Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mojodragon
That's not what I was trying to say at all. If you'd read the story behind the link, you'd see that the author isn't trying to say they're scraping the bottom of the barrel. He's saying that students at every level of skill wind up getting into a slightly better school than they would otherwise have earned. If a school normally requires a certain level of skill, then those possessing a lower level of skill will not likely do as well in the school.
|
I understand that argument, as well as the point in the article.
I'm pointing out that such a view of the process is warped. Schools are not letting people with less skill into their schools. These applicants have the skill, or they wouldn't be elligable to apply. Other factors, besides skill, like class, the effects of a legacy of discrimination, furthering racial horizons on campus, and etc. are what affirmative action in schools try to address.
Now, arguably, A- students might be elevated over A+ students. But how is one to decde whether such grades are a reflection of lackluster skill level than residual effects of racism. In fact, I would suggest the opposite--that persons who overcome incredible barriers of racism, both hidden and overt, have immense levels of skill, ingenuity, and perseverence.
Of course, all of this was predicated upon your framing of the debate. I don't agree with your premises but didn't want to tear into the entire structure of your arguement.
Marinade on this: the author's argument is flawed from the outset. Law school is a trade school. No one has the skill to be an attorney before going through the process--that's the premise law school's operate under. What law school, and other graduate programs, seek is students who have the capability to learn the skill they are about the be indoctrinated into.
What they need are intelligent students, not skilled ones.
And if you are going to embark on a debate on whether grades accurately reflect one's intelligence, well you might as well open another thread because we social scientists got something for that crapola too.