Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Analyzing Controversial Issues: College Admissions and Ethnic Profiling in Education, Slides of Ethnic Studies

Indian Institute of Engineering Science and TechnologyEthnic Studies

An analysis of controversial issues in education, focusing on college admissions and the use of race or ethnic profiling in policing and security enforcement. It discusses the dimensions of analysis, including rhetoric and discourse, interests, factual claims, and value claims. The document also includes examples of college admission trends and their implications for different interest groups.

Typology: Slides

2011/2012

Uploaded on 12/13/2012

dhanvine
dhanvine 🇮🇳

3.8

(4)

40 documents

1 / 9

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
Analyzing Controversial Issues
Revised 2007 (College Admissions
Examples)
Issues for project 1, debate
•Is it appropriate to use race or ethnic
profiling in policing and security
enforcement?
•Should sports teams be prohibited from
using Native American names, logos or
mascots?
•Should U.S. immigration law be changed
to allow more workers from Mexico?
•Should English be the only language of
instruction in U.S. public schools?
Sources
•We are looking for opinionated or “biased” sources,
people who really advocate each side
•We want opinions from BOTH/ALL sides
–No “straw men”
–BOTH “mainstream” (White) sources AND ethnic/racial
minority sources
–BOTH “professional” or “expert” sources AND non-expert
possibly biased sources
–You are the judge or analyst weighing both sides fairly, NOT
the lawyer advocating for one side
•You want to sort your sources into “sides” and notice
what kinds of claims are being made on each side.
–Ok to have some “neutral” sources but you also need real
advocates for each side
Academic honesty
•No plagiarism. For how to avoid see:
http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/QPA_plagiarism.html
•References & citations must be honest, not “faked”
•The penalty for academic dishonesty will range from F
on the paper to F in the class (depending on severity)
PLUS a letter to the Dean’s office describing the
offense
•You will submit papers electronically, they will be
checked through turnitin.com, plagiarism detection
software
•Apologies to those of you who would not cheat, plus
assurance that honesty will not be punished
Major Dimensions of analysis
1. Interests: who stands to gain/lose
2. Factual claims: assertions about reality
3. Value claims: assertions about justice
or morality
4. Rhetoric & Discourse: how language is
used to persuade, to position the issue
with respect to other issues or
principles
Plan for class
•General lecture on concepts
•Discuss some college admission issues
as examples for concepts
docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9

Partial preview of the text

Download Analyzing Controversial Issues: College Admissions and Ethnic Profiling in Education and more Slides Ethnic Studies in PDF only on Docsity!

Analyzing Controversial Issues

Revised 2007 (College Admissions

Examples)

Issues for project 1, debate

  • Is it appropriate to use race or ethnic

profiling in policing and security

enforcement?

  • Should sports teams be prohibited from

using Native American names, logos or

mascots?

  • Should U.S. immigration law be changed

to allow more workers from Mexico?

  • Should English be the only language of

instruction in U.S. public schools?

Sources

  • We are looking for opinionated or “biased” sources, people who really advocate each side
  • We want opinions from BOTH/ALL sides
    • No “straw men”
    • BOTH “mainstream” (White) sources AND ethnic/racial minority sources
    • BOTH “professional” or “expert” sources AND non-expert possibly biased sources
    • You are the judge or analyst weighing both sides fairly, NOT the lawyer advocating for one side
  • You want to sort your sources into “sides” and notice what kinds of claims are being made on each side. - Ok to have some “neutral” sources but you also need real advocates for each side

Academic honesty

  • No plagiarism. For how to avoid see: http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/QPA_plagiarism.html
  • References & citations must be honest, not “faked”
  • The penalty for academic dishonesty will range from F on the paper to F in the class (depending on severity) PLUS a letter to the Dean’s office describing the offense
  • You will submit papers electronically, they will be checked through turnitin.com, plagiarism detection software
  • Apologies to those of you who would not cheat, plus assurance that honesty will not be punished

Major Dimensions of analysis

1. Interests: who stands to gain/lose

2. Factual claims: assertions about reality

3. Value claims: assertions about justice

or morality

4. Rhetoric & Discourse: how language is

used to persuade, to position the issue

with respect to other issues or

principles

Plan for class

  • General lecture on concepts
  • Discuss some college admission issues

as examples for concepts

Interests

  • What people stand to gain or lose from
different policies
  • Money
  • Jobs
  • Political Power
  • Prestige, sense of superiority
  • Cultural comfort: your sense of belonging or being right is not challenged
  • People may disguise their interests under
claims of general principles
  • This may be entirely unconscious

Social Location & Interests

  • People in common social locations have
common or group interests
  • Social location = place in society
  • Policies ALWAYS affect people differently,
depending upon their social location
  • There is generally no policy that is “good for everyone.” It is a matter of balancing interests & principles.
  • People often think that what is good for them
is good for everyone, often genuinely unaware
of others’ interests
  • Some are truly blind to others’ interests, may even become angry at being asked to consider them

Factual Claims

  • What people say “the facts” are
  • Most times, the different sides disagree

about facts

  • People may make factual claims about

which the evidence is non-existent, in

dispute, or contrary

  • Important to look for factual claims & the

evidence supporting them

Value Claims

  • Assertions about core principles of justice,
fairness, equality, morality
  • Some people believe as a value that only
individual interests matter, but most people
adhere to other more general values
  • Both sides generally advocate positive values
  • The sides may invoke different values or weigh
them differently, or may agree on values but
disagree on how to accomplish them

Rhetoric - Discourse

  • The words that are used, how the issue is compared to others
  • The two sides usually use different language, talk about the issue in different ways
  • Non-ethnic example: pro-life vs pro-choice. Different ways of framing what abortion is “about”
  • Those advocating points of view typically choose their language & framing purposefully to make a point (but sometimes are unconscious of this)
  • Rhetoric may be grounded in larger religious, political or philosophical belief systems

Plan: Discuss university admission

policies

  • Open discussion of different concerns

(~10 minutes)

  • Specific collection of arguments for &

against considering disadvantage &

diversity in admissions (~ 5 minutes)

  • Analysis of issues in terms of concepts:

interests, factual claims, values, rhetoric

& discourse

  • Presentation of basic facts about

educational trends nationally & at UW

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

UW Madison has become a high-income school

Median Family Income of WI Resident Freshmen

$30,

$35,

$40,

$45,

$50,

$55,

$60,

$65,

$70,

$75,

$80,

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 Freshman Year

Median Family Income Estimate

All WI Families UW System Freshmen UW-Madison Freshmen (^) Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Tuition Increases: Resident & Non-

Chart A Undergraduate Tuition & Fees by Residency As a Percent of 1990 Level

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fall Semester

Percent of 1990 Level

Resident Non-Resident

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Ratio Resident to Non-Res Tuition

Chart B Resident Tuition & Fees as a Percentage of Non-Resident Tuition & Fees

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fall Semester

Percentage

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

ACT Scores

Chart I Average ACT Score (or Converted SAT Score) of Entering New Freshmen

23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fall Semester of Entrance

Average ACT Score

Non-Resident Resident & Minnesota Compact

Predicting Success

  • Next chart is used by the chancellor to make the point that there is a positive relation between class rank and performance at UW BUT there is wide variation around the averages
  • Many individual students with high class rank perform badly, many with low class rank perform well
  • Grades, class rank & test scores account for about 25% of the variance in 1st year grades and about 10% of the variance in graduation rates
  • The rest is due to “other factors” which the admissions committee attempts to assess

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

UW: HS GPA & 1st^ Sem. Grades: Relationship is positive but weak

Source: Chancellor’s report. http://www.chancellor.wisc.edu/view.html?get=chan_analysis

oliver: Stopped here 2/6/

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Race of UW by time AllRace of UW Undergrads

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998- African Amer Asian Amer American Indian Hispanic/ Latino White/ Other Inter- national Proportion White declined in 1990s, cannot distinguish minorities in this plot. Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Race by Time, UW Students of ColorRace of UW Undergrads

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

5%

1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998- African Amer Asian Amer American Indian Hispanic/ Latino White/ Other Inter- national

International Students account for the largest increase, followed by Asian Americans

Freshmen 2004 @ UW

  • All students of color
= 12.3% (up from
past)
  • African American
  • Asian American 5.9%
  • Latino/Hispanic 3.0%
  • Native American

White

Asian

Latino

Black

AmInd

Int'l

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Freshmen: Time Trends

UW Freshmen %s

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* Afr Amer Latino Nat Amer Asian White & Unkwn Int'l

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Freshmen: Minorities Only

UW Frosh %s (Minorities Only)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* Afr Amer Latino Nat Amer Asian Int'l

Pamela Oliver Sociology 220

Plan 2008 Monitoring: Undergraduate

Individual disadvantage argument

  • Let’s ignore race-ethnicity for a moment
  • Individual disadvantage argument: your
grades & school quality are affected by
parents’ education & income, obscures your
true merit
  • Educational system should not just perpetuate
inequality but help to correct it. NOTE: Value
claim. Not everyone agrees. Some think it is
good for elites to be able to preserve their
children’s position in society.

Individual Advantage Issues (part 1)

  • Two students, Alpha and Beta
    • both got a 26 on the ACT (or 1200 on the SAT), which is roughly 75th – 80th percentile,
    • both have GPA’s of 3.8 with comparable courses at the same large public high school,
    • both have comparable activities,
    • both wrote adequate but not outstanding essays
  • So Alpha and Beta are “the same” in
qualifications
  • (Assume they are the same race. We are just
looking at qualifications.)

Individual Advantage (part 2)

  • Alpha’s parents have master’s & PhD with
professional occupations. Alpha took summer
enrichment courses and took private test
preparation courses that helped raise her
score on the ACT/SAT.
  • Beta’s parents are a high school drop out & a
high school graduate who hold blue collar
jobs. Beta worked at Burger King summers &
after school for four years and could not afford
a test preparation course.
  • Questions:
    • Who probably has a higher level of native
ability & intelligence?
  • Who is more “deserving” in terms of merit
and achievement?

dividual disadvantage - 3

  • Proponents: overcoming disadvantage is, itself, a sign of merit that should be factored in alongside other factors to determine “qualification”. I.e. you should get “points” for being disadvantaged. Emphasis on opportunities for disadvantaged, assumes the advantaged will do OK anyway.
  • Opponents: advantage has created true merit that should be rewarded, disadvantaged people do not have the capacity to do as well in selective schools. OR “It’s not my fault I’m privileged. Why should I have to lose MY place?”
  • NOTE the intermingling of values & factual claims in these arguments.

Class rank & school quality debates

  • Class rank as sign of academic ability

varies with the school

  • Weaker schools teach less, students less

prepared

  • AP courses taken as “merit” (the

California experience)

  • Proposals to take the top x% from every

school: implications for minorities &

disadvantaged (encourages segregation)

Group disadvantage arguments (pro)

  • Reality of past & current discrimination & segregation
  • Minorities (especially Blacks) of “the same” individual economic level tend to have poorer relatives & neighbors and worse educational facilities: due to segregation + history
  • Minority communities need more highly-educated people: this is a social good that goes beyond the deservingness of any particular individual. - Whites are very unlikely to provide medical, legal, business, educational services to segregated minority communities - The only way out of group disadvantage is to get more group members educated, able to benefit the whole community

Group disadvantage: opponents

  • Group factors to be irrelevant: only individuals
matter
  • Cite examples of genuinely privileged people
who received “minority” preference
  • Note factual dispute about whether people are
affected by their “group” membership beyond
their own individual economic standing PLUS
value dispute about whether only individual
characteristics OUGHT to matter
  • Factual disputes invoke reality of mixed-
parentage and fluid boundaries (you can check
the “minority” box even if you look & live
White)

Factual disputes about disadvantage

  • Whether there is still a legacy of

disadvantage and ongoing discrimination

  • Studies of job market & housing
discrimination: affect options for children
  • Effects of background on achievement
  • Whether prejudice and stereotypes hurts

the performance of even “advantaged”

minority students

  • Whether disadvantaged Whites are

comparable to disadvantaged minorities

disputes about admissions

  • How admission procedures actually work:
admitted “on the basis of race” vs. “one factor
among many.” Claims about other admission
factors (e.g. alumni preferences)
  • Claims and counter-claims about “quotas”
versus “targets”
  • What the racial/ethnic composition of college
classes actually is
  • College enrollment rates vs. high school
graduation rates

Factual Disputes About Qualifications

  • Pro- advocates claim students given

admission preference are well-qualified,

anti-advocates say they are not

  • Sub-debate about whether standardized

test scores (which favor Whites) are a

valid “qualification”

  • Sub-debate about overcoming

disadvantage as evidence of qualification

  • Sub-debate about qualifications and

deservingness of disadvantaged Whites

Factual Disputes About Outcomes

  • Graduation rates and reasons for non-

completion (ability vs. financial strain,

campus climate)

  • Impacts on “racial harmony” and White

attitudes

  • Impacts on students of color
  • Impacts on Asian students (who are

often not “targeted” but ARE often

discriminated against in favor of Whites,

relative to qualifications)

Factual dispute about ability

  • Whether disadvantaged students have ability
and can do well if given a chance (Bok &
Bowen vs Bell Curve
  • The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions results from a lengthy collaboration of two former college presidents: William Bowen, president of Princeton University from 1972 to 1988 and now president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; and Derek Bok ’54, president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991.
  • The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (A Free Press Paperbacks Book) by Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray