Professor Gerber misreads my post. I do not think for a minute that schools will hire more administrative personnel. My question is, given that they will not, what are permissible short cuts to resolve certain problems.
And I am puzzled by the meaning of "preferred applicants." Are football players "preferred applicants." Students from Wyoming? Put differently, is the following illegitimate. Admissions officer is very fond of Mahler and thinks the Chipmunk U. would be a better institution if it had a very big (and good) orchestra (big being more important for Mahler). Consequently, he or she makes every effort to admit anyone with a serious interest in music. I presume this is okay. So, what is the distinction between preferred and non-preferred? MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/03/03 13:54 PM >>> I don't think O'Connor's opinion gives schools the "out" Mark wants. Schools are simply going to have to hire more admissions personnel and pass the cost on to the students by increasing the costs of applying and/or tuition. What I hope doesn't happen is that the admissions personnel search during their individualized review for ways to admit preferred applicants and reject non-preferred applicants. But that's what I think is going to happen. SDG Mark Graber wrote: >I am wondering the extent to which our debate is over administrative >convenience. Consider two examples. > >1. X produces irrefutable evidence that one of X's parents was denied >admission in Chipmunk U. (see "How to Succeed in Business") because of >state mandated racial discrimination. X also presents irrefutable >evidence that his or her parent would have attended had they been >offered admission and that X would have been offered admission had X >been an alumni child. > >2. Y presents irrefutable evidence that had her parents been aware of >the better kindergarten programs in her schools district and been able >to afford violin lessons, X would have developed the credentials that >guarantee admission to Chipmunk U. > >The problem with these hypotheticals, of course, is a) that these are >matters on which irrefutable evidence never exists and b) that no school >has the wherewithal to be that thorough in admissions. You get 10,000 >applications at a law school, you use lots of rules of thumb. > >My sense is that most people on the list would think it constitutional >if Michigan had an admissions staff of 500 people who did thorough bios >on all persons that resulted in white persons getting about the >percentage of places they now get. The problem, of course, is that >Michigan cannot afford to do this. So, if race is not a cost-effective >way of securing the goals noted above, what would be a reasonably cheap >way of doing it? > >Mark A. Graber > -------------------------------------- Scott Gerber Law College Ohio Northern University Ada, OH 45810 419-772-2219 http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/
