This is a follow-up to that term paper essay for my English 102 course. That assignment was supposed to be the culmination of a semester of work. It began with tons of pre-planning research, gathering articles as works cited before we even began writing the actual essay.
In hindsight, I now realize I was going up against Goliath in an impossible challenge. Sigh. For the duration of the assignment, I could not think of a single *logical* argument as to why affirmative action should continue to be a defining policy in college admissions. Or for personnel policies at companies, or anywhere else for that matter. All I knew was that I <wanted> it really badly. I had a very strong *emotional* reaction to the outrageous posit that affirmative action should ever be eliminated.
But not a very coherent *logical* one. Ohmigosh, I struggled to compose that essay. I could not think of a single logic-based argument as to why a kid from a poverty-class background in a bad school district should be ushered in to standard college courses ahead of a more wealthy white kid.
The very first things I considered were the many objections to eliminating affirmative action. Such as slavery. Such as the Civil Rights struggle, Jim Crow laws, racism, separate water fountains and lunch counters. Yes, I know all that. Sigh. I am well-informed on all those gruesome historical facts.
Unfortunately, I arrived at the unpleasant truth. What does any of that have to do with modern-day prospective college students? Taking all that into account is not going to magically make this kid a good college student. Again, that is all an *emotional* reaction to this gigantic conundrum, not a logical one.
Let us suppose there is an African-American kid from a not-very-privileged background. He did not have the benefit of attending a school district with good standards of education. His literacy and mathematics skills are not great, and when he graduated he was performing academically far below national standards expected for an average high school graduate.
Perhaps his high school did not offer college-preparatory courses. Or perhaps his school did offer them and he did enroll in them, but the teaching and notes in those classes were woefully below national standards. Possibly the teachers did not have the training necessary to teach the courses in their entirety. Or, the below-average comprehension of the collective group of students prevented the teacher from moving at a swift pace. Remember that a teacher has to make sure the majority of students master a concept before she can move on to the next concept. *These are all documented reasons that the news bites give us for why inner-city kids did not have good education.
We are told that supposedly admission to a good college is his one shining golden hope for a better future.
-But let us consider all the facts. This kid did not attend a high school that offered standard classes that are considered prerequisites for college. The public grade school district, for whatever reason, hindered this student's progress. His high school truly did not prepare him for the demands of a college-level curriculum.
If this is truly the case, then wouldn't a remedial course of study be a far better solution? That would be a far more realistic avenue for a kid from that kind of background to pursue, at least for the time being. That is the plan of treatment that would serve this kid the best.
Allowing this kid into standard introductory freshman-level college courses is, plainly put, setting him up for failure. So this is what the phrase "setting oneself up for failure" means. To me this has always sounded like just another one of those abstract, elusive, equivocal, short, clever-sounding fluffy expressions people say that ultimately mean nothing. But here we finally have an example to illustrate this.
He simply is not going to be able to handle the rigors of calculus or even College Algebra. He will not be able to handle standard college English 101, argumentative writing, etc. Ushering this kid into routine freshman-level courses is, to put it bluntly, cruel. Doing that would be completely ignoring the condition of his educational foundation.
Remedial treatment would be the best plan for the kid’s own sake. He still needs the foundational groundwork. He needs to learn the basics. Because of his situation, what he needs most is to [[[writi intensive, shore] up, beef up___]]] his [[[academic capability]]]] *before* being released out into the wild of regulation-grade college responsibility.
In addition, we need to address the topic of white kids that have grown up in poverty. Poor white children do grow up in trailer parks, and other dangerous poverty-stricken neighborhoods. They have been every bit as disadvantaged in their course of education as poor black kids.
They are not any more privileged than poor black kids. Many of them also do not come from stable, loving homes that encouraged academic success. They probably attended grade school in districts that performed woefully below national standards.
Is it justified that under current “affirmative action” policies, these kids are denied a fair chance at a decent education -- just because they are white?
If any sort of “boosting-up help” is available to kids, these policies cannot and should not be race-based. This is cruel and unrealistic. Now, in full confession, what I stated earlier also stands, regarding poor white children. Affirmative action is a bad idea because it is setting them up for failure. For whatever reason, poor white kids did not have access to college-preparatory education. Therefore, like poor black children, they will not be able to handle standard college courses.
In hindsight, I now realize I was going up against Goliath in an impossible challenge. Sigh. For the duration of the assignment, I could not think of a single *logical* argument as to why affirmative action should continue to be a defining policy in college admissions. Or for personnel policies at companies, or anywhere else for that matter. All I knew was that I <wanted> it really badly. I had a very strong *emotional* reaction to the outrageous posit that affirmative action should ever be eliminated.
But not a very coherent *logical* one. Ohmigosh, I struggled to compose that essay. I could not think of a single logic-based argument as to why a kid from a poverty-class background in a bad school district should be ushered in to standard college courses ahead of a more wealthy white kid.
The very first things I considered were the many objections to eliminating affirmative action. Such as slavery. Such as the Civil Rights struggle, Jim Crow laws, racism, separate water fountains and lunch counters. Yes, I know all that. Sigh. I am well-informed on all those gruesome historical facts.
Unfortunately, I arrived at the unpleasant truth. What does any of that have to do with modern-day prospective college students? Taking all that into account is not going to magically make this kid a good college student. Again, that is all an *emotional* reaction to this gigantic conundrum, not a logical one.
Let us suppose there is an African-American kid from a not-very-privileged background. He did not have the benefit of attending a school district with good standards of education. His literacy and mathematics skills are not great, and when he graduated he was performing academically far below national standards expected for an average high school graduate.
Perhaps his high school did not offer college-preparatory courses. Or perhaps his school did offer them and he did enroll in them, but the teaching and notes in those classes were woefully below national standards. Possibly the teachers did not have the training necessary to teach the courses in their entirety. Or, the below-average comprehension of the collective group of students prevented the teacher from moving at a swift pace. Remember that a teacher has to make sure the majority of students master a concept before she can move on to the next concept. *These are all documented reasons that the news bites give us for why inner-city kids did not have good education.
We are told that supposedly admission to a good college is his one shining golden hope for a better future.
-But let us consider all the facts. This kid did not attend a high school that offered standard classes that are considered prerequisites for college. The public grade school district, for whatever reason, hindered this student's progress. His high school truly did not prepare him for the demands of a college-level curriculum.
If this is truly the case, then wouldn't a remedial course of study be a far better solution? That would be a far more realistic avenue for a kid from that kind of background to pursue, at least for the time being. That is the plan of treatment that would serve this kid the best.
Allowing this kid into standard introductory freshman-level college courses is, plainly put, setting him up for failure. So this is what the phrase "setting oneself up for failure" means. To me this has always sounded like just another one of those abstract, elusive, equivocal, short, clever-sounding fluffy expressions people say that ultimately mean nothing. But here we finally have an example to illustrate this.
He simply is not going to be able to handle the rigors of calculus or even College Algebra. He will not be able to handle standard college English 101, argumentative writing, etc. Ushering this kid into routine freshman-level courses is, to put it bluntly, cruel. Doing that would be completely ignoring the condition of his educational foundation.
Remedial treatment would be the best plan for the kid’s own sake. He still needs the foundational groundwork. He needs to learn the basics. Because of his situation, what he needs most is to [[[writi intensive, shore] up, beef up___]]] his [[[academic capability]]]] *before* being released out into the wild of regulation-grade college responsibility.
In addition, we need to address the topic of white kids that have grown up in poverty. Poor white children do grow up in trailer parks, and other dangerous poverty-stricken neighborhoods. They have been every bit as disadvantaged in their course of education as poor black kids.
They are not any more privileged than poor black kids. Many of them also do not come from stable, loving homes that encouraged academic success. They probably attended grade school in districts that performed woefully below national standards.
Is it justified that under current “affirmative action” policies, these kids are denied a fair chance at a decent education -- just because they are white?
If any sort of “boosting-up help” is available to kids, these policies cannot and should not be race-based. This is cruel and unrealistic. Now, in full confession, what I stated earlier also stands, regarding poor white children. Affirmative action is a bad idea because it is setting them up for failure. For whatever reason, poor white kids did not have access to college-preparatory education. Therefore, like poor black children, they will not be able to handle standard college courses.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment