” […] I suspect that much of this effort is being undertaken to make the admissions system more opaque, not to make it better.

In June, Justice David Souter’s argument that Michigan’s point system deserved “an extra point” for frankness rather than requiring a system where the “winners are the ones who hide the ball.” His colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote similarly, suggesting that being honest about affirmative-action policies is “preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises.”

However personalized the new system is, I suspect that next year’s freshman class will be remarkably similar to this year’s class. “Critical mass” will assert itself. Fuzzy logic triumphs.

Our colleges and universities are powerful social elevators. They can be springboards for the disadvantaged to move up and ahead. But progress is painfully slow. Last week, the College Board released numbers showing a 207-point gap between SAT scores for African Americans and whites.

Now a great university is expending millions of dollars to change its admissions policies — dollars that would be far better spent to coach and acclimate minority and under-privileged students who drop out of the university at high rates.”

> From: “U-M changes it’s admissions, but is it money well spent?”

Author: Rob