1. What barriers exist for you in our class right now?

I can’t think of a barrier because I think it’s a very democratic/collaborative class.

2. What *all* do you envision us being capable of, together, in this class going forward in the semester?

It seems like the course/syllabus ends this way, but my dream is that we consistently build room for possibility and examples of educational justice as we critique and grieve over the shortcomings of our current systems.

3. What course content questions do you have so far (i.e., questions about the readings)?

We haven’t spoken about it much but I’d love to have more clarity about charter schools and the different positions for/against.

4. What course process questions do you have so far?

The only thing that comes to mind is I’m wondering if there’s an obligation to post on the blog for the same week that a student is presenting.

Blog post to come 🙂

What barriers exist for you in our class right now?

Nothing comes to mind right now outside of finding time to get everything done. I love how this class feels low pressure.

What all do you envision us being capable of, together, in this class going forward in the semester?

I’d like some set time for folks to be asked about their postings for the week especially if folks are using mediums outside of traditional writing. This will provide some time for folks to engage with outside another outside of the postings but on the postings.

What course content questions do you have so far (i.e., questions about the readings)?

No questions come t mind so far

What course process questions do you have so far?

I am looking forward to unpacking the final assignment more

My weekly posting for class is an audio clip feel free to check it out below.

The readings this week prompted me to want to share Dr. Carmen Kynard’s “On Graduate Admissions and Whiteness: A Love Letter to Black/ Brown/ Queer Graduate Students Out There Everywhere,” which surfaces for readers some of the ways in which white supremacist, capitalist, and patriarchal ideologies played out during an admissions process in 2019 at the CUNY Graduate Center. But that is an inadequate synthesis of a tremendously powerful and nuanced account. I hope you will read Dr. Kynard’s words for yourself:

While I was appalled anew by the data on the inherent racism and classism of legacy admissions, the ableism of athletic admissions, and the admissions process more generally, I was unsure about how to respond to this week’s reading. To my mind, equity, diversity, and inclusion should be hallmarks of the admission process at elite institutions, but I am so totally elite-institution averse, that I am less fired up by the idea of reforming Harvard’s admissions policies than I am by the idea of creating an alternate path forward for potential students that better serves individual and collective uplift at well-resourced public universities. By strengthening public institutions, building toward educational spaces that are much more just, joyous, inclusive, and accessible, there may be an opportunity to weaken the hold elite, private institutions have the production of wealth, power, decision-making capacities, privilege, white supremacy, patriarchy, and knowledge.

In the intro to C. Wright Mills The Power Elite, he breaks society down into two rough-hewn categories: those who make big decisions, precipitating major historical events, and those who do not have the power to make great decisions or influence historical occurrences. But he also suggests that there is no power elite consisting of specific individuals who make decisions and determine history. The real historical actors are major institutions, corporations, and militaries who produce and reproduce power and the powerful. His suggestion reminds me of a talk Amitav Ghosh gave years ago at the GC’s annual Victorians conference. He mapped the influence of the opium trade on the formation of mass markets, carceral capitalism, and universities. He mentioned, I think – my memory is hazy! – Brown University and Franklin D. Roosevelt as two different kinds of entities whose wealth, prestige, and influence was purchased through the opium trade. Can just admissions processes wrest the wheel from the power elite and reroute elite institutions toward more just ends? Maybe! But if institutions are the real actors, as Mills suggests, then institutions – and the societies they engender – have to be reconfigured completely too.

Hi Everyone. We thought Week 5 might be a good time for a semi-formal check in. The questions below try to gauge how our class is going from several angles. Please post your feedback in the next few days, then we’ll take a few minutes during Week 5’s class to reflect together on your feedback. If there are questions you prefer to answer privately, please do so over email. Thank you for your help!

1. What barriers exist for you in our class right now?
2. What *all* do you envision us being capable of, together, in this class going forward in the semester?
3. What course content questions do you have so far (i.e., questions about the readings)?
4. What course process questions do you have so far?

For March 2, we will be reading:

• Sara Ahmed, On Being Included (Intro, ch1) (optional: ch5)
• Harris, Campbell, & Brophy, Slavery in the University (Intro)
• Optional reading: Marc Bousquet, How the University Works (ch1)

Discussion Questions

As always, you are welcome to select one or more of these questions to use as a framework for your response, or you may wish to reflect on a different topic or question.

• Think about Ahmed’s image of the brick wall. What are some examples of how you see this play out in your own educational experiences, or in the readings?
• Consider a close-reading approach to Ahmed’s work. What does she do with specific words, like “stranger” or “passing”? How does her use of language affect the way you understand her argument?
• Thinking methodologically for a moment, Ahmed advances her inquiry into institutional diversity by following paper around campus. What kind of method is this, and do you see ways to employ a similar approach in your intellectual work at the GC or in other institutions?
• Today’s readings share an emphasis on how insidious white supremacy can be when it seems invisible—a false neutrality that privileges whiteness, for instance, or an illustrious image that glosses over a history of enslaved labor. Reflect on this matter of invisibility, perhaps considering how we see it in our own institutions.

The photo essays, poetry, infographics, and other kinds of responses have been wonderful; feel free to get creative!

The above link is a New York Times article Matt shared on the impact of the temporary removal of the SAT requirements on college admissions for the elite and lower tier schools. Removing these standardized tests give all students a fair chance to get into schools based on a truer picture of their ability. Many colleges may welcome the step as a way to have a more diversity among their applicants but reflecting on Jordan Weissmann’s article in Slate I am wondering if there will be a great difference in the diversity of the student body. In Harvard’s case, which is the focus in Weissmann’s article, how much less of the athletes, legacies and kids of donors (43% of which are white) are they willing to admit to achieve the diversity they seek?  How will Harvard choose?

David and I met with Professors Rogers and Brim last week to present our ideas. We both seemed to want to focus on Elite Education but from slightly different angles. David was interested in looking into the nuts and bolts of the Admissions Process (and associated ethical implications). I was interested in looking at the impact legacy has on the value of a college education.

I’m interested in the automatic association between wealth and the Ivy League. There’s an implied connection, that a child of a Political/Social Dynasty (Kennedys, Rockerfellers, even someone like Chelsea Clinton), is so guaranteed acceptance into a school of their choosing, it doesn’t even matter if they go. They are famailially linked to thesee schools. This is what C Wright Mill’s speaks to in The Power Elite (the context of his book is a very post WWII America. He is clearly speaking to the establish of an Eisenhowerian Military)– they’re families so powerful in this country that they move mountains. Their kids need not even go to college, but to the extent they are, you bet they’ll go to Yale!

My mother was the first class of women at Bowdoin, and she often recounts walking home late from the library in the middle of winter (in Maine), and seeing men passed out in the snow. She said she always imagined that’s what George Bush (jr) was like at Yale. Four years of party and fun, and leave with a degree that carries weight and power in this country and abroad.

I’m interested in the lack of purpose/impact a degree has for this type of student, which of course begs the question, what’s the purpose of higher ed in the first place? But there exists a reason we go to college. We’re told it guarantees employment or will allow for a larger salary, or because of the promise of intellectual fulfillment. A child of the rich isn’t burdened with these concerns– although craving the intellectual life surpasses class.

There will always be fundamental tensions between the classroom, the Ivory Tower, and the larger world of employment, taxes, and grocery shopping, but for the children (cousins, nieces, stepsons once removed) of the elite, will they not already occupy a plane of existence separate from the rest of us, with different (fewer) expectations. Education for the elite is more a rubber stamp to move on to the next stage of existence than anything else.

When I think of someone like Chelsea Clinton, I understand that yes she could be legitimately interested in public health, and want to teach graduate-level courses at Columbia, but at the same time, the experience of having her as a professor would never be neutral. She will always be a Clinton, and regardless of ability, the impetus of her ending p lecturing in front of you is something much larger than herself.

Just some background on this compilation of images, that may seem random!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1K19iee5dnx8z4u05p0xPARwkJukmqWXhn8QuBGVUq5k/edit?usp=sharing

Discussing Harvard’s admission practices, Jordan Weissman of Slate writes, ”Perhaps it’s time for Harvard to dial back those advantages a bit. It would be nice if our so-called meritocracy were at least a little bit more meritocratic.” Meritocracy, as a word, is simple to define – not even requiring a dictionary or any research. Examining the word, merit generally means based on accomplishments or abilities, and not criteria one has no control over. This presents a tricky situation when looking at college admissions – particularly as it relates to the consideration of race. Considering race in admissions is absolutely necessary to combat centuries of racism and discrimination in admissions in the higher education world. But can there be a true meritocracy in higher education if race is considered as a factor? Probably not. Which is likely why Weissman did not speak in absolutes when he asked for things the be a “little bit more meritocratic.” It is clear that a true meritocracy, that only considers abilities and measures that colleges value, would likely not serve underrepresented racial demographics very well – though by no fault of their own. As stated in, The Real Problem With The SAT, published in The Atlantic, “as family income increases, so do scores on the exam. Between the poorest and richest students, there’s a 400-point gap.” Several other assigned readings for this week clearly indicate that the privilege associated with relative wealth leads to markedly higher SAT scores – which, in turn, directly impacts admissions to elite schools. Wealth is probably a better indicator of performance on the SAT than race, but in America, Black and brown students are disproportionately adversely affected by poverty as it relates to their educational attainment, making them far less likely to achieve the results that would appeal to elite schools. So, a meritocracy likely will not be realized, but since the elite higher education landscape has not been a meritocracy for so long, it should be ok with settling for the next best option.

I’m not a cynical person at all; I’m almost optimistic to a fault. However, that defining characteristic changes when I think about my faith in educational institutions’ dismantling of White supremacy and truly doing work that accounts for years of racism and its many reaches. Actually, being in my department at the GC does give me a lot of hope for certain institutions, because I truly see a critically conscious faculty, an effort to prioritize students of color, and multiple actions to promote research that explicitly and boldly tackles issues of oppression. It makes me able to allow my optimism to enter the field when thinking about DEI in education. However, it’s possible that my alma mater stunted me a bit. I went to Connecticut College, a New England liberal arts school, and one of the most expensive and least diverse in almost every way. I did feel enriched by a lot of professors and enjoyed my social life, and I can attribute the institution’s failures as an actual inclusive institution as a catalyst for my activism, for which I suppose I am grateful. Anyway, the readings for this week made me think about how much institutions do for their public perceptions (all related to money really) above the needs of students.

I wanted to look at social media pages of Connecticut College to look at the disjointment between the two and to create some sort of collage/visual, but my also stunted artistic abilities led me to a different medium I’m a little more comforable with: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kOY_UYrfl1BdKrPnCOxjjjb3lLyoeRpPPkse8drs4Fo/edit?usp=sharing

(let me know if this doesn’t open! 🙂 )

I don’t think this work in academia is futile, at all, but the landscape we work with is full of hypocrisy, private interest, lack of action, and generations-long seeped-in white supremacy. It’s going to (obviously) take a lot more than Instagram posts in February to truly change our systems. I look forward to creating and learning more about possibilities with all of you.

As I was preparing a discussion for our class by searching and reading various articles, I began to realize the problems that American college admission process now has. In the general admission process to a college, you need to submit your SAT scores, high school GPA grades, the list of extracurricular activities, etc. But, are these tools really functioning well? Is the entry process of college fair enough for every American student? These given articles and books provide me with a lot of insights and information to understand what is really going on in the US‘ college admission process.

I was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea. To go to a college or university in Korea, every Korean student must take a kind of Korean SAT (KSAT). As most of the US colleges do, many Korean colleges consider the KSAT scores as the most critical factor when it comes to admission. Then, what happens? Every student pushes themselves to get as the highest SAT scores as they can, therefore leading to more competition. In my time of entering a college was not much different from the current competitive situation regarding the KAST. Even though I was a very diligent student and studied hard in every class at every level of school, and I had good high school GPA grades, I needed to raise up my KSAT scores to prove my academic abilities to enter a good university. So, these KSAT scores were always my concern. As a matter of fact, most Korean parents were and are the same with me. There are numerous Korean parents whose first priority is sending their children to prestigious universities. So, they spend a lot of money to help their kids attend prep academies for getting high KSAT scores, providing them with good tutoring programs. But, as you can imagine, the privilege of getting good KSAT tutoring programs is limited to many low-income family students. And I think I was one of those who were not privileged for it.

I think the same phenomenon is happening in the US. As a student’s SAT score is a significant part of most college admission processes, there are still many controversial issues about the test’s fairness. From the price of SAT to the problematic, expensive tutoring programs in many states, the SAT has always been a hot button issue in the college entry process. Recently, the adversity score, which indicates the obstacles a student might have overcome, like crime and poverty, faced a lot of criticisms. Although the College Board, the company that administers the SAT exam, withdrew this new policy due to rising criticisms, the effort to make the test fairer is still going on.

What about the high school GPA grades? Are the GPA grades good measurements to evaluate a promising student for a college? I found out there are many GPA inflations taking place in numerous US high schools. How can we resolve this problem? Should we use GPA grades for college admissions when we know GPA is losing its credibility?

Even for extracurricular activities, I know taking those activities costs a lot of money. Isn’t it then fair not to refer to the list of students’ extracurricular activities for admission? How can we change the use of the list for the reliable admission process?  

I think there are many things that we can discuss in the class regarding college admission fairness. I don’t think we all should try to go to prestigious colleges and universities. As many CUNY colleges are doing great jobs in social mobility, I think a need to go to a highly selective college would not mean much. Then, what about CUNY’s admission process? If the admission standards of Harvard show severe exclusion, is CUNY’s admission standards fair enough? We may discuss these things in the class.