It seems that Amherst College, and TMARX specifically, has finally done something right. Or, it has been doing something extra-right for the past decade or so. Don’t get me wrong, I am the first to jump at the throat of the notoriously shifty librarian and his erratic spending habits (not to mention how he doesn’t like dogs), but he did bring economic diversity, in my opinion the most over-looked and under-valued flavor of difference, to Amherst and to OUR LIVES. Check out the New York Times article here to read and weigh in with your perspective. Some of the more eye-catching and controversial moves include:
“The college has devoted more of its resources to aid, even if the dining halls don’t end up being as fancy as those at rival colleges.”
If only I thought about this more often! I am certainly glad that we have (insert interesting student with challenging past here) instead of a waffle maker with our logo on it.
“The college has started a scholarship for low-income foreign students, who don’t qualify for Pell Grants.”
This raises an interesting question. If the ultimate objective of this type of policy is “lifting economic growth” in America, wouldn’t the education of foreigners, literally at the “expense” of Americans, counter-balance the upward climb of lower/middle America? I am all for it, but where is the line of rationale?
“…Mr. Marx says Amherst does put a thumb on the scale to give poor students more credit for a given SAT score. Not everyone will love that policy.”
Not fair maybe, but necessary. Think Title 9. Was it completely fair? No. Men’s sports were cut unfairly. But did it create a more gender-equal balance? Yes! Win!
I think Tony Marx has made a huge step towards a Title IX-like revolution in college admissions. He may disembowel small mammals for fun in schmoozy swamps, but he doesn’t have bad ideas. I hope the new president realizes the tradition that he/she must continue, and takes up arms for the war against wankers (in congress and other places of snooty self-importance).