New Michigan Rules Catch Flack In … Michigan

Pete Waldmeir, columnist for the Detroit News blasts the new Michigan admissions rules today. (Link via Howard Bashman)

Here’s a taste:

The U-M’s new emphasis on candidate essays and prep teacher-counselor recommendations for choosing who gets into the entering frosh class of 2004 are little more than a stealth approach to the same familiar ivory tower brand of social engineering. They just don’t put a numerical value on affirmative action anymore.

If anything, the selection process now is more unbalanced than before because it relies more heavily on the so-called “human factor” in the admissions process, excessively weighting the whims and caprices of various individual admissions officers who are supposed to consider all factors, academic and otherwise, impartially before deciding who gets in and who doesn’t.

Oh, there are checks and balances, to be sure. But the problem is the selectors at each step in the process tend to be driven by the same academic philosophy that reeks of political correctness. As for across-the-board impartiality, forget it.

Diversity has been elevated from a desired to a requisite goal. Pay all the lip service you want to leveling the playing field for all students. Points or no points, the unwritten rule remains that a “critical mass” of minorities still must be achieved, or else.

Say What? (4)

  1. Bob September 4, 2003 at 11:46 am | | Reply

    Sad. Getting into UofM now comes down to how well you can whine.

    “I’m white, but my dad’s an alchoholic and we were on welfare and I didn’t have a GameCube or nothing! Please deem me pathetic enough to enter the University!”

    Sad indeed. When the alumni office called the other day, I gave their dumbing down of the University as my reason that I don’t give.

    Bob

    University of Michigan, Class of ’91. (when it meant something.)

  2. StuartT September 4, 2003 at 1:03 pm | | Reply

    Here’s a thought: What if an applicant to the U of M submits an absolute masterpiece on the new “diversity” essay–a work of scintillating prose and penetrating insight.

    However, instead of the requisite platitudes, the essay profoundly and persuasively argues that “diversity,” as practiced at this august institution, is nothing more than a sham euphemism to veil a regime of bald racial discrimination and proportionalism.

    Would the student be accepted on the basis of his powerful presentation and writing skills? Or rather, would his “un-diverse” opinion preclude his admittance given the departure from bland conformance, i.e. “diversity?”

    Just wondering.

  3. Bob September 4, 2003 at 2:01 pm | | Reply

    The last thing the U want’s is a diversity of ideas.

    He would be rejected.

    Bob

  4. pathos September 5, 2003 at 11:57 am | | Reply

    Scalia explicitly said that affirmative action is not necessary to increase diversity. The University could merely lower its standards to reach the same results.

    This is the proof that Scalia was right, and why I prefer affirmative action.

Say What?