Loading...

"The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education."
link : "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education."

"The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education."

"Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays and interviews. The disadvantage scale has helped turn U.C. Davis into one of the most diverse medical schools in the country — notable in a state that voted in 1996 to ban affirmative action."

From "With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores/To build a diverse class of students, the medical school at U.C. Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced. Can it work nationally?" (NYT).

It should work better on a national scale, because the pool of applicants will be more diverse if top schools are not filtering out applicants based on race. It's very hard to predict, though, especially since we don't really know what schools were doing before this new case — surely, not simply obediently adhering to the prior caselaw — and what they will do now. It wasn't permissible before to attempt to achieve racial balance — the superficial look of a class, with the different races meeting target percentages. But to the extent that was done, affluent, privileged minority applicants were used to meet the school's goals. Those students would not get a high "adversity score" in the U.C. Davis approach... unless "taking into account their life circumstances" ends up taking account of their race.

And why wouldn't it? Those on the inside of the admissions process are outraged by the new decision and adamantly believe it's wrongly decided and actively evil. Now, they will be trusted to apply the new rules, whatever they are (and they are vague enough to manipulate). Some years down the road, we'll have the next round of litigation, and who knows who will be on the Court when that happens? It's an ongoing experiment, and it's never going to end.

Loading...

"Admissions decisions are based on that score, combined with the usual portfolio of grades, test scores, recommendations, essays and interviews. The disadvantage scale has helped turn U.C. Davis into one of the most diverse medical schools in the country — notable in a state that voted in 1996 to ban affirmative action."

From "With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores/To build a diverse class of students, the medical school at U.C. Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced. Can it work nationally?" (NYT).

It should work better on a national scale, because the pool of applicants will be more diverse if top schools are not filtering out applicants based on race. It's very hard to predict, though, especially since we don't really know what schools were doing before this new case — surely, not simply obediently adhering to the prior caselaw — and what they will do now. It wasn't permissible before to attempt to achieve racial balance — the superficial look of a class, with the different races meeting target percentages. But to the extent that was done, affluent, privileged minority applicants were used to meet the school's goals. Those students would not get a high "adversity score" in the U.C. Davis approach... unless "taking into account their life circumstances" ends up taking account of their race.

And why wouldn't it? Those on the inside of the admissions process are outraged by the new decision and adamantly believe it's wrongly decided and actively evil. Now, they will be trusted to apply the new rules, whatever they are (and they are vague enough to manipulate). Some years down the road, we'll have the next round of litigation, and who knows who will be on the Court when that happens? It's an ongoing experiment, and it's never going to end.

Thus articles "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education."

that is all articles "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "The scale rates every applicant from zero to 99 taking into account their life circumstances such as family income and parental education." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-scale-rates-every-applicant-from.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: