symposium

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 14, 2001 | by Shirley Strum Kenny, | Ward Connerly

Q: Does diversity in higher education justify racial preferences?

Yes: We must open college education to students of all economic and racial backgrounds.

If ever there was a loaded question, it is the one stated above. First, it assumes that achieving diversity at institutions of higher learning is the reason for allowing race to be one of the factors in admission decisions. Diversity is not an end in itself. It is a means toward a much bigger and longer-range goal -- a more prosperous and harmonious society.

Second, the term "racial preferences" is itself loaded -- it refers to admitting African-American and Latino students, never suggesting any bias toward white students. The term assumes that those entrance qualifications that favor white students, such as high scores on standardized tests, are free of racial preference and that the tests themselves are unbiased measures of who is most likely to succeed in college. That perception is false on two counts: 1) the tests are not bias-free; and 2) they are not the best predictors of college success.

Many people assume that the SAT I math and verbal tests are free of racial bias, and certainly the College Board works diligently to achieve that goal. But this does not mean the tests perfectly manage racial blindness. White students tend to do better than black students on the SATs. The assumption that some people make is that white students therefore have better qualifications for college as proven by an absolutely unbiased measure of ability. It also is true that Asian students do better on the math exam than white students, but I have not seen any articles on what that proves. Should Caucasians be considered mathematically inferior?

The emphasis on the SATs ignores the fact that they are not the best predictors of college success in any case. I repeat: SAT scores are not the best predictors of college success. In fact, the College Board does not make a claim as to their ability to predict graduation. Instead, high SAT scores are recognized as good predictors of success in the first year of college work. Yet those who argue against considering other factors seem to take the SATs as the only true prognosticator of success.

In fact, the single best predictor of overall college success is class rank at whatever high school the student attends; that has been demonstrated again and again. The No. 1 slot at the best suburban school or the worst urban institution indicates potential for success better than any other single factor, including SAT scores. Apparently the top-ranking students in any school have both the intelligence and the motivation to succeed in college.

That is why the approach of the universities of California and Texas, as well as other institutions, that have made highschool class rank their chief criterion should be congratulated. It is true that both systems switched to accepting the top 5 or 10 percent after being denied the ability to consider race as one of a number of factors in admissions. But it also is true that they have hit on a better predictor than standardized tests. Is their new policy a ruse to broaden admissions racially? Conceivably. But it also is a more accurate basis for admitting the students with the greatest probability of success.

Yet the SAT reigns. What started out as a less than perfect instrument for measuring college ability has taken on the trappings of infallibility. As a result, it has become a less effective tool. Why? Because the affluent can influence the results through investing in test-preparatory classes and tutoring. In affluent school districts teachers spend far too much valuable class time prepping for the SATs; sometimes the test preparation starts as early as sixth grade. Wealthy parents have their children tutored and retutored to take and retake the SATs -- not to increase their children's intellectual abilities but to increase their chances for admissions to prestigious universities. The rich simply buy the advantages of the SAT. Many parents recognize what is happening, but they find themselves helpless against a system that worships high test scores. When everyone else's children are tutored, how can they deprive their own children? Meanwhile, students in less-affluent circumstances cannot afford tutors and usually can afford to take the SATs only once. Under those unbalanced circumstances, the SAT cannot possibly measure true ability of rich and poor, even if the questions could be perfectly devised.

The fact is there is no one sure method to predict college success. One cannot take the intellectual temperature or blood pressure of a student and measure college readiness. The success of any student will depend on many things -- prior education to some extent, but more importantly native intelligence, will and determination, intellectual curiosity, inventiveness, focus and heart.

There was a time when knowing the great books and speaking European languages defined a college education -- students' minds were vessels to be filled with a well-defined body of knowledge, some of which flowed from high school or prep school. That cultural polish was the requisite for a career and a civilized life. Now that definition is all but irrelevant -- no students can acquire in four years all the requisite knowledge for living in the modern world; they also must be taught how to envision important questions and find the answers, how to define and solve problems. How does one measure that ability from pretesting?