 Next: 3. Mathematics Faculty Up: Thoughts on Affirmative Action Previous: 1. Introduction 2. EducationA few years ago, an editor asked me to look into the allegation that MIT had adopted an admission policy of lower standards for women. Now, one could argue that the 20 point difference in average math SAT scores of male and female students admitted was hardly significant, especially for a group in which most scored above 700. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was. The women admitted subsequently performed, as measured by grades at MIT, as well or better than the male students. (Moreover, this is true across fields so that the women's success cannot be attributed to differential course taking.) If male and female students taking the same exams in the same courses get comparable grades, in what sense can standards possibly be lower? Even if the women's SAT scores were 200 points lower, if they subsequently did as well as the men would it matter that MIT used different admission criteria? How did the SAT exam achieve its status as the ultimate measure of qualification? It may be useful if I recall the educational climate of the U.S. in the 50's. Many countries which have more uniform educational systems have long relied heavily on entrance examinations at various stages of the educational ladder. However, in the U.S., there has always been a great disparity of educational quality and curriculum in school systems in different settings - urban vs. rural, inner city vs. suburban, private vs. public vs. church-related, etc. Nevertheless, there was a widespread belief that all children with ability should have the opportunity for a college education. In addition, there was recognition that some students with poor high school grades could do well in college. Therefore, great emphasis was placed on so-called aptitude tests (most notably the Scholastic Aptitude Test) in the hope and belief that they could identify those students who deserved the opportunity of a college education despite weak background or poor past performance. In other words, the SAT (with A=Aptitude rather than Achievement) was proposed as a mechanism for implementing what would today be called affirmative action. In addition to educationally disadvantaged students, another group was often targeted, namely, students whose poor grades were attributed to boredom or behavior problems. Because such students were usually male, there is a sense in which the SAT began as part of an affirmative action program for white males. That high school grades could be an unreliable criterion for comparing students from different schools is understandable. However, I am suspicious of those who continue to dismiss reports that high school girls often achieve higher grades than boys by dismissing the girls' achievements as the result of being better behaved or more likely to do homework. My own experience has been that, in general, those students who do homework perform better on exams so that the precise formula I use to weight homework and exam scores has little effect on final grades. Assessment is a complex subject. However, despite the deficiencies of the SAT, there is a legitimate role for standardized tests as part of an evaluation process. The city of Boston has two prestigious high schools (Boston Latin and Boston Latin Academy, formerly Boys' and Girls' Latin respectively) which use entrance examinations as part of their admissions criteria. Their affirmative action policies have come under scrutiny as the result of a highly publicized lawsuit filed by the father of a white girl who was not admitted to Boston Latin despite scoring slightly above the cutoff, allegedly to accommodate a 30% minority quota. Now this student had attended a private elementary school and, despite being turned down by her first choice, was admitted to Boston Latin Academy, i.e. she was not denied the opportunity for a quality education. If, as in the MIT example, the additional minority students who were admitted performed well, I would see no great injustice here. However, the attrition rate of minority students at Boston Latin is extremely high. Does this mean their admission policy should be changed? I'm not sure. Clearly, it makes no sense to deny one group admission unless most of the disadvantaged group succeeds. However, in the case of Boston Latin, it is not clear to what extent the failure of minority students is a consequence of a flawed admissions policy or failure of the institution to subsequently give them the support and encouragement needed. If special programs could help these educationally disadvantaged students succeed, so that by senior year they could graduate with the same standards as the others, it would be worth the small price of requiring a borderline student with privileged background to attend her second choice school. Indeed, some would argue that using past educational opportunity, rather than race or ethnicity, might be a fairer way to identify the affirmative action subgroup in this case. There are also those who would argue that it is unfair to give some students more help after admission. I wonder about the priorities of those who tolerate treating students inequitably for 8 or 12 years as long as they are in different schools, but become outraged at attempts to subsequently accommodate them for one or two years in the same school. Consider an example in the culturally more important world of sports. Suppose that a youth soccer league included two teams, an extremely good one composed of children who had grown up playing soccer in another country and a group raised in the U.S. who had never played soccer before. Now supposed that a dedicated coach worked with the U.S. group which practiced long and enthusiastically so that, at the end of the season, the U.S. team actually beat the more experienced foreigners. Would we say that their victory did not count because they had extra coaching? Or because they practiced more (e.g., did their homework)? Or would we praise the coach and team members for their hard work and accomplishment? In recent years, some people have advocated new pedagogies based upon "women's ways of knowing". Although I do not believe that women (as a group) have different learning styles, some of these pedagogical innovations (especially those based upon increased student participation) seem to be effective for many students, both male and female. However, I have also heard reservations expressed about the legitimacy of using non-traditional pedagogy. Once again, an athletic analogy may be insightful. Suppose that a new coaching technique or training regime turned out to be very effective with female athletes. Would the response be to discount the women's victories or to try the new approach with male athletes as well? Educational standards should be based upon the outcome of the learning process, not artificial measuring tools or conformity to tradition.
AWM Newsletter. |