No, the underpinning of the argument has been whether colleges can use one’s skin color as a factor in deciding whom to admit or reject, which often outweighs predictive factors of success.
I feel that should be most of it, yes, with other consideration given to activities that are predictive of success in the program - such as editor of high school newspaper if journalism major, Hospital volunteer for pre-med, etc.
That should be the primary focus. Other areas which are beneficial to students are learning to live independently, solving one’s own problems, and, like every stage of life, enjoying friends and social activities.
To an extent. The problem comes about when standards are significantly lowered to allow this diversity, thus creating two classes of students: the better students, admitted after meeting higher standards; and the weaker students, who were still admitted but under lower standards for the purpose of diversity. It lowers the teaching level of the class, and the better students suffer for it.
I saw first-hand what happens when you mix top students with “less good” students as far back as elementary school. For my first four years, I was in a school that ”tracked,” and I was placed in the top group where the lessons were challenging and interesting. I advanced quickly and was doing 6th grade math by grade 4, along with my classmates.
Then they redistricted to where there was no tracking, and I was placed in regular classes for the next four years. The first two years were a total waste. The two years after that were OK, but nothing especially challenging. Then my parents moved back to the district where there had been tracking, and my old friends from elementary school were there. They had remained in the tracked district, and were YEARS ahead of me.
IOW, putting less academically qualified students (the AA admits) hurts the better academically qualified students (those who get in under higher standards), and lowers the caliber of the instruction. It hurts the better stidents.