Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:17:38.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meritocracy, Equal Opportunity, and the SAT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Linda M. Perkins
Linda M. Perkins*
Affiliation:
Educational Foundations and Counseling at Hunter College of the City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The third section of Nicholas Lemann's book, The Big Test, culminates with the 1997 battle in California over Proposition 209, the antiaffirmative action amendment known as the Civil Rights Initiative. This amendment, which passed, ended racial preferences in state personnel, contracting, and college admissions decisions. This portion of Lemann's book discusses the issues of meritocracy, equal opportunity, and the politics involved in accomplishing these goals. These issues are viewed through the lens of the battle for Proposition 209 and the various individuals—“guardians”—who were beneficiaries of the open meritocracy that allowed them entrance in elite Ivy League institutions.

Type
Book Forum
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 89 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by the History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schrag, Peter “The Big Test“ in American Prospect, December 6, 1999, p. 57.Google Scholar

2 “Coaching and the SAT I” Research Notes, Office of Research and Development, The College Board, RN-06, April, 1999, p.8.Google Scholar

3 Schwartz, Tony “The Test Under Stress“ New York Times Magazine, January 10, 1999, p. 30.Google Scholar

4 “Bias Suit Targets Schools Without Advanced Classes” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1999, Metro Section, Part A, p.1.Google Scholar

5 “ACLU Sues Michigan, Citing Bias in Giving College Aid” The New York Times, June 28, 2000, p. A-16.Google Scholar

6 ibid. Google Scholar

7 “NAACP Seeks to Limit Use of College Board Tests” The New York Times, November 21, 1999, p.39.Google Scholar

8 “In New Guidance, Education Department Softens Its ‘Anti-Test’ Rhetoric” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 7, 2000, p. A-44.Google Scholar

9 “Mount Holyoke Drops SAT Requirement” The New York Times, June 7, 2000, p. A-28.Google Scholar

10 “University of Michigan Tries a New Yardstick for Sizing Up MBA Students” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 25, 2000.Google Scholar

11 “College Board to Widen Role, Downplay SAT” The Boston Globe, October 28, 1999.Google Scholar

12 “Swell of Minority Students is Predicted at Colleges” The New York Times, May 24, 2000, A-16; “Campuses will Become Increasingly Diverse, Report Says” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 25, 2000.Google Scholar

13 Chang, M. J. et. al,m eds., Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Higher Education (Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, 1999); “Expert Report of Patricia Gurin” in The Compelling Need for Diversity in Higher Education No. 97-75928 (E.D. Michigan) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1999.Google Scholar

14 Bowen, William G. and Derek, Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Clegg, Roger “Why I'm Sick of the Praise of Diversity on Campuses“ The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 14, 2000, B-8.Google Scholar

16 “Affirmative Action Had Real Merit” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2000, B-7.Google Scholar