I think they hack out the right side of the brain for engineers to make room for all the math.

Yeah. That tends to happen. It’s the get a trade approach to education. Studying non-vocatinal generalities like the humanities raises the suspicion that it’s a bludge.

If you’re from so far outside the establishment that you don’t even know there is one, it’s almost impossible to manage your dealings with them

Also true. A lot of Arts faculties aren’t serious. I got into Sydney Uni which, altho’ high status, had a dog’s breakfast of an arts course with a fragmented faculty. My experience in tutoring UQ philsophy students was similar. It seemed they were just required to pontificate on the latest trendy French dude. It’s all about creating a network of mutual admirers to collectively launch an assault at one of the plush positions in the Cultural Industries which operate on something quite similar to legacy pledges in this country.

Griffith was much better as a freind of mine who studied classics at UQ told his teachers there. But now it’s got some status and (according to him) it’s slid in quality. The old GU mob I believe are in control of Arts at UQ now. I wish these things were more organized around teachers and teams than universities.

leave the arts for rich poofters, no matter how much talent you have

Ha ha ha

I’m not convinced by that. Now, it’s surely the case that for the average student, Oxford is not teaching, say, 10X what Deakin is, but you would really want to track outcomes over the long term. The reason for this is that many employers simply have no way to differentiate new graduates. Thus, if you are an employer and think the average Oxford graduate is, say, only 1.1 times as productive as the average Deakin graduate, then you will still select the Oxford graduate 100% of the time (we do the same where I work when selecting into the rather popular postgraduate program — we simple rule out graduates from some universities out because some proportion of their students look really good on paper but are not). Thus, there is sure to be quite a bit of non-linearity at this critical point in many people’s careers (there was a good article in the Guardian a while ago looking at outcomes for science graduates on a similar topic — where you go makes a huge difference). The other thing to consider is what would happen if you are a non-average student (say, excellent at one thing, awful at another). At least at the US universities, because they have very low staff-student ratios, they can actually help these students, whereas in Australia, they simply fall through the cracks (or perhaps gaping chasms is a better description) — thus there is a huge difference for some people.

The first link deals with affirmative action directed — mainly, but not wholly — at African-Americans, and impacting (now) disproportionately on talented Indian-Americans. It’s all of a piece to me.

Oxford’s probably about an order of magnitude better than my Australian alma mater (so 10X), but that may be an effect of my decision to study law and philosophy, two fields where it enjoys global top spot. If you were a chemist, say, you’d be better off going to Cambridge.

I’m a first generation to university – neither of my parents finished high school. You are right, it is a huge leap (and very hard to convince other people that it’s not just an expensive waste of time when you could be out earning money straight from school).

I do think that ‘first gen’ people should focus on the professions, though, not the arts (which is the mistake I made). If you’re from so far outside the establishment that you don’t even know there is one, it’s almost impossible to manage your dealings with them (as I discovered). I should have listened to the guidance counsellor from the get-go — he said ‘law, medicine or engineering, leave the arts for rich poofters, no matter how much talent you have’. It was brutal, but ultimately sound advice.

Excellent point.

It’s funny how the Left’s preoccupation with collective solutions leads them to ignore relics of the feudal era. Those on the Right who’d sweep them away are constrained by an alliance with those who wish to maintain feudal relics. Hence the crazy situation where I might be allowed into my father’s alma mater even tho’ what he did and what I’ve done are in completely different fields. I haven’t designed any dams or tunnels. I struggle with long division. .

Fortunately, if you read the link, that’s not possible:

The research shows that if you’re the first generation to university, that’s the hardest barrier to break. Once somebody’s been to university, they think about university for their children and their children automatically look at it as an option.

Says Prof Mary Bownes Vice-Principal for Widening Participation, Recruitment and Community Relations (that’s a lot for a business card) but she also says:

Let’s face it, our aim is to maintain and improve on our position as one of the best universities in the UK. And in order to do that we need to have the best students. People accuse us of being elitist and I suppose in that sense we are.

That’s how it’s done.

Giving people who can’t hack it, a university education, or worse, shunting them thru for reasons other than their having earned it the only way you can, simply renders a degree less valuable. End of story.

Prof Bownes is the first in her generation to attend university and it must make it harder. In my family it’s hard to not attend. It’s expected. And that makes it easier. There’s no reason to make it any easier than that.

Interestingly the best students I knew were first generation undergrads.

Yes, I tried to distinguish my point so as not to go there, but I must need to be clearer. First, I think that people *are* affected in their decision making processes and even outcomes by their background, but not necessarily in the same way. For example a woman hearing a gender disctrimination case may reflect on her own experiences, but two women doing the same reflecting might make different decisions. The point is not that people’s decisions are determined by their background or anything else, simply that the old jurisprudential idea of the entirely objective jurist, just like the entirely objective scientist is simply not accurate. So I subscribe to a general “mutt” theory of the court – if we allow that people’s decision making is going to be affected by their different influences (even if not in predictable ways) then the most robust decision making body is a diverse one, with a range of influences.

However, at the moment I find a great deal of difficulty with well-meaning programs designed to improve opportunities for women, such as the requirement in government tenders to demonstrate that you conform to a particular bar briefing policy by which X% of your briefs go to women. I have no problems briefing women (I am one after all), but there aren’t many of them who practice in the area I want to brief and several of that small number are on our “never brief again” list (along with plenty of men).

Among the results, (in addition to those identified by Sowell) a question mark over the actual merit of any famale/ethnic/etc who achieved advancement, and simmering resentment among the groups (mostly white Anglo males) who observed that they were being punished for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.

Also, as Sowell noted, the immediate beneficiaries were not the struggling masses of the disadvantated but well-placed, well educated and politically connected members of those groups.

I agree with this (I think scholarships for poor kids that make the cut is fine), but I believe race-based scholarships are fairly common in the US. It’s also not clear to me what the dividing line is between public and private in many universities is, even in the US, and also what one does about “part” scholarships, where the university does a deal to supplement the amount given from a private benefactor (potentially as an in-kind contribution), hence locking it into providing part funding for such a thing.

As for what goes on in terms of affirmative action in Australian universities — there’s no official collation, but it is definitely common, at many levels. Where I work, for example, we get some students let in even though I know of no documentation for it (generally low performing minorities as far as I can tell), and then they inevitably fail or do very poorly, since no-one helps them catch up (I believe this is common across universities). They’ll be the new cash cow if some ofthe stuff in the Bradley report is implemented.

Also, at least at the staffing level, one reason affirmative action is not going on in the UK as much is that in recent times, everyone needs to compete for funding at a department level. This was in part because of the much hated RAE. I believe one of the smart things it did was that it locked funding into specific departments. Thus, if your head of department happen to employ his friends (very common in Australia) or the equity officer forced you to take a few minority candidates that were no good, it meant that someone else could lose their funding and job if your department happened to lose its ranking (and hence had its funding chopped). The same was true for all those anachronistic hirings (you got your PhD from Cambridge, so you must be good). It pretty much killed them off too. Thus, at least for the good departments, everyone has a vested interest in getting the best person. Hopefully the Australian equivalent targets funding in a similar way (versus to, say, a faculty or university).

Conrad: I think there’s a lot to be said for scholarships, but if they’re to be given out using taxpayers’ money, they should be squarely aimed at economic disadvantage (which is what Oxford — and I assume Cambridge — does). I know it sounds dreadfully Marxist, but it’s poverty that holds people back, and it’s poor people who don’t get places at elite universities. Sometimes race and gender intersects with poverty, but sometimes they don’t. Private scholarships, of course, can be directed at anyone. There are a couple at my college directed at people who went to a particular high school, for example.

DEM: Australia is catching the disease as well. Conrad can probably tell you more, but there are a range of ’special entry’ provisions at Australian universities directed mainly at Aboriginal people, and I know people who’ve gained entry with no high school pass. Of course, they often fail, which makes the problem even worse — their self-esteem is down around their shoelaces by the end of it. Adrien’s anecdote is an illustration of this process in action when it comes to employment.

I actually agree with Rafe. I suspect affirmative action is contrary to the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause). Some US states have abolished it on these grounds (eg California, Nebraska), but usually in response to Citizen Initiated Referenda, not any action by the courts.

LE: I don’t know how the fundamental problem can be fixed either, as whatever anyone does — even a private initiative — is going to need to be a superb example of institutional design in order to avoid the fate of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Getting the incentives right will be of paramount importance.