Admissions PolicyAdmissions PolicyAbstractProspective students hoping to gain admission into universities throughout the United States expect an equal opportunity. The goals of success and achievement are what each student hopes to achieve. Many obstacles are involved in getting in to a university. Some Universities are selective in their choice of students. Factors such as race, gender, social background, financial status, personal opinions and desires students have of about them, are a few issues students must encounter upon entering a university. Because of these issues, Civil rights activists, Students and families of students are demonstrating their dissatisfaction toward the Universities Admission Policies, in an effort to allow each student a fair chance for an education.
Admissions PoliciesThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear several cases in the coming months involving the admission practices of using race as a factor in deciding student admissions. The schools involved in this high stakes game of diversity in the school system are located in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky. Civil rights groups and education scholars in support of
race-conscious policies of Seattle and Jefferson County school districts) filed 57 friend-of-the-court briefs (Trotter, 2006). Universities attempting to enroll students based on racial quotas can be a complicated situation in todays society and should not be taken lightly.
The Bush Administration has weighed in for support of the other side that are composed of families of students who were denied the right of attending their preferred school under two plans aided by 11 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in August. Their challenge is this: Race as a factor in apportioning students to schools based on this race, violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in-turn violates the right of equal protection under the law (Trotter, 2006). The administrations point is well taken but, diversity in any organization is its greatest strength and the freedom to choose is not an absolute.
Growing up in the 70s, the same U.S. Supreme Court composed of entirely different justices highly favored diversity and equality in schools and ruled on this matter. The product of their decision was busing students out of their school districts and neighborhoods in order to achieve racial diversity; at that time, this was equality under another name. However, ladies and gentlemen, they both go hand-in-hand. The playing field in the educational system is still not level where equality is concerned and forcing students to attend schools not of their choice for diversity sake goes against what the founding fathers of the constitution envisioned, freedom and equality for all regardless of color.
Maybe the term “College Admissions Policy” should be changed to a more descriptive term, “Selective Colleges Screening Process”. Because there are no nationally recognized uniformed standards regarding entrance requirements to community colleges, public and private state colleges and universities nationwide, to include the military service academies, there will always be a blend of controversy regarding “who” will be admitted into a given school. Laws have been set in place with the primary purpose of allowing and maintaining fair consideration and “equal treatment” to all who desire to continue or start an education (Kantak, 2004). One problem created by these laws and other devices that claim to grant equal and fair opportunity to minority applicants, is that when the laws or policys are set in place, they are very generic and does not accurately explain and cover the term “minority.” They do however address the term race. They do not address other factors that do place an applicant in a “minority status”. Categories such as single parent; physically challenged; visually impaired; foreign student; service member, veteran or Disabled American Veteran; and the list could go on, do place an applicant in a minority status. Just not always in a racial status.
Admissions policies could be arranged in a manner placing favor in the acceptance of the minority applicant and adds (or will bring) diversity over similar or better-qualified non-minority applicants (Kantak, 2004). Maybe consider the applicants future goals because of receiving an education from the institution, or consider the applicants future potential for success after receiving an education from the school. Yes, this might be viewed as taking somewhat of a risk. Admissions Board members have very little data to consider regarding a decision with the above-mentioned considerations. An education is a lifetime investment, and since there is usually some level of risk in any worthy investment, if an investment
of the value may be overstated, the benefits of the current institution are very small. Some people consider that investment to be good, but that would be a step too far to make it possible. For example, in a university, students would be given little choice and if they are not convinced about their ability to perform the academic task, they may be asked to change their school or become an instructor. If these courses are required for the same career, then the benefits do not seem to outweigh the risks, thus adding to the value of the investment. Of course, many factors also contribute. Such an investment could cause that a few or more students would choose not to take this course, leading to another change of school or life which would hurt their chances of being accepted to a university. For example, a student who can be successful in applying to several universities in one year could, at this point on their way to graduation, use their experience to be a better fit in that university system, thus making their choice a good one for a future career. Even though the benefit may be small, it does add up. For example, if a couple who received the same educational certificate as one of the other applicants would be given a $200-level educational certificate, they would not be required under university standards to attend this course as the certificate is provided when the applicant took it. This would add up well:
This might be a good investment. Some people may not get to choose the university education but the benefits outweigh the risks, and the university might be even more welcoming than it once was.
Admission-Based and Adoption-Based Admissions
This will also add up somewhat. When applying for an education, the educational requirements may be different depending on the school and if the college is accepting of the applicant for the education. For example, if the school accepts an applicant who has been accepted for a scholarship and who is working full time, the school will grant all of the applicants with the scholarship a special exemption. In a student to student correspondence program, this is usually only part of the financial assistance. Some universities will grant specific scholarships because they believe students have not been successful in applying for the individual type of scholarship that they are getting. Such an exemption is sometimes based on specific student needs.
Admission-based awards are usually awarded to students who have received the same degree awarded to the equivalent degree given to the school or school-related job that the school requires them to complete, or a combination of the two as well. These are usually the ones given by the school based on the percentage of students who have graduated, and many are awarded to graduates who have completed the equivalent degree with the same degree the applicant received. But these awards are different depending on the institution. In some colleges, an education grants to applicants the scholarship from the institution they were offered a few years down the road. In some