A very interesting interview of Lani Guinier on "The Measure of Meritocracy," and how "our educational system has become a copy of the aristocracy it was intended to undo."
RP: Can you talk about the Harvard and Michigan studies?
LG:
Harvard University did a study based on 30 Harvard graduates over a
30-year period. They wanted to know which students were most likely to
exemplify the things that Harvard values most: doing well financially,
having a satisfying career and contributing to society (especially in
the form of donating to Harvard). The two variables that most predicted
which students would achieve these criteria were low SAT scores and a
blue-collar background.That study was followed by one at the
University of Michigan Law School that found that those most likely to
do well financially, maintain a satisfying career and contribute to
society were black and Latino students who were admitted pursuant to
affirmative action. Conversely, those with the highest LSAT scores were
the least likely to mentor younger attorneys, do pro-bono work, sit on
community boards, etc. So, the use of these so called "measures of
merit" like standardized tests is backfiring on our institutions of
higher learning and blocking the road to a more democratic society.RP: You refer to college education as a gift from poor to rich.
LG:
Anthony Carnevaly made that statement when he was the vice president of
the Educational Testing Service. He did a study of 146 of the most
selective colleges and universities and found that 74 percent of
students came from the top 25 percent of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Only three percent came from the lowest quartile and 10 percent (which
is three percent plus seven percent) came from the bottom half. So that
means that 50 percent of people in the country are providing
substantial state and federal taxes to both public and private
institutions even though they are among those least well off and are
being excluded from the opportunity.
Read it for more interesting information on how class, race, societal position, and "merit" influence our educational system. There are some very interesting claims made. While you may not agree with them all, I challenge anyone to disprove that there are major flaws in our system of higher education and who gets the privilege to attend.
Oh, and please remember that as soon as you reinterpret Ms. Guinier’s data I will challenge any claims to the possibility of measuring "merit." Do I have an answer to who should be admitted then? No, I do not. But recognition of the problem is the first step. Open discussion of the issues, difficult as they may be, is the next. And while I admit that it is often a useful stance to take, those who would claim that pointing out a problem without offering a solution is simple carping, will be immediately disenfranchised from the conversation. Seems fair, as that is what they have just done to those bringing the problem forward. Some problems need to be openly discussed and a compromise solution sought. To imagine that any individual could have a solution to a problem of this magnitude and complexity is sheer unadulterated hubris. To those who would take that stance, I can only say, "May you fly too close to the sun…."
Found at alternet.org via
IFACTION Digest 1498.
Also from the same sources, an interesting article on increased student debt, which has garnered a whole range of comments. Interesting idea nonetheless:
There is social control in loading young people up with financial
obligations. Burdened with debt and desperate to have and keep a job,
there is no way they can take a wild year off, and there is certainly
no time for protesting, organizing or causing the kind of social and
political trouble young people cause from time to time.How many
young people turn away from low-paying but vital professions because
they can’t earn enough to pay back their loans? How many potential
social workers, pro bono lawyers, journalists, environmentalists,
teachers, artists, secondary medical professionals and community
workers are we losing?