"Standards" v Diversity

A standardized test may not be perfect but it is the best method we have to be fair and objective. To be replaced by a standard of diversity is to categorize everyone by race or ethnicity or wealth which is:(1) often difficult to do (2) must incorporate its own discrimination and (3) is subject to corruption through political influence. The use of affirmative action was always meant to be temporary because of the reverse discrimination that it must use. And the clock is already running out. Helping disadvantaged groups does not have to involve lowering standards. Rather it should incorporate programs to improve academic performance such as enhanced preschool programs so that everyone can maximize their potential.

"Less than 2% of Stuyvesant's students are Black, in a school system which has 70% Black enrollment. Less than 2% of the students there are Hispanic, from a system-wide base of 40% Hispanic students."

I sincerely hope this is a "typo", else the fact that a former Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee does not understand percentages speaks volumes about what is wrong with education in our State and City.

The hard question here is "why?" - why are the percentages of Blacks and Hispanics that pass these tests so low? (And conversely, why are the percentages of Asians and Whites so hign?) It's unlikely that after all the years these tests have been administered that only now would they be found to be "racially biased", deliberately or otherwise.

The author makes a compelling case for diversity, a "situation" (for lack of a better word) that most citizens would agree is the optimum. The issue with standards though is fairness. Above all, the American system of government is built upon fairness. That is why slavery and the discrimination that resulted after its demise was so dispicable AND damaging to our country, to our society, to our citizens, both black and white.

By having a standard, which allows any one who meets it, eligibility to enter the best schools - means that now subjective criteria must be applied to the pool of eligible applicants by subjective educators, politicians, and administrators - basically social engineering. Is it not better to have an objective system, selecting the best scorers, to make these decisions?

While that system doesn't guarantee a desired outcome, it is the best way to guarantee fairness. The debate about whether the tests are a relevant, viable way to assess the skills needed to suceed in these specialized schools, and subsequently in college and in the workforce, is where attention should be directed.

Both my sons attended the "elite" public high schools, one at Bronx High School of Science, the other at Hunter College HS. At the former, students took a universal test for the three elite high schools; the top 2 percent went to Stuyvesant, the next 2 percent to Bronx Science, the last 2 percent to Brooklyn Tech. If you didn't score over 94 percent on the test, you didn't get in, plain and simple. To get into Hunter in 7th grade, you had to be invited to take the test, based on earlier citywide exams. As I recall (and I could be wrong), approximately 2,000 kids were invited to take the test, and about 200 were accepted--roughly the same percentage of applicants who are accepted to Harvard College.

Once you were into those schools it was essentially "swim or sink"--unlike private schools, there was little extra help or hand-holding. These schools were not immune from budget cuts, and the teachers varied greatly in quality (thanks to the UFT's seniority rules).

Ed Sullivan's essay is missing some pertinent facts. First, the student bodies at these schools are heavily and disproportionately Asian, with children from Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and many South Asian countries including India and Pakistan. Similarly, the "Caucasian" students" were often also children of immigrants, with many disproportionately from former Soviet bloc countries (many were Russian Jews). Many of those children were distinctly from working class and middle class backgrounds--few of the children attending these schools had the option of attending expensive private schools. The Africa-American and Latino students in the schools were often also children of immigrants from Africa, Haiti, the Caribbean and Central and South America. My son who attended Bronx Science was friends with many of the Asian children there; in fact, once he was at a party of one of them in Queens, and his friend looked at him and said, only partly joking, "Hey--you're the only white guy here!"

Another issue that Sullivan omits is that many of the "best and brightest" of the African-American and Latino students get siphoned off to private schools, with full or partial scholarships, aided by programs such as "Prep for Prep" that help minority students prepare for and survive private schools. Furthermore, many of those same students, from solid middle class families, end up in the low-cost/ high-performance parochial schools, where their hard-working and often religious parents can afford the tuition.

The final issue that Sullivan(and the NAACP and the NY Times) ignore is that in the last 20 years many fine "elite" schools just a notch or two below the "Big Three". These specialized schools have different admissions standards, but provide an education just as good in many ways, perhaps with slightly less pressure. These schools are much more balanced, racially.

So, in other words, Sullivan's social engineering would succeed in denying admission to the top schools of highly motivated children from striving immigrant families, disproportionately impacting Asian students. And as it would not succeed in luring the top minority students away from the private and parochial schools, it would of necessity be admitting less qualified minority students, who might not be able to handle the academic environment. Noting would be more damaging to minority students than admitting minority students less qualified than their Asian or Caucasian peers to handle the rigors of the 4 years.

Life is not fair--many children in African-American and Latino families do not have the social structure that encourages or enables academic pursuits at the highest levels. We need to try to help those children at the earliest levels, to try to make up for in the early years of schooling the lackings in their homes. But we should not punish the children of striving middle and working class families to do so.

Looked at another way, memberships on the city's best public school sports teams can be mostly or exclusively African-American (basketball, track and field, football) or Latino (baseball). The stars in those sports often get full scholarships to major colleges and universities, guaranteeing them a 4-year college education and perhaps a ticket to the pro ranks. Should those teams be watered down to promote racial balance? Or should sheer athletic ability be the test? We provide special paths for those who are gifted (and work hard) athletically--why is it wrong to do so for those with intellectual gifts and work attitudes?

Finally, a few things to consider. With the latest round of announcements, the Bronx HS of Science has now graduated eight (8!) Nobel Prize laureates. Dozens of Nobel laureates graduated from NYC public schools. Many of the Nobel Prize winners of previous decades from Science but also from many other "normal" public high schools were of Jewish ancestry. They came from immigrant working class and middle class backgrounds that prized and promoted education.

We accept that it is very difficult to get into medical schools, and we want it that way, because you have some idea that the person who might literally hold your in her hands was among the best and brightest. If we want to continue to graduate future Nobel laureates and other highly successful students, we cannot water down the standards at the "elite" schools; let us instead seek to level the playing field much earlier, and do everything we can to encourage intact, nurturing families and the best early childhood education programs possible.

As a graduate of BTHS class of 1971 the test should be the test. Should we allow afican amerians lower score on the drivers test, the medical boards, the
LSAT? no the score is the score. Should Italian Americans sue because Asians are the largest group in the school Get off you ass and study for the exam. The test is the test that is the only fair way to decide

How can the NYC school system have an enrollment which is 70% Black and 40% Hispanic?

Enabling diversity is a worthy goal. Mr. Sullivan fails to make a further point in its favor: that a diverse student population is in and of itself enriching to the educational experience.

However, Mr. Sullivan does not solve the admission problem, he only pushes it one step further down the road; the problem remains, in his own words, "How do we choose from within the pool of those who meet the standards?"

He also weakens his article when, at the end, he devolves into inspirational language more suitable to a campaign speech than to a discussion of educational policy.