consideration
Debate has been swelling all semester long over the looming process of impaction for SDSU. Who gets in? Who doesn’t? What special criteria should the school have and for what reasons?
Last week, The Daily Aztec ran an editorial claiming that potential students who have famous parents should not be given special criteria in the admissions process.
This week, The Daily Aztec stresses that the impaction criteria should not give special consideration to homosexuals.
When developing the criteria for im-paction, the SDSU senate should ask a simple question: Why does this person or group of people deserve special status? If it comes up with a good answer, then special status could be justified. If not, move on to the next category.
So far, The Daily Aztec, sees no reason why gays and lesbians should have special consideration in the admissions process. Besides, how could the school prove that a person is, in fact, a gay or a lesbian? And how could confidentiality be assured if that student is not yet “out of the closet”?
Finally, how will the publishing of figures noting the number of gay and lesbian students affect the university as a whole?
The questions are too many, and nobody knows the answers.
Where will this dollying on special categories end? Will SDSU give special consideration to people who wear glasses? To left-handers?
Instead of developing all these special criteria, our university should focus on raising academic standards for all new students, expelling those who aren’t performing well and helping those who are borderline.
Also, as stated in prior editorials, let’s bring back the personal interview. It’s important for incoming students to meet with someone at the school to determine if SDSU is right for them. This also provides the perfect opportunity for SDSU to see if these students meet the new criteria.
The Daily Aztec believes our school should return to the fundamentals of education rather than politicize every issue. The focus for administrators and students is a total quality education for our dollar. Or, at least, it should be.
