Without “affirmative action” for athletes, fewer football stars on the field

What do you call a Division I school that doesn’t lower its admission standards to admit star athletes?

Probably 0-12.

While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.

In an investigation three years ago of admission standards for athletes, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates — and men’s basketball players average seven points less than football players.

At the University of Georgia, the average football SAT was 949, which was 239 points behind the average for an undergraduate student at Georgia at the time. The Bulldogs’ average high school GPA was 2.77, or 45th out of 53 big-time college teams for which football GPAs were available.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to revisit the issue of race-conscience admissions policies is sparking new discussions of admission standards and deviations.

The court last addressed race in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. In a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, saying that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

In Fisher v. Texas, a far more conservative court will now take up the claim of a white student who said she lost a spot at the University of Texas Austin because of her race.

Under the “talented 10” policy, students in the top 10 percent of any Texas high school are assured admittance to any state institution of higher learning.

Abigail Fisher was not among the top 10 percent of her class, but contends that she would have merited admission in the general applicant pool had it not been for racial preferences.

“Teaching students that their skin color is what defines them should not be part of the curriculum at public universities,” said Joshua P. Thompson, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief urging the court to take the Fisher case.

“A policy of race-based preferences and discrimination in admissions is not just unfair, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he said.

But are college admissions ever fair, given how many exceptions are made, including the lower bar for top athletes and the little-discussed benefits accrued to “legacy” students whose parents and grandparents attended the school or to children of a celebrity or potential donor?

Could it be that Abigail Fisher lost her spot in Austin to the daughter of a Texas legislator, the son of a country-western star or a placekicker with a 50-yard range?

In a study of legacy admissions at prestigious Duke University, researchers Nathan D. Martin and Kenneth I. Spenner found that these students trail their peers in academic credentials: “The average SAT score for legacies is about 40 points lower than students with professional degree parents, and about 12 points lower than students with other degree parents.”

An editorial earlier this month in the independent Duke student newspaper, the Chronicle, attacked legacy admissions, noting that children of alumni made up 20.4 percent of students in 2008, and 13 percent of the graduating class of 2015.

The editorial said, “Duke’s legacy admissions policy is not only unfair but unjustified. Because Duke cannot rationalize its legacy policy on the grounds of financial necessity or community enrichment, the admissions process should no longer grant any consideration whatsoever to legacy status.”

–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog

142 comments Add your comment

Dr. Proud Black Man

February 24th, 2012
10:49 am

Hypocrisy, gotta love it!

soren

February 24th, 2012
10:54 am

“While many people condemn any consideration of race in college admissions, few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.”

People should.complain but they’re stupid. College athletics needs to be reformed as the people representing their schools have no business being at their schools.

“Could it be that Abigail Fisher lost her spot in Austin to the daughter of a Texas legislator, the son of a country-western star or a placekicker with a 50-yard range?”

There were many minorities with lower test scores test scores than her that got in even after the 10 Percent Rule. Your “white people” examples are just beyond absurd, ridiculous, and kind of patronizing.

““The average SAT score for legacies is about 40 points lower than students with professional degree parents, and about 12 points lower than students with other degree parents.””

The average SAT score gab between whites and blacks at duke is 140 points. I don’t like “legacies”, but bringing up “legacies” is a complete red herring.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/02/22/beyond-race-in-affirmative-action/merit-not-race-in-college-admissions

Prof

February 24th, 2012
11:09 am

But “legacies” of schools with former discriminatory admissions policies–so that their student bodies were mostly white– means that the past discrimination is just continuing into the present.

Cobb Math Teacher

February 24th, 2012
11:15 am

Athletes getting in has nothing to do with affirmative action–why would someone try to combine these two thoughts. It is absurd

#1 Complainer

February 24th, 2012
11:25 am

Maureen writes “few complain about the routine acceptance of lower-performing student athletes admitted because of their outstanding abilities on the field rather than in the classroom.”

I am the few. I think we need to ban football and other high dollar televised sports from colleges to force football teams to have minor leagues just as baseball does.

We always here about the corruption and duplicity of football in colleges — corruption, greed, lies, cheating and all students get ripped off. The kid who doesn’t get a college scholarship because it was given to the football player and the football players themselves who are used like bathroom tissue. good for a moment, then thrown away when used up.

Women suffer too. Football is the breeding ground for chauvinism, machismo and violence against against women.

For anyone claiming football brings in money — so what? We don’t need that money, which doesn’t get funneled into academics — it gets funneled into the coaches salaries, glorified churches known as stadiums, bribes to players and so on.

A 0-12 football ? Good for them. At least someone has their priorities in the right place.

Good Mother

Prof

February 24th, 2012
11:33 am

@ Cobb Math Teacher. If college admissions should be based only on grades and test scores–and the factor of race not considered, as those opposed to affirmative action policies claim–then why should athletic ability be allowed as a factor?

Jimmy62

February 24th, 2012
11:40 am

I see nothing wrong with schools letting people in for actual abilities, like athletics or academics. That’s completely different than making decisions based on race, which has nothing to do with ability. Or are you saying that black people can only get in to college if we look at their athletic ability? What a racist and hateful notion!

Are you people really saying that the color of your skin and your athletic ability are the same, while academic ability is completely different? I just can’t wrap my head around the weird racial and group politics these sort of ideas sprung from. People are people. I’ll judge them based on their abilities and accomplishments, both athletic, academic, and social. I won’t judge them based on their skin color.

HS Public Teacher

February 24th, 2012
11:43 am

Where will it end?

Colleges/Universities public/private should have a great deal of flexibility on their own adminissions policy. If they want to only admit people with SATs less than 1100, then let them. If they want to only admit blonde people, then let them.

There are so many options for higher ed – both brick and mortor and on-line – there is a place for everyone.

Is the government really going to dictate, for example, that all college/universities should have 25% brown hair people, 42% black hair people, 36% people with blue eyes, 47% people that can dunk a basketball, and 35% people that can run a 40 yard dash less than 5 seconds?????

If a college wants to lower their standards to admit basketball players, then let them. Let the cards fall where they may – while that institution may win a championship in basketball, they will destroy their own reputation as a place of higher learning.

Nat Turner

February 24th, 2012
11:55 am

There were many minorities with lower test scores test scores than her that got in even after the 10 Percent Rule. Your “white people” examples are just beyond absurd, ridiculous, and kind of patronizing.
Yeah, some of those were athletes. I guarantee you that University of Texas made sure that the minority students had the GPAs and the SAT scores to get in because people like you are going to make a stink about it if they do not make the cut. After all of the lawsuits, universities made sure that their “i’s” were dotted and their “t’s” were crossed.

But the anger in your tone speaks volumes.

Nothing extra should be taken into account for athletics, legacies, or race. It should be based on your academic record.

As for athletes, how many actually take the opportunity to get an education while they are there? How many graduate with a degree? How many just get used by the athletic department and are cast aside if they can no longer perform? Is having them perform athletically but can’t read a sentence one of the reasons that they lower the bar because they know that they won’t make it and are disposable?

Nat Turner

February 24th, 2012
11:59 am

Jimmy sounds like a typical sports fan that will overlook an athlete’s poor academic record just so his school can have a championship.

You do bring up a good point. Are colleges and universities there for academics or sports? If they are about sports, then you are right. If they are about academics, then all students should have to meet the same criteria.

Lori

February 24th, 2012
12:01 pm

Why not just remove race and sex from the applications and let everyone get in based on merit alone.

thomas

February 24th, 2012
12:02 pm

So, when we make a personnel decision – whether college admission or hiring – we look at past achievements as a proxy for “potential.” As TV commercions would say, “past performance does not guarantee future performances.” Admission to a college isn’t (shouldn’t be) just a reward for past performances.

Jimmy62

February 24th, 2012
12:27 pm

Nat,
I’m all for separating college athletes from regular students, and paying them like the entertainment product they are.

My issue is you guys basically saying athletic ability and skin color are similar differentiators, and somehow different than academic ability. And I think that’s ridiculous. Academic ability and athletic ability are a combination of genetics and environment and hard work. Skin color is entirely genetic and should not be a deciding factor in ANYTHING. Affirmative action is a racist policy, and you can change the subject to big school football, but that doesn’t change the fact that affirmative action is based solely on skin color, and thus is a bad thing, unlike looking at say academics and athletics, which aren’t solely based on something people have no control over.

Beverly Fraud

February 24th, 2012
12:29 pm

Maureen, are you forgetting that Vanderbilt, which went so far as to dismantle its athletics department a few years back, regular meets up with the likes of Alabama and LSU on the SEC gridiron and when they do…

Never mind.

Georgia, The " New Mississippi "

February 24th, 2012
12:33 pm

$$$$$$$$$$

American Values

Prof

February 24th, 2012
12:33 pm

@ Lori. See the earlier blog thread about the Supreme Court reconsidering its ruling on using race as a factor in college admissions. Maureen there has made these points: 1) nationally, so many more females have higher grades and SAT scores than do males, that if gender weren’t considered in admissions, most co-ed schools would swiftly become 70% female and 30% male–and neither gender would want to attend. So the schools’ decision to consider gender is economic. 2) California and Texas colleges have already removed race as a factor…and discovered that Asians and whites make up the great majority of their admissions. Applications drop because many don’t want to go to a majority-Asian and/or majority-white college.

carlosgvv

February 24th, 2012
12:39 pm

Lower-performing student athletes aren’t the only ones admitted to these schools. Lower-performing black non-athletes are also admitted because of affirmative action. Since this has been going on for many years now, the question we must ask is – why are these black students still lower-performing? Social experiment after social experiment has been the rule in trying to bring these black students up to the white level for over 50 years now. Nothing has worked. I suspect that, for reasons of political correctness, the real reason for this will never be publicly stated by those in power and we will see, in the next 50 years, more and more of these experiments.

Shar

February 24th, 2012
12:46 pm

Prof, I disagree that a legacy differential of either 40 or 12 points out of an average of 1500+ at Duke makes for a continuation of past discrimination. It appears that legacy kids who were not close to the average admit scores didn’t make it in, leaving room for non-affiliated students with higher scores.

This is to assume, too, that college campuses are best off with the highest SAT scorers. I don’t believe this is true, and I agree with the Supremes and the admissions officers who have identified diversity in a host of areas as valuable in the educational arena. A virtuoso violinist with lower SATs will most likely enrich classroom discussion and potentially campus ‘culture’, and will probably take away something different from their four years (or more) on campus than might a 1600, 4.5 wunderkind who is heading for an academic career.

Students who are athletes are in a different category to me for two reasons: Their grades and scores are so far below average that they are not likely to be able to compete in the classroom, and they are not subject to the same expectation of graduation that other students are. If those student athletes are not subject to the same academic expectations – the true mission of the institution – as the rest of the student body, they have no legitimate claim to represent the school and should not be allowed on the school’s field.

If UGA recruits these low-prepared students and uses them to gain fame and fortune for the university, I believe that the school in turn must be held accountable for their academic success. The NCAA has the resources to create some kind of national test of basic, employable skills for college graduates in concert with a sampling of HR directors and college placement professionals – can they write? Read effectively? Use technology? Have basic skills in their area of study? – and mandate that all scholarship athletes take the test before they leave campus. For every student that fails, their sport loses a scholarship. This would be true for students who leave early as well.

Admitting below-average students who can do something non-academic that their more egghead peers cannot is not in itself necessarily a terrible thing. They can potentially make up for inadequate preparation with intensive tutoring and other academic support, and graduate in far better shape than they entered. However, allowing those students to thumb their noses at the real purpose of being in school while they are being used and discarded is both immoral and impossible to justify when highly-prepared students are being rejected to make room for the athletes, particularly in state-funded schools like UGA.

td

February 24th, 2012
12:48 pm

You are comparing apples to oranges here. A athlete brings a special skill set to the table that the average college student just does not have just like a musician. If you want to add the skill set as a grading point to the general criteria of being admitted then they would probably score higher on the admissions. Remember the SCOTUS has said you can have special criteria but you can not use race as a higher criteria.

Digger

February 24th, 2012
12:54 pm

I think I deserve affirmative action to play in the NBA.

Another Comment

February 24th, 2012
1:06 pm

Even at Marist they give alumni a huge preference. When my daughter applied a girl who had been her friend at Catholic school who was a C student at best and only scored a 40 on the SSAT, this is a very low score. Another child would have been turned down, but alas her father was an alumni, and on the Board. So she was accepted. From what I here she struggles. Other kids with my daughter’s score were accepted if they had alumni parents. They were also accepted if they had multi-millionare parents. I didn’t want to stoop to having my Aunt who is a Mother Superior of the Sister’s of Mercy up North and was the Head Master a Catholic Prep School write a letter and call. I also, dared to ask for finacial aid. Whoops, financial aid is reserved for blacks and hispanics, not white divorced mothers in Atlanta who aren’t alumni’s because they didn’t grow up heres.

Rockerbabe

February 24th, 2012
1:07 pm

If a person graduates from high school and wants to go to college, then by all means, admit them. Open admissions should be the policy of all schools as long as the minimum requirement have been met. Don’t worry about overcrowded classes; there are lots of unemployed grad student wannabes who will gladly teach entry classes for the going rate.

Usually 6 weeks into the school period [be it quarters or semesters], there is always a shakeout of about 15-20%, who find that college isn’t what they want, they aren’t at the school of choice or otherwise, haven’t go a clue.

Let them in, let them do the work, or try to do the work and then let the chips fall where they may. Those who can cut the workload, will succeed and others will either leave of their own free will or be forced out by low GPA. All this admissions crap is just crap. There are lots of reason why kids fail at college and often SAT, etc have little to do with that equation.

Another Comment

February 24th, 2012
1:08 pm

When I went to open houses at Pace, they flat out told you that they went much lower with admission standard of boys, because they had to keep it at 50-50 boys to girls. So the big key is have your first child be a boy not a girl entering any private school, then it is easier to get in.

Another Comment

February 24th, 2012
1:12 pm

My cousin Carol’s son was a victim of the 10% rule at UT, Austin. Due to the fact that she had him in a top Catholic Prep School. So he ended up going to one of the other UT schools. It was still one of their top three schools. The original plan was to transfer after a year when all of the top 10 from lesser schools flunk out. But he ended up liking it and found out Football wasn’t everything.

Now with her daughter she sent her to a Christian School, where she has a better chance of being in the top 10, so she will get a top 10 spot at UT, Austin.

David Granger

February 24th, 2012
1:18 pm

Nobody complains about the lowering of academic standards to admit athletes or anyone else with special, unique talents…or for that matter, any kind of “special preference” based on class or underprivileged background.
What we are opposed to is special preference based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin…those things that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 very specifically forbade as grounds for discrimination.
If you use admission criteria based on athletic ability, academic ability, class…then those admissions will be available to every race, gender, and ethnicity…without specifically discriminating against anyone based on the things that all of our laws specifically prohibit. (But that previous SCOTUS decisions allowed…because to hell with what the law very clearly says…we think the law ought to say something different. So we’re going to “wink-wink” allow you to ignore it at will.)
You’re absolutely right about legacy admissions, and I’d love to see them eliminated as well. But surely, Ms. Downey, you don’t feel that…just because we can’t eliminate EVERYTHING wrong in one blow…that we should refuse to fix what we CAN? It seems a rather ludicrous argument to pretend that…because one court case does not address EVERYTHING that might be wrong…then we should just ignore that one case.

Ralyks

February 24th, 2012
1:19 pm

First of all, it’s just plain ignorant to imply that whites are smarter than minorities (blacks, hispanics, etc..)… just because their SAT scores are higher. There are so many things that come into play when it comes to the SAT scores in general. The SAT Prep business is a multimillion dollar industry and you must have “some green” just to attend the classes. Also, most of the students who do well on the SAT test come from affluent areas; which is why south GA whites(low-income) are a minority when it comes to attending college. The south GA students usualy struggle in college as well, because they are just as unprepared as any other minority group.

If you don’t want to use race as part of the admission process, why not use low-income zipcodes and set aside a specific number of spaces for admissions for those students. Of course those students should not come from just one “region” of the state, to insure that we don’t just accept poor south GA white students, but poor inner-city students as well.

jess

February 24th, 2012
1:21 pm

If I’m not mistaken, there are no laws requiring schools to have a lower standard for athletes. Also these athletes are being admitted based on merit in certain skills, not just their race or sex. This is totally apples and oranges.

Lee

February 24th, 2012
1:26 pm

“What do you call a Division I school that doesn’t lower its admission standards to admit star athletes? 0-12.”

Nice misdirection Maureen. In football parlance, that’s what we call a play action fake.

There were actually two schools in division 1AA with winless seasons. Are you saying that both refused to lower admission standards. In addition, there were several teams in division 1A with one win seasons. What about those? Are you also saying that there were no teams with winning seasons who upheld high admissions standards for athletes?

Personally, I think any athlete who wishes to play for XYZ University should have to apply and get accepted just like every other student. Unfortunately, with regards to division 1A football and basketball, the Genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in – too many millions $$ at stake….

With regards to public college admissions, only those attributes that contribute to successful completion of the college program should be considered. GPA, SAT, ACT, etc, etc, are all measures to try to determine that ability.

Affirmative action, legacy, foundation donations, etc, etc, are not academic achievement measures and should not be used.

After all, when I’m laying on an operating table with a surgeon’s hands in my chest, I want him to be accepted to medical school because of high aptitude and ability – not because of some arbitrary affirmative action policy or because his Daddy bribed his way into college.

I’m particular in matters of the heart….

Beverly Fraud

February 24th, 2012
1:27 pm

Rumor has it I scored 340 on my SAT, but because I could balance an eraser on my nose while offering plausible (and implausible) denials on 6 different media platforms simultaneously, I was accepted into the Broad Superintendent’s Academy.

I’ll neither confirm or deny.

Nat Turner

February 24th, 2012
1:37 pm

I agree with Lee for the first time. I am shocked.

Archie@Arkham Asylum

February 24th, 2012
1:43 pm

The University of Georgia has improved if their average SAT score for football players is 949! I remember in the early 1980’s, a football player was admitted to UGA with a SAT score of 350! (This was before Jan Kemp shook things up!) At that time, I believe you got points on the SAT just for spelling your name right! I’m pretty sure deep down, UGA would like to see their “gridiron gladiators” come out with more to show for their four years of time and effort than a football letter and a rejection slip from a pro camp. Sadly, all too often, that’s what happens! ( Go Dawgs! Woof! Woof! Woof)

Beverly Fraud

February 24th, 2012
1:51 pm

I remember in the early 1980’s, a football player was admitted to UGA with a SAT score of 350!

Yes, but I bet a football player wouldn’t be admitted with a BENCH PRESS of less than 350.

MAYBE a kicker LOL

Follow Through

February 24th, 2012
1:54 pm

But one is “missing” the total concept of “Affirmative Action” … the schools whole student body ethnic makeup … the players/members on the “team” should be of the same “percent” as the student body. There is an “adverse impact” with the representation of a “disproportional” number of one ethnic group versus another ethnic group.

This would not be allowed in business.

WAR

February 24th, 2012
1:59 pm

black athletes will always be at predominantly white schools because they can run, block, and tackle; they can dribble, pass, and shoot, they can pitch, catch, and throw, they can run, jump, and leap. in other words these schools will find it very hard to compete without black athletes in football, basketball, baseball, and track, just to name a few. no way in the world schools allow these athletes to return back to HSBCs. it would be considered a national tragedy if TSU, FAMU, NCAT, or GRAMBLING beating alabama, duke, texas, or lsu. as bear bryant allegedly sad about black athletes, “get me one of those.” and they havent left blacks alone since then.

thomas

February 24th, 2012
2:01 pm

@ carlosgvv,

So, please enlighten us with the real reason…

WAR

February 24th, 2012
2:09 pm

carlosgv

u r funny.

Devil's Advocate

February 24th, 2012
2:19 pm

People complain about a lot of things just to have something to complain about.

1. How do athletes hurt regular students? What resources are athletes taking away from regular students?

2. Why do people talk about deserving whites being trumped by non-deserving blacks as if blacks make up an outrageously large population of any “big name” school and the vast majority of those blacks are non-deserving? This is like teams 69-300 complaining that they didn’t get into the NCAA basketball tournament because team 68 took their spot. It’s amazing that everyone’s child was team 69, barely missing the cut but was so well deserving!

Let’s focus on UGA since that is our flagship college. What agenda can you present that would explain why they’d favor blacks over whites? If discrimination were to be practiced, I’d argue that it would be financially more beneficial to go the other direction.

According to http://onlineathens.com/stories/022710/uga_568348735.shtml, in 2010 the enrollment was about 80% white.

I think there’s a lot of sour grapes going on here.

Brandy

February 24th, 2012
2:21 pm

I’m confused at the point of this post. As far as I know Affirmative Action legislation says nothing about athletics. Are you perhaps confusing Affirmative Action with Title 9 (which is not at issue in this case, as far as I know)?

Yes, many sports seem to have a high percentage of one ethnic, racial, or socio-economic group predominating. And, yes, many athletes get in on less than stellar academic records. But, how would Affirmative Action (or no Affirmative Action) actually affect this? I assume college athletic scouts are not looking to create teams with a proportional racial, ethnic, or socio-economic balance; rather, they are looking for the best athletes they can find and draw in, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or socio-economic background.

Please, someone enlighten me if I’m wrong to think that Affirmative Action legislation does not reference athletics.

WAR

February 24th, 2012
2:24 pm

carlosgv

the year is 2062. chelsea clinton is president and the American occupation of iraq and afghanistan has been on and off for 40 years. under the space czar newt gingrich, the moon colony is thriving and mexico has reclaimed texas along with arizona, new mexico, and california as “theirs”.
scientist are at a news conference about to reveal years of experiments and documentation that will explain how decades of poverty, illiteracy, and disenfranchisement plagued the black community and America. “ladies and gentlemen, we have finally reached a valid conclusion why blacks are low performing and the answer is…they are martians.”

Lee

February 24th, 2012
2:29 pm

@Brandy, affirmative action has nothing to do with athletics. Maureen is simply trolling for responses from folks who are against AA but see nothing wrong with athletic scholarships going to the less qualified (academically).

WAR

February 24th, 2012
2:30 pm

brandy
affact has nothing to do with athletics. youre right. the people on here are a prime example of whats wrong in this country. take whatever you want, twist it, splice it, and clone it until it benefits what you want others to read, hear, and say. the real problem arent blacks getting into schools under affact or whites not getting into schools because of affact. this is about competition and asians, middle eastern, african, and european students are collectively kicking our American butts. but we worry about little susie with a 3.5 not getting in because shay has a 3.0. and neither one of them are really prepared for the education tidal wave china is going to unleash in 10 years.

JF McNamara

February 24th, 2012
2:33 pm

I’m actually for doing away with the athletic scholarships for students who don’t qualify. College is not a semi-pro league. Its a place of higher education. Basketball and Football can start farm systems like Baseball.

Follow Through

February 24th, 2012
2:34 pm

What then is the “real” philosophical difference between Tile 9 and Affirmative Action.

None …

Also the title of the article

“Without affirmative action, fewer football stars on the field.”

There still would be “stars’” … just different names.

Ashley

February 24th, 2012
2:37 pm

@ Brandy these athletes are still students at said university….so they should be included in the discussion. Title IX was to make female sports just as equal as their male counterpart. You say college scouts aren’t looking for proportion, just the best athletes regardless of race etc. Well aren’t most colleges looking for best and the brightest? I guess it would be easier just to allow these below -average athlete to attend college with no academic standards, but then again that would only create more controversy. In the scheme of things I find that “affirmative action ” is just plain hypocritical.

carlosgvv

February 24th, 2012
2:38 pm

Thomas – 2:01

You already know the answer to that one.

carlosgvv

February 24th, 2012
2:38 pm

War – 2:24

u r not funny

Maureen Downey

February 24th, 2012
2:43 pm

@Lee, I am addressing the hypocrisy here.
People object to preferences to African-American students admitted with lower scores than white peers, but yet have nothing to say about the standing practice of admitting athletes or the children of a staff member or major donor with lower scores. Somehow, that does not seem as offensive to folks who insist that all candidates to the college be judged by the same standards.
The question: Is a school obligated to accept the highest scores and give no consideration to other factors about an applicant’s life?
I read this comment in the NYT and thought it was a great observation:

Why is affirmative action admission being challenged, but nothing is being done about legacy admissions, which give unfair preferences to children of alumni? This is another case for a university wanting to have it both ways. On the one hand, it says that it’s such a great university, providing such a terrific education, that it has to devise a system to help determine which students are most worthy of being offered this wonderful education. On the other hand, it acknowledges that although the alumni had this wonderful education and we can assume all the benefits that this entailed, including good schools and tutoring for their children, somehow these children couldn’t make the cut without special treatment. So maybe that education wasn’t so great after all.

Dr. Proud Black Man

February 24th, 2012
2:43 pm

@ Devils Advocate

Not sour grapes, just your run of the mill white skin privilege emotions. The complaints against “affirmative action” to borrow an analogy from Lee, are nothing more then a stunt.

TW

February 24th, 2012
2:45 pm

And for today’s effort at avoiding the rightwing urination on education, Maureen goes ofter the black athlete. Never mind the charter school amendment, the death of QBE, and the gerrymandering in local control that white man central has orchestrated to completely yank the air line from what remains of black Georgia.

Big day for you Stepford wives Maureen – great job!

DebbieDoRight

February 24th, 2012
2:50 pm

All you guys hollering about “race” are nothing more than hypocrits. Maureen’s points are valid — you’re just too obstinate, blind, and self congratulating to admit it.

If you’re saying “No based on race” – then you should also say “No based on Legacy” and “No based on athletic ablility”.

If any of you think that colleges, who THRIVE on alumni dollars, are going to STOP admitting that great running back, (who can get the team at least to the championship game = more money for the school); or that legacy student, (whose parents are big time donors = more money for the school); to let in some kid who can barely pay her tuition which = NO money for that brand new school auditorium/dorm room/Dean’s pension; then you really have no idea how the real world works.

Welcome to the real world.