Return to fairness

Stephen Vasciannie

ABOUT A month ago, I wrote about admissions processes at tertiary institutions under the heading 'Fairness at University'. My main conclusion was that "Fairness in university admissions requires us to hold on to academic criteria, save in the most exceptional circumstances".

I deliberately retained the phrase "in the most exceptional circumstances" because I acknowledge that sometimes allowance must be made to ensure that deserving students are not excluded as a result of an all too rigid application of academic criteria alone.

However, I stand by the position that academic criteria must be decisive, and relied upon as far as possible. Universities exist, ex hypothesi, for the nurturing of intellectual development and academic growth, and, starting from this premise, it follows that access thereto should be granted on the basis of demonstrated academic aptitude. And, in an environment where there are thousands of applicants for limited places at good universities, the most reasonable, and fair, way to determine academic aptitude is by consideration of examination results. This is not elitism; it is an acknowledgement that examinations in particular areas are more likely than most other methods to provide an objective standard for comparisons across the board.

A significant number of persons have responded to 'Fairness at University', raising a variety of issues. The responses include the following:

(1) A comment to the effect that the column displayed my "right wing" proclivities, and was presumably influenced by imminent decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning affirmative action at the tertiary level.(published in The Gleaner).

(2) A comment that my approach could mean, unfortunately, that the geographical distribution of students accepted to academic institutions would be unduly skewed towards urban residents. (published in The Gleaner).

(3) A question as to whether my column was prompted by recent decisions at a particular institution that may result in men being given an edge for admission into certain departments, in the interest of gender diversity (by e-mail).

(4) A comment that my views were "clearly" influenced by recent decisions taken at a particular institution concerning the expansion of criteria for admissions beyond the academic. These new criteria include participation in voluntary social work, participation in sports, leadership, musical involvement, work experience, and an unidentified category for 'other' personal characteristics (a note).

(5) A question as to whether I was influenced by the fact that a particular tertiary institution requires its prospective lecturers to furnish a letter of reference from a Minister of Religion belonging to the same denomination as the institution, apparently as a prerequisite for employment (face to face).

These responses tend to highlight the fact that although attempts to broaden the categories of assessment are almost invariably well-intentioned in theory, in practice they are quite problematic. More specifically, each of these responses suggests possible non-academic criteria to be used, but, in so doing, each response also highlights the fact that this area is a minefield of subjectivity. On the basis of the responses alone, non-academic factors vying for attention include: race, historical exclusion, geography, gender, social commitment and social skills, and religion.

These non-academic factors all require the decision-maker to look beyond an objective set of examination marks for some other feature before reaching a decision. In some cases, the matter is clear enough, and will turn on a socially determined desire to rectify past or continuing injustices. And, in this respect, I would support affirmative action in favour of African-Americans at United States universities, contrary to what one reader has suggested. But, I would argue that even in the case of affirmative action in the United States, the matter is not entirely straightforward because some affirmative action programmes can lead to racial stereotyping, and to unfairness in particular cases.

Difficulties abound once we move to more nebulous considerations based on perceived social requirements at a specific point in time. These difficulties pertain not only to the problem of measuring the value to be given to each individual's social commitment and skills; they also arise with respect to the actual weighting to be given to each of the factors to be considered.

Any weighting given to gender, versus geography, versus history of exclusion, versus intellect, will almost certainly have an arbitrary component. And, if the admissions committee considering such factors is not careful (and transparent) in its approach, it will be open to accusations of arbitrariness and favouritism along unacceptable lines. For obvious reasons, such accusations will be particularly prevalent in small societies - and, regrettably, the accusations are sometimes well-founded.

So you are not convinced? Well consider the following scenario. Student A, is placed in the top 15 per cent of his class, and is a member of his house debating team (on which he is the star); Student B, is placed in the top 10 per cent of her class, and is a member of her large school's quiz team (on which she performs moderately well); Student C, is academically in the top 30 per cent, but he is on the Manning Cup team, and was elected deputy head boy of his small, urban school; Student D, is academically in the top 25 per cent of her posh rural school, and she visits an old age home once per week, now finding that her discussions with the seniors are quite uplifting to her spirits; Student E sings like a cuckoo in spring, has won national titles for spelling, and is in the top 30 per cent of her class; and Student F is the top student in her class at the ranking secondary school in the country, often impressing her teachers with the originality of her perspectives; owing to adolescent shyness, however, Student F is not keen on extracurricular activities.

Non-academic factors

All these candidates apply for the last position at university. They all submit references, from different people, with some referees showing American exuberance, and others adopting the more reserved British style. The panel knows that every student in the top 40 per cent of a reasonably good secondary school class can pass the university course.

Which person should they choose? And why, in the face of the difficulties they will face in making this decision, should they abandon the tried and tested measure of relying on academic standards?

I would certainly be inclined to select Student F, but others may opt for someone else. Those inclined to look beyond academic standards may argue, for instance, that the visitor to the old age home shows more potential to contribute to society following graduation, and so on.

But to that, the answer should be that the tertiary institution must so design its courses to enhance social commitment and foster social skills among the most academically talented who actually come within its walls. Save in exceptional circumstances, approaches that give as much credit to non-academic factors as to academic ones will ultimately reduce the intellectual credibility of the tertiary institution in question.

Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.

Back to Commentary