I don't really have anything to discuss about this, I just thought this seems like such a good idea, and deserved to have a thread on it. So.... why hasn't this started in other places?
Some random and possibly incoherent thoughts: 1. Many people still shy away from affirmative action in any form. 2. Those who want AA to remain in place probably prefer the current race-based incarnation. 3. Bureaucracy is slow to move, and I think that goes double for school bureaucracy. 4. I Googled this story, which says that California and Florida have versions of the law, and Michigan is considering it. http://media.www.michigandaily.com/...Rule-3322678.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines 5. One unspoken/underspoken issue: People fear that someone in the top 10 percent of Inner City High School may still not be qualified to succeed at the best public universities. (To which I say: then make sure that Inner City High School is good enough so that they would be guaranteed to be qualified). 6. There's also a meritocracy argument: even if you're in the top 10 percent of ICHS, you could be a worse student than someone who's in, say, the top 25 percent of Ritzy Suburban High.
So, middle-class parents can move to "da hood" so their kid won't have as much academic competition. That's good.... But the kid might get beaten and robbed on a regular basis. That's bad.... Homes are cheaper in "da hood". That's good.... It's a tough call IMO.
re 6: It didn't say they don't get in, just that it's not automatic. The top 25% at ritzy high will still go to college. It promotes excellence. I think it's good.
5-6. I agree with your brackets. Also, I think the theory is that if the 10% from the worst schools had had the opportunities that the others had, then they would certainly have been on a par. A friend of mine was lamenting her grade once, apparently she got the lowest in her year, "apart from those that got B's". After I stopped laughing at the absurdity, she pointed out that her school was a semi-private grammar school, where they had all the reources they could, small classes, extra one-on-one teaching, and supplementary activities and classes. Which then begs the question - how would those kids have done in any other school, with a higher level of disruption, where they would have really understood "independent learning?" Summer schools exist for a reason; and those that want to catch up, can catch up. I know that it wasn't my intelligence that stopped me getting into oxford, but I was at a disadvantage because I simply had not read the same books. A reading list over summer is not too much to ask.
This reminds me of an interesting question: Are the children of rich people smarter on average than the children of bottom-level working class people? Adult bottom-tier people may seem a bit "dumber" than adult wealthy or upper class people, but are they really? I doubt it could actually be that way. My own best guess is that a non-mentally-stimulating upbringing numbs the brain and creates an eventual appearance of lesser average intelligence than the all-things-weird-and-wonderful upbringing of the wealthy. I mean you do notice it. Try talking about something scientific or whatever with a bunch of working class lads down the pub and you'll get kinda blank stares. But wealthy people at a fancy function... well, some of them are likely to get on board with you. That's what I'm talking about. This peculiar disconnect.
That could also be because people who have a genuine interest in science, engineering, and such tend to find their way into those fields rather than becoming the construction crew downing a few cold ones at the local biker bar.
My local is full of psychos, and yet they're happy to spout random scientific lacks of facts at you. I don't know how many times I've been chatted up (generally around) with the Good Will Hunting routine (Yeah, I work in construction, but I really like to read, I mean, you can get everything you need from the library, you don't need a degree! I mean, postmodernism...). But the non-psycho perverts that I'm friends with, well... My boyfriend is a law student. He has 4 brothers, brought up by his mum, on £18,000 a year. That's not much money. But, he got a scholarship to a private school, and he has a bursary to help him through university. My other friend is a Maths student (doing his masters) at Oxford. He's also on bursaries and extra support, he won't bring his Oxford friends back to his house, because he knows it will be too much of a culture shock, and they'll just be terrified of getting stabbed. I miss him when I'm at university, because I don't get the same stimulation from my friends here as I do in London. He talks to me about imaginary numbers, what he's researched, things on the news. I geek out at him about Tolkien and Old English. He teaches me things I've forgotten now, and I teach him grammar. He's well spoken, but has been nicknamed "the chav of Oxford" by his friends. Another one didn't go to uni, despite offers from Cambridge, UCL, Durham, etc. (She applied twice). She turned down Cambridge because she needed to earn money for a year, and they wouldn't let her have a delayed place. She hasn't gone to uni since she's been earning, as she got used to the money, and it's obvious that a love of earning money, no stimulation from the people around her, and copious drug use has numbed her love of learning a bit. Although she's getting quite excited right now because she's about to take a company secretary course, and will be taking a year on law, a year on accountacy, and a year on finance - the course looks very hard, but knowing her, she'll love hating the workload. Oh, and she's the 6 people 4 bed council flat that shakes when lorries go by, got a scholarship to local private school type.
Undoubtedly the top 25 percent will be able to get into SOME state college if they so desire. However, they will not necessarily get into the BEST state colleges if everyone in the top 10 percent of schools chooses to go to there and takes up too many slots. It's fairly foreseeable that someone who got, say, a 1200 on his SATs but was in the top 10 percent of his high school would be guaranteed admission, while the university would get so many applicants with 1300 and above that someone with such a score might be denied. At first blush I tend to agree.
