Essay Preview: Admissions Policy
Report this essay
Prospective students hoping to gain admission into universities throughout the United States expect an equal opportunity. The goals of success and achievement are what each student hopes to achieve. Many obstacles are involved in getting in to a university. Some Universities are selective in their choice of students. Factors such as race, gender, social background, financial status, personal opinions and desires students have of about them, are a few issues students must encounter upon entering a university. Because of these issues, Civil rights activists, Students and families of students are demonstrating their dissatisfaction toward the Universities Admission Policies, in an effort to allow each student a fair chance for an education.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear several cases in the coming months involving the admission practices of using race as a factor in deciding student admissions. The schools involved in this high stakes game of diversity in the school system are located in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky. Civil rights groups and education scholars in support of
race-conscious policies of Seattle and Jefferson County school districts) filed 57 friend-of-the-court briefs (Trotter, 2006). Universities attempting to enroll students based on racial quotas can be a complicated situation in todays society and should not be taken lightly.
The Bush Administration has weighed in for support of the other side that are composed of families of students who were denied the right of attending their preferred school under two plans aided by 11 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in August. Their challenge is this: Race as a factor in apportioning students to schools based on this race, violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in-turn violates the right of equal protection under the law (Trotter, 2006). The administrations point is well taken but, diversity in any organization is its greatest strength and the freedom to choose is not an absolute.
Growing up in the 70s, the same U.S. Supreme Court composed of entirely different justices highly favored diversity and equality in schools and ruled on this matter. The product of their decision was busing students out of their school districts and neighborhoods in order to achieve racial diversity; at that time, this was equality under another name. However, ladies and gentlemen, they both go hand-in-hand. The playing field in the educational system is still not level where equality is concerned and forcing students to attend schools not of their choice for diversity sake goes against what the founding fathers of the constitution envisioned, freedom and equality for all regardless of color.
Maybe the term “College Admissions Policy” should be changed to a more descriptive term, “Selective Colleges Screening Process”. Because there are no nationally recognized uniformed standards regarding entrance requirements to community colleges, public and private state colleges and universities nationwide, to include the military service academies, there will always be a blend of controversy regarding “who” will be admitted into a given school. Laws have been set in place with the primary purpose of allowing and maintaining fair consideration and “equal treatment” to all who desire to continue or start an education (Kantak, 2004). One problem created by these laws and other devices that claim to grant equal and fair opportunity to minority applicants, is that when the laws or policys are set in place, they are very generic and does not accurately explain and cover the term “minority.” They do however address the term race. They do not address other factors that do place an applicant in a “minority status”. Categories such as single parent; physically challenged; visually impaired; foreign student; service member, veteran or Disabled American Veteran; and the list could go on, do place an applicant in a minority status. Just not always in a racial status.
Admissions policies could be arranged in a manner placing favor in the acceptance of the minority applicant and adds (or will bring) diversity over similar or better-qualified non-minority applicants (Kantak, 2004). Maybe consider the applicants future goals because of receiving an education from the institution, or consider the applicants future potential for success after receiving an education from the school. Yes, this might be viewed as taking somewhat of a risk. Admissions Board members have very little data to consider regarding a decision with the above-mentioned considerations. An education is a lifetime investment, and since there is usually some level of risk in any worthy investment, if an investment yields a low return it is possible that a different investment will yield a slightly better return. There is no guarantee; in investments just as in education, nothing is a sure bet. Investments to grow over time, not overnight.
Since a formal education starts in elementary school, why not take the formalities out the way education are viewed Focus instead on the real-world issues. Minorities built our country. People come from different places and backgrounds. No two groups of people who helped make these 50 states united, had the same opportunities in their native countries, as did the majority “race” in this country. I believe unlimited opportunity was (and still is) one of the primary reasons people came here from other countries.
On November 7, 2006, a ballot measure to bar preferential treatment for women and minorities in university admissions and state programs was approved in three different states. The States of Michigan, California, and Washington are the three states that amended their state constitutions to bar affirmative action in their selection process. In the state of Michigan, days after the measure was approved, a coalition of civil rights activists, labor advocates, and students launched a court challenge seeking to prevent this measure from taking effect (Cavanagh, 2006). To support preferential treatment to women and minorities shows the admissions policies within a university are based on strong ethics, diversity and representation. Without these factors present in a university, it shows racial and gender preference.
The lawsuit failed because 58% of voters who had voted on November 7, 2006 had supported the measure. To bar women and minorities borders