambassadors belonging to other nationalities, how does education funding work in your country? Could you please share your insights, or any other resources or articles you find valuable? Thank you so much for all your inputs!