A brief exchange about how best to ensure that all Americans have
access to the most coveted schools and jobs. Guinier (Law/Harvard
Univ.; "Becoming Gentlemen", 1997, etc.) and Sturm (Law/Columbia
Univ.) open this slender volume with a not-so-modest proposal:
silence the critics of affirmative action by reforming the way that
we determine who is "most qualified" for advancement without
sacrificing diversity. The authors begin by questioning the
"testocracy" that has determined who gains entry to the best
schools and companies in recent decades, claiming that standardized
tests (such as the SAT) are inaccurate predictors of future
success. In addition, those from privileged backgrounds tend to do
better at such tests, thereby perpetuating the status quo.
According to the authors, a far better predictor of success would
be a form of probation, during which the candidate has an
opportunity to perform in the desired job or university. After a
probationary period, he or she would be evaluated according to a
number of criteria that have been identified as relevant to
successful performance. With the exception of a single
hypothetical, however, the practical application of such a system
is left for another day. Having advanced their proposal, the
authors invite responses from various academics who pinpoint the
weaknesses of the author's naive suggestions. One objection is that
standardized tests offer the best chance for minorities
(particularly Jews and Asian-Americans from disadvantaged
backgrounds) to crack the old-boy network. Another point is that
standardized tests are rarely used in the workplace, and almost
never for the most coveted jobs. Finally, there is no guarantee
that the subjective, post-probationary review suggested by the
authors would not be susceptible to the prejudices of the
evaluators. The replies made to these and other criticisms are
unconvincing. A well-intentioned proposal that is not quite ready
for prime time. (Kirkus Reviews)
Affirmative action originated as a plan to correct the historical
disadvantage of women and people of color-to make the system more
fair. Yet, for over twenty years, it has been repeatedly attacked
for being unfair to whites, and even un-American.
Guinier and Sturm begin with a critique of affirmative action as it
stands now, arguing that a system of selection that determines
'qualification' from test scores and then adds on factors like race
and gender doesn't work-either for the people it includes or the
people it leaves out. But they go further, asking us to rethink how
we evaluate merit.
Marshaling lively examples from education and the workplace, they
expose the failure of tests to predict success. They provide
evidence that people's success depends on the opportunities they
have to perform, and that institutions do best when they are open
to unanticipated contributions. Offering a model of selection based
on performance, not prediction, the authors' reconception of an old
ideal suggests at once a smart business practice and a step toward
the promise of democratic opportunity. Paul Osterman, Stephen
Steinberg, Peter Sacks, and others respond.
NEW DEMOCRACY FORUM
A series of short paperback originals exploring creative solutions
to our most urgent national concerns. The series editors (for
Boston Review), Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, aim to foster
politically engaged, intellectually honest, and morally serious
debate about fundamental issues-both on and off the agenda of
conventional politics.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
