Bias In College Admissions
Essay Preview: Bias In College Admissions
Report this essay
Bias in College Admissions
There is no mistaking that getting into college is highly competitive, a college degree is now more necessary than ever. There are many kinds of bias race, gender, grade point average, financial ability and more important class.
The Oxford American College Dictionary defines bias as “Prejudice on favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. Many in this country view the college or university admissions process to be unfair. One of the most divisive issues involving admissions is race.
As on many issues involving race, whites and blacks have different opinions regarding which race currently fares better in the college admissions processÐ The majority of whites (54%) tend to view affirmative action programs as giving preferential treatment to minorities in work and education, while the majority of blacks (65%) generally think that they mainly ensure access for minorities that they otherwise might not get The number of white Americans earning a bachelors degree or higher has tripled, from 8% in 1960 to 26% in 2000. During the same time period, blacks have nearly quintupled their college graduation rate in 1960, just 3% of blacks earned a college degree, compared with more than 14% today, (Lyons, 2005).
Affirmative action has a great deal to do with the increase in minority enrollments in colleges and universities. “In the United States existing literature on affirmative action is not clear on its origin and the precise date when Affirmative Action is still a conundrum. Nevertheless most of the literature pin the origin of Affirmative ActionÐ… in 1935,” (Antwi-Boasiako & Asagba, 2005, p. 734).
In July of 2003, the United States Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigans undergraduate affirmative action admissions program. Which favored African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics. But three new CEO studies show that preferences, for blacks especially have gotten worse in subsequent years. These preferences extend to law and medical school admissions as well, (Chavez, 2006).
Symonds writes, consider, that only 3% of students at these top schools came from families in the bottom socioeconomic quartile and just 10% are from families in the bottom half. Meanwhile, a substantial 74% of the students hail from families in the top quartile defined by family income, parental education, and other factors such as neighborhood affluence. The discrepancies stem from soaring tuitions and lagging financial aid, a one-two punch that effectively has priced many low-income students out of the market for a sheepskin. Moreover, while the University of Michigan case centers on admission to the most competitive colleges, the issue of economic segregation affects a far broader universe. Not only are students from low-income families largely shut out of the elite colleges, but they are also much less likely to attend college at all, compared with their counterparts from wealthier families. By the time they turn 26, just 7% of students who grow up in the lowest-income families have earned a BA, vs. 59% of students who come from the most affluent families, according to the Education Trust, a nonprofit group in Washington. These economic disparities have grave implications for American society. They suggest that the problems of racial polarization will persist even with continued affirmative action, since African Americans and Hispanic children are far more likely than Caucasians to grow up in poverty. Moreover, because a college degree is increasingly a passport to the middle class, “this is hardly a route for greater economic mobility,” says Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust. Instead, warns Tom Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, “The trajectory were on suggests we will become a poorer, more unequal, and less homogeneous country.” Financial aid programs have failed to keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of attending college. Just look at the Pell Grant, which is the bedrock federal aid program for low-income college students. A generation ago, it covered 84% of the cost of attending a four-year public university. At that level it put a four-year degree within reach of even the poorest students. Today, the Pell covers just 42%, leaving many low-income families unable to put their children through. One solution to this problem would be to modify affirmative action programs to give preferences to good students from low-income families. The Century Foundation study found that this approach would bring vastly more economic diversity than admission policies that single out race alone. In fact, 38% of the students at the top colleges would then come from the poorest half of the population, vs. just 10% currently, (Symonds, 2003).
Other factors are also at work. “Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.” (Taylor Jr., 2003, 1125). There are many myths concerning racial bias and college admission. One very big myth is that “Racial preferences are needed to help downtrodden descendants of slaves overcome white privilege.”(Taylor Jr., 1125). Taylor goes on to disprove this myth by listing these facts;
(a) Racial preferences do virtually nothing for the vast majority of black people. (b) Most white and Asian applicants rejected on account of preferences are not privileged. (c) Most of the students who lose out because of racial preferences are not white; they are Asian-American, the New York Times suggested in a February 2 article. (d) More and more preferences go to descendants not of slaves but of Hispanic Immigrants. (e)Ð…the most logical offset would be economic-not racial-preferences. (Taylor Jr.)
The bias or perceived bias extends beyond the undergraduate admission process. Nussbaumer writes; “If the downward slide in African-American enrollment is to be halted and reversed, at least two changes must be made in the accreditation standards. First, admissions policies or practices that have a disparate impact on minority admissions must be prohibited, unless those policies and practices are proven by objective evidence to be valid and reliable indicators of an applicants capability to satisfactorily complete a schools educational program. Second, law schools must be prohibited from misusing the LSAT contrary to LSAC guidelines,”(Nussbaumer, 2006, 180).
If law schools and the ABA Council will not voluntarily change or properly justify their policies and practices, aggrieved African-American applicants who are denied admission