Colleges and universities either prohibited by law from factoring race into admissions decisions, or those that prefer a subtler approach to admitting applicants based on race, do so by measuring personality, leadership qualities, life experiences, creativity, resilience, and other "noncognitive" factors.
According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, some schools claim that using noncognitive assessments are improving minorities' odds of admission. No kidding? Northeastern University in Boston has gone so far as to develop the Torch Scholars Program to assess "leadership potential" and evaluate how an applicant has "overcome adversity." As expected, average SAT scores for the program's so-called scholars are 200 points below the typical student.
Oregon State University requires applicants to answer a loaded question about facing or witnessing discrimination, a convenient way for the applicant to reveal his race.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) has jumped on the bandwagon. The ETS, which administers the Graduate Record Examination, added a "personal potential index" for schools to consider in addition to standardized scores.
It's one thing if schools assessed these qualities in all applicants equally; it's quite another if schools give these qualities more weight when it comes to minority students. Why would having so-called leadership qualities, creativity, resilience, and a sparkling personality benefit minority applicants in particular? Wouldn't these traits be found in whites and Asians in equal or greater measure?
The answers are obvious, but let's pretend they're not. Consider the following:
In his highly recommended Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, Charles Murray compiled an inventory of 4,002 significant figures over 2,750 years who pursued excellence and accomplished great things in the arts and sciences. His inventory overwhelmingly consists of white European males, as do other authoritative and respected inventories.
Continued... |