ros Be PART Ik

School of General Studies 3
BROOKLYN COLLEGE
The City University of New York

Ps

| in cooperation with
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION



PART Il

To Help
Them

Achieve

The Academic Talent Search Project
1966-1968

By Margaret Furcron

serraee:

School of General Studies
BROOKLYN COLLEGE
The City University of New York
in cooperation with
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION



Table of Contents

—
.

- S &

Introduction

rd

The First Two! Years ssw sce. s swe vewe sss

The Second Two Years. ..........--2-000-

Questions
“Keep Them
Postscript
Appendices

Footnotes

Coming” sca. s «e205: « secs os srere vs

17
27
41
51
57
62



Introduction
Nese

The Academic Talent Search Project, sponsored by Brooklyn
College’s School of General Studies and the Rockefeller Foundation,
began with forty-two students in the Fall of 1964 and concluded its
first phase in June 1966. At that time a complete report of this
experimental effort to guide “disadvantaged” young people into
regular college work was published under the title To Help Them
Achieve. *

The Rockefeller Foundation generously made it possible for the
students still enrolled in June 1966 to continue for another two
years, and seventeen were still in attendance in Spring 1968.

The present report attempts to follow the Project through its
last two years, place it in the context of other burgeoning programs
for the “disadvantaged,” and reexamine it by looking backward
through the eyes of the College personnel involved.

For those not familiar with the earlier report, the nature and
scope of the Project are reviewed here.

Despite the inevitable urge to describe the careers of individual
Students and to define the successes and failures of the Project in
terms of the students’ analysis, a deliberate decision was made not to
Subject them to additional interviews for the purposes of this report

—_

*Ellswerth Missal, To Help Them Achieve: The Academic Talent Search Project |New
at 1966]. Hereafter, this report will be referred to as To Help Them Achieve
art 1,


INTRODUCTION

and not to “expose” individuals still at the College by including
detailed biographical material. The students have been whole-
heartedly cooperative in assisting in the evaluation of the program,
but their desire to disappear quietly into the general student body
has been long apparent. It was felt that their wishes should be

respected.

i. a eal =



The First Two Years

THE EXPERIMENT

In May of 1964 Brooklyn College’s School of General Studies
began the recruitment for the Academic Talent Search Project, an
experimental program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was
designed to explore whether students with apparent college poten-
tial, but without the required academic standards for admission,
could succeed in college despite financial and cultural deprivation in
terms of middle-class values. These so-called “disadvantaged” stu-
dents were to be offered all the social, academic, financial and
psychological support that seemed necessary and appropriate. The
Academic Talent Search Project was the first program of its kind in
the City University and the achievement of its students would there-
fore be subject to special scrutiny. It proved to be the forerunner of
programs now helping thousands of students.

THE STUDENT BODY

Students were recruited from Brooklyn high schools in poverty
areas. The stated requirements were that “the applicant must be
economically, culturally, and socially disadvantaged,” that he must
be “a resident of New York City” and “a holder of an academic
diploma awarded in January or June, 1964.” Finally, the applicant
had to be “highly recommended by the high school principal as a
student with an academic potential for college work, but whose high
school achievement has been below standard (over-all average of 75%
or less) because of previous disadvantaged educational background.”

7


THE FIRST TWO YEARS

Seventy applications were re
was made the candidates were in
lege. By July 1964, forty

ceived, but before a final selection
sa con by counselors at the Col-
~ pplicants had been selecte
Program. Most of those rejected were excluded because pilin
e

found to be members of families whose incomes placed them abov
e

the acceptable level. One or two presented emotional patterns that
made their admission seem inadvisable. :

Thus the students were doubly screened. It is fruitless to specu-
late on the effect this had on the nature of the student body, but the
Screeners are essentially middle-class and this fact without doubt
helped to shape the nature of the group.

An attempt was made at the outset of the Project to define the
personalities of the students, both through counseling interviews and
by testing. They were given the Manifold Interest Schedule, normally
administered to entering freshman of the College,/and the test pro-
duced an interesting comparison between this group and the regular
student body. The Academic Talent Search Project students “tend
significantly toward submissiveness and ingratiation. They also seem
to be significantly less academically oriented than regular liberal arts
students. It further appears that students in the Project are not likely
to show adequate achievement in class environments which are not
highly structured.””?

Assuming these conclusions to be valid (and indeed experience
seemed to bear them out) one might look for the reasons in the
selective screening process. A “submissive” |and “ingratiating” stu-
dent may prove especially appealing to high school college advisors
with traditional attitudes toward the student-teacher relationship.
Also, the economic and social backgrounds of these students were
undoubtedly a big factor in the quality of their “academic orienta-
tion.” It is one thing to recognize the value of a college education
and another to have the resources necessary to the successful pursuit
of such an education. To the middle class, education is accepted asa
part of life in a way that it has not yet become in the ghettos.

8

i

THE FIRST TWO YEARS

Of the forty-two students, 65% came from families earning
$4,000 or less per year, and of these families 50% numbered five to

ten people. Twenty-six of the homes were broken.

The racial and ethnic composition was as follows: nineteen
American Negroes, four Caribbean Negroes, cight Puerto Ricans,
eight white Americans of various ethnic backgrounds, one Italian,
one Pole, and one Isracli.

High school averages within the group ranged from 65% to 82%.
(For full matriculation, an average of 87% was a requirement in
1964.) Twenty-seven students were deficient in the academic units
required by the College for the admission of baccalaureate matricu-

lants.

All in all these students presented a picture distinctly different
from that of the matriculated student body, which is largely white,
middle-class, and academically well-prepared. A sociologist would
classify most in the Project group as lower-class, though all expressed
middle-class aspirations. Some College personnel chose to recognize
and accept differences, working to change those, like academic
preparation, which were quantitative. Others wanted to change all
the differences so that these students might have the ‘‘advantages” of
the middle class. Still others saw all the differences as inferiorities
and despaired.

The Project was guided mainly by those who would consider
themselves in the first group. Yet how many of the middle class can
always avoid approaching students with the tacit assumption that
middle class is forever best? Officers of the Project readily admitted
to surprise that the students presented neither disciplinary problems
nor distinguishing marks in dress or behavior. The despairing (or
hostile), too, are not uncommon on the campus and contributed
their share to the students’ experience of college life.


THE FIRST TWO YEARS
SPECIAL ACADEMIC FEATURES

Because of the students’ lack of academic
erate decision was made to provide for them
fens een it in the areas of the most obvious weakness —
8 ‘ mathematics. This was not a decision lightly reached;
basic philosophy was involved — should these students be imomiediately
expected to assume all the responsibilities of regular students in re; “
lar classes (with special help provided on an individual basis when
needed) or should they be segregated for intense work in small
groups? While the latter alternative raised questions of psychological
suitability, it was decided upon for two basic reasons. It would allow
for more intensive instruction, and it would permit the Project staff
to get to know the students more intimately. Further, it would make
it easier for the students to get to know each other and perhaps to
develop esprit de corps which would provide moral support and help
to alleviate the loneliness inherent in the life of the college freshman.
To offset the disadvantages of “segregation” it was decided that the
students should be enrolled in regular college classes as well as in
tutorials and that intensive efforts should be made to encourage
student participation in the social and extra-curricular life of the
College.

Preparation, a delib-
» in their first year at

Four English instructors were selected and each assigned ap-
proximately ten students. No effort was made to set up a common
curriculum. Each instructor developed his own, planning it so that
students who satisfied all requirements could receive credit for the
College’s first required course in English. Those who did not make
the grade were not penalized. Ample time was allowed for individual
conferences. After two semesters more than half the students (twen-
ty-three) were certified as being eligible for a full year’s credit and
another twelve had completed one term’s work in one year.

The mathematics tutorials required significantly more compli-

cated arrangements because of the wide variations in the students’
backgrounds. Over 38% of the group had deficiencies in high school

10

THE FIRST TWO YEARS

mathematics ranging from one-half to three units. Testing revealed that
some students had normal college-level ability, while others required
intensive work in basic arithmetic and elementary algebra. On the basis
of tests and high school records, those students who wanted to start
mathematics were assigned to one of three tutorials. About half were
guided into an appropriate college mathematics course and the tutori-
als gave help in their subject as well as in basic arithmetic. Thus the
work was very largely individualized. It continued through two semes-
ters and for a small group into the summer session. By the Fall 1965
semester, the students had achieved a total of twenty-two passing
grades in mathematics. Fall 1965 produced eleven more passing grades.
Forward movement was slow, but increasing numbers were able to
achieve at higher mathematical levels.

The mathematics instructors were generally satisfied with the
achievement of the tutorials despite the fact that some students
seemed unlikely ever to meet college requirements as a result of
learning blocks founded, apparently, in abysmally poor instruction in
elementary and high school.

After one year the separation of the students into tutorials for
part of their work was adjudged a wise decision. The students and
staff seemed to benefit from this opportunity to get to know one
another and the intensive work and accomplishment served as a foun-
dation for later achievement. One student commented, “...we
started as a complete group altogether and then later we were put on
own own. | think that was very good. It sort of gives us indepen-
dence, because after all you are frightened to death when you come
into the college like that and you have to have somebody to stick it
out for a while.” No further tutorials or special classes were intro-
duced after the first year. The important areas of weakness had been
dealt with, and moving the students into the mainstream of college
life seemed to best meet their needs and expressed wishes.

While the tutorials presented the major effort, they were by no
means the only methods used to help these students academically.
The services of the College’s Basic Skills Center were used for reme-


THE FIRST TWO YEARS

dial work in writing and reading. Also, extensive use was made of
student tutors, especially in languages. They were found to be fo
tremely helpful, particularly when they worked closely with the in-
structors. In individual cases, faculty tutors were used with great
success.

COUNSELING

At the beginning of the program, a group of faculty were selec-
ted as mentors. Some were College counselors, others regular faculty.
Each was assigned four or five students with instructions to meet
them frequently on an individual and informal basis to answer any
questions, give any guidance that seemed necessary, and in general, to
form a supportive relationship which could help ease the students’
path into college life.

The very nature of a large non-residence college militated
against the fullest success of this part of the Project. Informality is
difficult, appointments must be made, schedules must coincide. It is
likely that the students often failed to take advantage of the availa-
bility of the mentors because of a natural reticence in the face of
administrative rigmarole. Some very comfortable relationships were
established, however, and undoubtedly contributed to the extra-
ordinary tenacity with which the students as a group pursued their

studies.

The Project administrator served as general counselor to the
students. Her constant availability — day and night — and her warm
friendliness and genuine concern made it easy for the students to talk
to her. Inevitably, many personal problems came into the open and
could be dealt with. Eyeglasses were supplied for one student, dental
work was paid for, speech defects were corrected through the Col-
lege’s Speech and Hearing Clinic. Advice was sought and given on
courses, clothes, and social life, always with an emphasis on helping
the student make his own decisions.

12

THE FIRST TWO YEARS

e
the services of the College placement ae
ffort was made to guide the studen oa
nt. For most, work was a necessity -
fforded. Able at first to find jobs only
the students became able, as

In addition,
available and a continuing €
suitably rewarding employme
pite the stipends the Project a

, iety
f the busboy or dishwasher variety, se acainil
herr education and maturity progressed, to find work as

i ike. Thus
aides, counselors-in-training, laboratory assistants, and the like
their education assumed immediately a very tangible value.

de from the outset to encourage the stu-
l and athletic life of the College.

Gradually, they developed into enthusiastic participants. They
formed their own club, gave parties, joined team sports. All of this
helped to wear away their feeling of strangeness, and helped them to

become “real” college students.

Every effort was ma r
dents to participate in the socia

INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT

In an effort to accumulate data helpful in gaining more insight
into the needs of these students and others like them, the group was
tested frequently from the beginning of the Project. Some interesting

results were obtained.

At the outset, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale showed that the
group, with a mean 1.Q. of 109.9, did not differ significantly in
intelligence from regular Brooklyn College liberal arts students, with
a mean 1.Q. of 112.4. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test showed that
they performed in this area at the beginning of the 12th grade level
on national norms.

At the end of the two-year period, the Graduate Record Area
test (Social Science, Humanities, and Natural Science) and the Se-
quential Test on Educational Progress (Reading, Mathematics, Social
Studies, and Science) were administered. Both tests showed that in
areas other than Social Science, the group performed at the begin-

13


THE FIRST TWO YEARS

ning freshman level on national norms. In Social Science, on th
, e

other hand, they were approximately at the beginnin; !
So;
level. 8 sophomore

The average first-year college index of scholastic achievement
was 1.8 (slightly below C). The average for the second year showed a
significant drop (to 1.2) as the students progressed into more higher-
level courses and chose to register for self-selected programs without
special faculty and without tutorials. However, an examination of

individual records shows that ten students, or almost 25% of the The Second Two Y ears

original group, earned an average of thirty-two credits with a record _————
of C or higher. Another eight earned an average of thirty-six credits

with average grades so close to C that one or two B grades would
have raised their average to C and given them satisfactory records in
the context of routine College policies.

In comparing these students to others in the School of General
Studies who are admitted without the regularly required academic pre-
paration, one striking feature emerges. They stayed in college. They did
not drop out, despite the problems that their “differences” from regu-
lar students necessarily created, and despite financial and family diffi-
culties that could have destroyed their will. At the outset of the Project
a 20% retention was predicted. Yet at the end of two years, thirty-one
students remained with the program — a retention of 74%. Another six
who might have remained were drafted, leaving a probable retention of
88%. Of the five who dropped, one married and left New York City.
The other four felt a need for full-time employment and did not believe
they could satisfactorily combine this with the difficult school
program.

14


The Second Two Years

eae

—_

WHAT NEXT?

In the latter half of the experimental period (1964 — 1966) the
executive officer of the Project reported as follows:

The opportunity to work with these students has opened up a variety of
insights some of which have demolished certain earlier preconceptions. In
the first instance, the phenomenal motivation, drive, and ‘“‘stick-to-
itiveness” has become apparent in the fact that eighteen months after the
beginning of the Project forty of the original forty-two students are still
enrolled. This kind of statistic would be extremely difficult to duplicate in
the experience of any American college. At the outset of this Project many
would have guessed that even a 20% retention would have been a note-
worthy achievement.

The Project envisioned an $8.00 weekly stipend as adequate to free the
student from economic irritations. The payment of lunch money and car-
fare, it was supposed, would come close to relieving the student of those
immediate material needs that would obstruct a free application to intel-
lectual pursuits. Like the previous assumption, this one has been demon-
strated to. be very wide of the mark. Twenty hours, thirty hours — even
full-time employment, have been necessary to keep these students on cam-
pus. The intensive use of personal initiative and college facilities to find
employment for these students has been very much more important than
was foreseen prior to September, 1964.

Furthermore, the notion that almost any kind of employment that might
be acceptable to the average upward-mobile middle class student would
also be psychologically supportive as well as materially valuable in this
Project had to be modified. A disadvantaged student knows from his cul-
tural background that one does not need a college education to be a

dishwasher. He needs a more immediate material and _ psychological
demonstration that education is worthwhile.

17



THE SECOND TWO YEARS

These students have not displayed social
consumed their energies or so exhausted th
academic purposes were frustrated. Quite the contr:

other fellow and particularly their own families ha pr ey ie
tinuous favorable comment by college associates, From Persons who —
fearful, anxious, and withdrawn they have become confident articulate
and outgoing. The development of a relaxed social grace has likewise been

an item of comment by those who recall their social gatherings over the last
year and a half. .

Patterns or attributes that so
© time of the college staff that

These students have indicated changing career plans during this Project
that show an increasing awareness of themselves, a realistic grappling with
the social pressures that they will continue to meet, and a broadening
realization of what they can expect of themselves as college graduates.

The academic performance has been satisfactory, and, for a limited num-
ber, outstanding. When one interprets this achievement in the context of
the intellectual challenges that characterize the standards of Brooklyn Col-
lege, it deserves attention. When one adds to this the recognition that these
students carried also an uncommonly heavy burden in the removal of
formal high school conditions and inadequate preparation — even where
formal high school conditions were not evident in the record — their
readiness to keep going has sometimes been hard to believe.

With these factors in mind, it was decided to continue the
Project for another two years, in accordance with the following
proposal:

It is a regard for what happens to these students after June, 1966, that
stimulates a request for assistance to conclude their experience in a fashion
that helps them, somewhere in the mid-stream of an educational program,
to reach the other shore.

With the assistance of the Rockefeller Foundation it would be possible to
phase out this Project in a manner that reflects a concern for the eco-
nomic, psychological, and academic circumstances of each of these stu-
dents. It is suggested that for a two year period those who may warrant it
be given financial assistance to continue in a normal evening program.

i i i hological counsel-
Special and group tutorial, health and medical and psyc a
fae services and the weekly stipend would be discontinued. Basically each

18

THE SECOND TWO YEARS

cceptable student would enjoy no more or less than the services enjoyed
by all students except for minimal specialized guidance.

In response to this proposal, the Rockefeller Foundation pro-
vided 2 supplementary grant to continue the Project for another two

years, until 1968.

DID THEY ACHIEVE?

Since academic achievement as measured by grades is a standard
indicator of college success, it is necessary to take a careful and criti-
cal look at the records of the students in the second two years of the
Project. Testing in 1966 indicated that the group as a whole, after
two years of college, had caught up to freshman level, and even
higher in social science. Did they then progress from that level?

Twenty-seven students of the original forty-two began the fall
term of 1966. They had amassed a grand total of 1564 credits, an
average of fifty-eight for each. Twenty-two students had no further
entrance conditions to remove. One had become fully matriculated
on the basis of grades earned. What happened then? How did this
group proceed in the next two years?

THOSE WHO LEFT

First of all, 40% (eleven students) dropped out of school, 14%
more than had dropped out in the first two years. At first glance, this
larger dropout rate in the second period seems surprising. One would
expect the initial discouragements to wreak the heaviest toll. A closer
look proves interesting. Three of the eleven dropouts went into the
armed forces. Two moved out of town and both applied to colleges
near their new homes. Another was accepted as a dance major at the
Juilliard School of Music . Six of the dropouts, then, were not or-

cme dropouts at all, and so the percentage changes from 40% to
%.

19



THE SECOND TWO YEARS

The remaining five show striking examples of strong will t
continue, finally defeated. There is value in examining some snc
closely. To the extent that they had potential for higher eiicstion
these students represent the most serious failures of the program "

One has worked since the age of twelve to help support his
mother and four younger siblings. He has “always wanted college.”
In the program, he was “diligent,” “eager,” showed “drive,” made
“fantastic progress.” He was drafted but received a hardship dis-
charge after a short time and returned to college. After only one
term back, he dropped out. His overall record (thirty and one-half
credits) was so close to C that he could be readmitted to the College
at any time without special permission. He may come back some
day. The will and the ability are both there. The Academic Talent
Search Project made possible for him, at least for a time, the hope of
fulfilling a life-long dream — to become a lawyer. As he put it ina
letter to the Project’s director before he left for the army:

....1 would like to thank all the wonderful people who have given me
this chance of a life-time. I know that the help I have received will help me
throughout my college career... am the most appreciative person in the
world....l.am sure that there are millions of students who, like myself,
will profit by this great opportunity.

Another dropout returned to school after being out for one
term but could not manage to stay on. He had a poor record (below
D). We see a pattern of someone searching for himself. “He has a
good mind.” ‘No reason why he cannot complete work for a college
degree but motivation should be watched and stimulated.” Despite
an occasional B on his record we find instructors reporting failing
grades and “seen in student center when he should be in Basic
Skills.” “Erratic,” “Attendance poor,” “Latenesses.”” On the face of
it, the Project did not help this boy. And yet his 1.Q. is 121. What
would have helped him? We do not have the answers, but we must
continue to ask questions.

20

THE SECOND TWO YEARS

Another student attended for seven terms and one summer
session. For a wide variety of stated reasons, he dropped out before
the end of five different terms. What kept him coming? We have only
one clue. In Fall 1966, he suddenly surfaced to get an A in Mechani-
cal Drawing. Perhaps his hope of being a civil engineer was briefly
kindled with enough warmth to keep him registering another few
terms, even though he would not again complete a course.

One is tempted to try to find some things common to those
students who, after more than two years of intensive effort, finally
gave up. The closest examination of their records reveals little. As
would be expected, their academic achievement was decidedly below
that of the group which continued. Of 535 credits taken in the last
two years, only 329 were earned — a ratio of .61. Their averages
ranged from C to almost F. Four failed to remove entrance condi-
tions. Yet in native intelligence as measured by the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (range from 93 to 135), they included some of the
best in the program. Cultural background seems not to have been a
factor; they represent all the varieties within the total group.

One common element emerges to stir the imagination, but it
may or may not be significant: each dropout came from a home that
was broken, either by death, divorce, separation, or a permanently
incapacitating illness.

THOSE WHO CONTINUED

The sixteen students who continued present a somewhat bright-
er scholastic picture. Averages ranged from B to D minus (scholastic
indices of 3.0 to .93). Twenty-five per cent (four students) had aver-
ages above C. Twelve per cent (two students) had averages below D.
The overall mean and median were C minus. (At Brooklyn College
anything below a 2.0 index (straight C average) is unsatisfactory.)
This group, which enrolled for 735.5 credits in the second two years
of the Project, earned 646. Thus the earned-attempted ratio was .88.

21


THE SECOND TWO YEARS

Significantly, all but one of the sixteen had removed all entrance
conditions, Four students attended the summer session of 1968, ac-
cumulating twenty-seven credits and receiving grades ranging from D
(six credits) through A (five credits).

By 1968, the number of students who were able to matriculate
on the basis of grades in accordance with normal college regulations
increased from one to four, and at the end of the 1968 summer
session the Project had its first graduate, Miss R., with a 3.0 (straight
B) index and a major in Russian. She now has the background for the
work she aspired to in 1964 when she entered the College — the
teaching of Russian in high school. Three others will be eligible to
graduate within the 1968-1969 academic year. According to experi-
enced counselors who have carefully evaluated the records of all the
students, the prognosis is good that at least six more, despite current-
ly below-C records, will eventually be able to graduate if they can
manage financially to continue attending without taking on too
heavy an employment load in addition. Thus, almost ten per cent
(four students) of the original group have fulfilled the goals of the
Project — baccalaureate matriculation and satisfactory progress
towards graduation. For almost 25% (ten students) eventual gradua-
tion can be predicted with some confidence.

Can any factors be found to explain why this last group of
sixteen continued, and with some success? A few facts do seem
significant. Though the group had no more native intelligence as
measured by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale than those who
had dropped earlier with poorer records, they did present a picture
of relative stability in personality and in family background, with
feet fairly securely placed on the upward-mobility ladder. For ex-
ample, only four of the sixteen homes were broken — two of these
by death. Most of the students seem to have expected to go to
college and were encouraged in this direction by both parents. (At
least one student suffered from too much parental pushing.) Before
entering Brooklyn, many had applied to and been accepted at other
colleges, an indication that they were on the move out of the

22

THE SECOND TWO YEARS

ghettos. Also, we see by the fact that several could attend full time
that they had a modicum of financial security.

We can look at the academic results of the Project in two ways.
We may say that nine out of ten of the original group may very
possibly not graduate and that three out of four almost certainly will
not graduate. On the other hand, using the same statistics, we may
say that one out of ten will almost certainly graduate and that one
out of four may very possibly graduate. It is probable that the point
of view one chooses depends on how one saw the Project from the
beginning.

nN
~



Questions
NN cece:

A clear-eyed and unsentimental look at the academic achieve-
ment statistics calls up some profound questions.

Was the Project a failure?
Will it, and others like it, degrade academic standards?

Why, with selectivity, ample funds and every special service that
men of good will could devise, did the students not do better?

It should be stated unequivocally that many people at the Col-
lege believe the Project to have been a failure. Comments range from
“Any sensible person could have predicted the large number of fail-
ures. These kids will never make it in college,” to “It was a good idea
but this wasn’t the place to try it.” But others, including especially
those who knew the students well, remain convinced that all efforts
and expenses were well spent. Said one professor, “I don’t give a
damn what the records look like; I see what college meant to these
people. Their lives have been changed.” A sensitive and experienced
counselor said, ‘No one can measure the tremendous impact college
has had on this group. Even some of those who dropped out will be
heard from again. They might even come back to college themselves
after years. And their children may come simply because this pro-
gram has broken thé lockstep.” An administrative officer who
worked closely with the students said, “College has had an enor-
mously creative influence on these kids. If exposure to the liberal
arts isn’t expected to have this kind of influence we might as well
close the College.” A teacher commented on a very practical aspect
of the students’ experience, “Even the ones who don’t finish have
gotten a taste of education and enough know-how and sophistication

27



QUESTIONS

to command much better jobs than they ever hoped for before.” The
director of the Project noted in a report made after interviewing a
number of the students, “A project that arouses the confidence of
the student and stimulates his efforts can have social consequences
for his family, friends, and neighbors that may be as important as the
education of the student himself. ‘If I can do it, so can you.’”

The extraordinary retention rate despite all obstacles is testi-
mony to the students” sense of achievement in the program but, say
the critics, are we being realistic or even kind in allowing them to be
exposed yet again to what seems inevitable failure in the light of
traditional methods of evaluating scholastic achievement? It is a seri-
ous thought. In our eagerness to help, are we adding to the psycho-
logical damage these students have supported most of their lives?
Consider two individual cases. “‘Miss T.,” reports her history pro-
fessor, “‘received on the first exam a grade of 5; on the second a
grade of 57, both based on a scale of 100. This shows a considerable
improvement all the same, and I suggest that she stick with the
course in the hope that her improvement will continue to the point
where she may pass the course with a grade of D, and then continue
on in History 2.1 where, this kind of improvement suggests, she may
earn by her effort considerably higher grades.” Was this professor
simply trying hard to find something nice to say? It seems unlikely
since he, a well-known scholar, was recommending to the administra-
tion that the student be allowed to remain in his class despite her
failures to that point. And again, “Mr. T. came to me for tutoring
after having failed his first exam. I found him to be both able and
industrious; his mind was a very good one, crippled and impeded by
a black Alabama education, but his insights were clear, his sense of
proportion balanced and his sense of history what instructors more
often look for than find. He scored in the 70’s in his second exam
and held it through the final to earn a C for the course. Severe
illnesses at home upset him in the next semester and so he only
earned a D in History 2.1. It was definitely not an adequate index of
his ability.”

28

QUESTIONS

A lifetime of educational deprivation cannot be made up easily
despite help and support. No one can say how many years are
needed. The important thing is that progress does occur, and though
in the end the grade may be D or F, this progress may even have been
dramatic. To those used to taking the grade symbol as the measure of
success oF failure the issue is clear — there has been a failure. But
perhaps these students, whose position in society often forces them
to see and feel beneath the surface of things, Tecognize the progress
more than the failure. In any case, many have stayed. As one put it
with a striking intensity, “I have to go on.” Perhaps there is a sense
that it is better to fail as a college student than to succeed as a
dishwasher: “A man’s reach must exceed his grasp.” As an English
professor in a similar program at the City College of the University
put it, “I do not know what percentage of my students will emerge
with degrees from college. I no longer particularly care. ‘You've got
to understand,’ a student said to me just before the term ended,
‘when I came to this school, I figured that if I could get one year —
just one year — of Whitey’s college, I would be changed. And you
know, I am. Man, they made me hungry. And it’s not the money any
more. I want it all. Even to be a poet. Man, I want that too.’ "2

We cannot, then, measure failure in a simple way. It may be
wrapped around success. But, granting benefits for some or even all
of these students, are we possibly risking too much in the lowering of
standards? Is this fair to the other students, to the College? There is,
of course, no way to answer this question, now or in the near future.
A decline in academic excellence is a distinct threat. Some view it as
a sword of Damocles, others as a certainty. One of the most en-
couraging indications that it will not come to pass at Brooklyn Col-
lege is the firm conviction of President Harold C. Syrett that it need
not. In a letter to the faculty in September 1968 in which he out-
lined plans for greatly enlarging the numbers of students admitted
under discretionary admission procedures he stated:

I am well aware that some members of the faculty believe that any
changes in Brooklyn College’s traditional mission will destroy the College's

29


QUESTIONS

traditional excellence. | doubt that I can change the beliefs of such faculty
members, but | must say that I disagree with them. Lam convinced that in
the future outstanding public colleges will be multi-purpose institutions
with many objectives. | am also convinced that it is possible to change the
college's admission policies without lowering standards, that we can tailor
some courses and programs to meet the needs of the community without
watering down our curriculum, and that we can expand our adult educa-
tion programs without any detriment to the usual full-time day popula-
tion,

I am not suggesting that the task before us is an easy or simple one,
but | am contending that the job must be done and that it can be done,
Further, | am convinced that the difficulties in reconciling the seal and
imagined differences between quality and mass higher education constitute
the most rewarding and exciting challenge confronting today’s colleges and
universities, Our students, it appears, have already recognized this problem.
On the one hand they demand that we take in more students — particu-
larly from minority groups — while on the other hand they insist that we
eliminate the factory-like mass production aspects of higher education,
The students are right. We should do both.

But suppose we grant that the Project cannot be called a failure
(and in many respect it is indeed a success) and suppose we accept
the challenge to continue providing excellence in education for all. A
nagging question still remains; why didn’t all the students do better
academically? Of course there is no single answer, yet it would seem
valuable, at a time when programs like this one are burgeoning in all
parts of the country, to examine the answers given by members of
the faculty, the student body, the administration, and other ob-
servers of the Project — both critics and supporters,

SOME ANSWERS--?

It is natural to look first at the structure of the Project for
built-in problems — some errors in judgment which set up additional
difficulties for the students, thereby implicitly encouraging failure.
Yet even under close scrutiny the Project appears extraordinarily
well-conceived and well-administered. In analyzing its workings from

30

QUESTIONS

its inception to its end, one is struck time _—
ness with which every resource of the College was used to mect the
needs of these students, not just asa group but as individuals cach
with his unique requirements. No available Stone, as it were, was =
left unturned for anyone. :

vain by the thorough-

ever

Despite some suggestions for changes for “next time” made b
the staff in To Help Them Achieve — Part 1, only two substantive
criticisms of importance emerge from the body of evaluation of the
design and administration of the Project, First, insufficient advance
recognition was given to the tremendous financial burdens under
which these students labored and the difficulties many of them had
in ding time and place for study, Most of them had to work, and
for lu.., urs. Had it been possible to relieve them of nome of this
necessity the lighter burden might have produced a different aca-
demic picture, Further, as the director commented in a 1968 evalua-
tion of the Project, “If compensation is not planned to cover housing
then some other resources should be available to provide some stu-
dents with appropriate accommodations, Perhaps thirty percent of
the ATSP students would have met their educational responsibilities
more successfully had it been possible to move them into other
quarters.”

The second criticism of the Project's design is really a question.
Did the admission screening, conducted essentially by middle-class
personnel (high school and college counselors) function to select
students who were less effective academically than others might have
been? As indicated in Chapter |,there are some suggestions that it
did. As described in To Help Them Achleve — Part 1, a long-term
testing program at Brooklyn College has examined the personality
types of Brooklyn College students. The Project group differed signi-
ficantly from the regular College group in that they showed less
self-confidence, less intellectual turbulence and drive, less ability to
intellectualize their feelings and, in addition, the tendency toward
submissiveness and ingratiation already mentioned. Is it possible that
some of these qualities, or their absence, may have been “screened

31



QUESTIONS

in™ to the group? The frequency with which the adjectives “Tespect-
ful,” “courteous” and “appealing” appear in the high school recom-
mendations raises some questions. And of course the students’ cul-
tural and family backgrounds have shaped them. Drs. Abram Kar-
diner and Lionel Ovesey close their very informative book about the
personality of the American Negro, The Mark of Oppression, with
the following: “The psychosocial expressions of the Negro person-
ality that we have described [many of which are recognizable in terms
of ATSP personality profiles and faculty comments] are the inte-
grated end products of the process of oppression. Can these be
changed by education of the Negro? The answer is, no. They can
never be eradicated without removing the forces that create and
perpetuate them. Obviously, Negro self-esteem cannot be Tetrieved,
nor Negro self-hatred destroyed, as long as the status is quo.” 2

Whether through screening, then, or simply through the fact of
the group's cultural backgrounds, some conflicts inherent in the situ-
ation must have been reflected in the students’ academic records.
The group was mainly lower-class, many of them in close contact
with the ghetto streets. Though they all aspired to the middle class, a
transformation is not easy and may perhaps be even less so in an
environment which, it must be said, sometimes seems complacently
middle-class and which, through all its representatives, exerted an
inexorable pressure on these students. We read that they changed
thei eating habits, their dress, their hair-dos, their habits of leisure,
work, and study. We know that they were forced to change their
lifetime language patterns. We learn that an instructor feels about
one that “she should have speech therapy to rid herself of her slight
West Indies accent.” Often realizing little or nothing of what they
were doing, College personnel put heavy demands on the group,
setting goals which, though the students aspired to them, neverthe-
less meant deep changes which must at times have been resented. Did
some rebel? Turn off? Drop out? Probably. Certainly the psycho-
logical, sociological and autobiographical literature about the “dis-
advantaged” * abounds in examples of the adolescent unable to live
up to his promise because of this very conflict between himself and

32

QUESTIONS

the pressures of his environment and his aspirations.

Then too, there was the related conflict between the culture of
the streets and the culture of the College. One Student, interviewed
in 1968 because of his below-C record described very clearly the
position in which he found himself and which had taken a tremen-
dous toll of his energies over four years. “I’m lower-class,” he said,
“and this College is middle-class. I don’t belong in either place now.
My friends from the street have dropped me, and I’ve never become
part of things here. But I’ll go on. I have to.” The English professor
in City College’s pre-baccalaureate program states in the article al-
ready mentioned “most of my students . . .felt this conflict be-
tween their aspirations and their backgrounds. ‘I want to play the
numbers as well as have the knowledge you have,’ said one... . It is a
desire I believe I can understand, if for no other reason than that I
can still remember how desperately I wanted to retain the shrill Jew-
ish life of Jerome Avenue and Keats’ sonnets.”

One other facet of the conflict inherent in the movement from
the old culture to the new is described by Drs. William Grier and
Price M. Cobbs in Black Rage. “Black people,” they say, “feel bound
to the concept of equality. It is a belief which allows them to
live....But the belief in equality produces conflict when the black
child is introduced to intellectual striving, competition, and the
evaluation of his innate abilities ....To say that one is smarter is to
say that one’s brothers are dumber, and that is a difficult thing for a
black student .... Those with great intellectual gifts develop the tech-
nique of denying or minimizing them.” * Thus the student is not true
to himself and sets up still further conflict in separating himself from
the American Dream of success. Could this theory explain something
of the seemingly inexplicable failure of students with high 1.Q.’s and
every apparent reason for high achievement?

Many of the College staff felt that the kinds of conflicts des-
cribed here, and others, all essentially unavoidable in the nature of

things, made some of the students more or less permanently alien-

33



QUESTIONS

ated from the College and the staff which was so ready to help. Of an
outstanding student who is now close to graduation a teacher said
“Of course the special support helped her, but essentially she mate
her own way, alone.” An administrator states that the system of
distributing the stipends at the Project office gave an opportunity for
a few minutes of friendly chatting between students and staff and a
few words of encouragement, if needed. Undoubtedly this was true
for most, but one student said, “This business of picking up the
money is very embarrassing for some kids. One goes into the office
and does not know what to say or do. I think it should be mailed or
something.” One student from a later special program (SEEK — des-
cribed in Chapter 4) put his feelings this way, “My counselor is my
friend. But... he’s trying too hard. He cannot get into my skin.
There are problems for me that nobody in the Establishment can
really understand. He’d better stop trying . . . 1 don’t want to be part
of my counselor’s world. And he can’t be part of mine.” This was a
more outspoken student than most in the Academic Talent Search
Project, but perhaps he was expressing something of what they
would have expressed if they had not been so “respectful,” “‘cour-
teous” and “appealing.”

Could a feeling of being discriminated against have been a factor
in some students’ failures? Again, perhaps. There were scarcely any
incidents of overt discrimination and some of these were more felt
than real. Indeed a number of students commented that they had
never before received such routinely courteous treatment from
school personnel (a sad commentary on the public schools). But, in
going over teachers’ reports, one gets a very strong sense that some
teachers were much more understanding of and sensitive to these
students than others, and that the students, perhaps in response,
showed different faces to different teachers. For example, we read,
“Fine attitude; conscientious. Doing B work at present.”” Another
instructor describes the same student, “Poor attitude — extremely
uncooperative. Grade of D.” And in a different case, “This student
impresses me as a dead mackerel.”” From another instructor, “He has
so much anger boiling inside him I don’t know how he can keep it in

34

QUESTIONS

™ .”’ Take still a third examph is ti
ay after day. mple, this time of a t
otrnitted learning from these students: —

My first group... did no do well... .To begin wi i

did not then, that they were all scared — badly. I se Leh
them huddled together in the rear of the room as near the door as ssible
They said little; | know they were seriously bewildered by the ea lexi-
ties of our source book [for the required history course] ; and I oe see
now that I didn’t know how to reach them. I issued a general invitation to
all students with 036 curriculum numbers [the distinctive code number for
this group] to come in and see me early in the term; even then I knew
enough not to say, “Will all ATSP students please come in, as you may be
having difficulties?” But they may have taken it that way. One learns as
one grows older, and today I think that I could find a way to see them and
(perhaps) begin to explore their difficulties.

I remember sometime during that term being invited to a party
given for the ATSP students and their friends; Miss J. and Mr. J, I recall,
were different people; obviously they were having a ball. The ease was
there, the stiffness, that deadly stiffness which is so paralyzing, was gone
for the moment, and this boy and girl were glowing.

In another term, Mr. D. wasa pleasure. Out of a different ghetto, he
was fun to watch as he bit into the material we studied, and discovered
that there was something there beside the Dead Sea fruit he obviously
expected. He too was shy, and while he didn’t repel further contact out-
side of class, he squirmed at the idea of it, and was obviously troubled by
thoughts of its general impropriety. Once when I suggested that he might
come to see us, he said that he “couldn't go to see a teacher.” | remember
wondering *™sed, what his concept of a teacher out-of-hours could pos-
sibly be: Olympian? monstrous?

Many teachers, like this one, grew in sensitivity as the program
progressed and admitted the value to them personally of having
taught this group. Others, less interested perhaps, or simply not as
effective as teachers, continued to feel that they could never reach
the students and that the students did not want to be reached.

In fact, lack of teaching expertise, especially in English, was
blamed by one English teacher for many student failures. Indeed, a

35



QUESTIONS

thorough examination of relevant methodology in English teachi
would seem to be an important requirement for further Program or
this kind. Almost all the students were seriously handicapped bitte
written language area and remained so even after striking improve.
ment in the tutorials. One teacher remarked, ‘She is working and she
is intelligent, but intensive, massive work in English remains for her
the sine qua non of academic achievement.”

Teaching expertise (or lack of it) is perhaps at the root of one
last criticism to explain academic failures which has been leveled at
the Project, or rather at Brooklyn College’s curriculum — lack of
“relevance.”” One hears this repeatedly today, all over the country,
and yet one cannot entirely escape the feeling that with better teach-
ing much of the clamor would be stilled. Can Alexander Pope ever
seem “relevant” to New York’s urban youth? Perhaps he can when
they find themselves agreeing with him that “the proper study of
mankind is man.” Can the Roman Empire ever seem relevant to a
boy from Harlem’s streets? Might it not seem so if he learned that it
was built on a slave economy and fell partly because it could not
assimilate its subject populations? What is “relevancy”’ anyway?

Any or all of these theories may account for some or all of the
academic failures and dropouts in the program. But many have deep,
far-removed causes about which the College can do little except
through the long-term contributions of its graduates to improving
our schools and our society. Whatever the reasons for, and whatever
the College attitudes toward, academic failures in the face of reason-
able standards, the fact remains that to get an education, or even to
get through college, one must have certain positive attitudes paler
oneself and towards intellectual discipline. Many of the see di
not show these attitudes, but in these changing times — “ —
of the previously “disadvantaged” seem likely to be able to develop

36

QUESTIONS

them. As one critic of the Project said, “Did you actually believe that
in two of four years you could make middle-class Brooklyn College
undergraduates of these kids who have had to fight the Establish-
ment all their lives? Did you expect them to shape up to suit you just
because you gave them a chance to? Be thankful for what you've
done—made possible fantastic changes in the lives of forty-two
people, and their friends, and their relatives. If you keep them
coming you'll find more and more will have what real achievement

takes.”

37


From the early days of the Project it was clear to those who
e students and who were committed to the idea of bacca-
laureate education for the “disadvantaged” that crucial to the Proj-
ect’s success in the long run would be the numbers of these students
accepted. A steady flow into specially designed programs would,
first, be an open statement to the community that Brooklyn College
intended to fulfill its obligations as a public service institution. Said
Brooklyn College’s President in his previously quoted letter to the
faculty, “Many of the conditions in Brooklyn, and their resulting
tensions, are, needless to say, the result of inequality of opportunity,
including educational opportunity. The challenge to Brooklyn Col-
lege, consequently, increases in urgency almost by the day. I believe
that the college’s only viable course of action is to accept the chal-
lenge voluntarily and wholeheartedly.” In other words, implementa-
tion of the Project’s philosophy was seen as a benefit to the College
as an institution in the urban community.

knew th

Of more personal importance was the need, felt and expressed
by staff and students, to have more minority group members on
campus so that their presence would create a hospitable situation
which would encourage larger numbers of such students to undertake
higher education. Often it was heard that, “I would never have taken
that course if I'd known I would be the only Negro in it.” And, “In
all the years I’ve taught here, these are the first Puerto Rican stu-
dents I’ve had in a class.” A student wrote (see Appendix A), “When-
ever there is a person anywhere in a strange land, he needs someone
or something to identify with. He needs to know people like him,
who know what he knows, experience what he experiences; he needs
a friend. Once the A.T.S.P. students overcame their insecurities-

41



“KEEP THEM COMING”

whether they knew it or n
ot—they began to h
-) voli elp others «j..:
chs iat for an education. They gave thee. thes simita to
wn an identify with.” This same student gave the Project i Some-
gs an atmosphere at the College that ina change fro; Redit'for
was a welcoming one, at least for some minority groups: m the past,

Negro and Puerto Ric:
c an students are registering m
ore a

Prd oe per Soups. People have always been saying hat bye oie

¢ and it has. I am sure that man lng

a y other students are notici
Pita agg chs but are unaware of the cause—the Academie Talest
ject. Forty-two students came in, two dro
eK

knows how many have been aided unofficially. Pped out Nobody

1 ent ae ee campus has changed very much since
a > : ell what effect this program has had on a tide
at certainly could not have been sternmed, but which was in fact
very slow to rise? In 1964, the Academic Talent Search Project was
(after James Meredith entered the University of Mississippi, after the
publication of The Other America, after the march on Washington,
and after the declaration of the war on poverty) the first program in
any branch of the City University of New York to direct itself
toward the baccalaureate education of those whose culture, educa-
tion and finances had largely proscribed higher education. Not, of
course, that these students would ever have been turned away from
any of the University’s colleges. If they met admission requirements,
they were accepted as matriculants; if they did not, and could pay,
they were accepted as non-matriculants. Few surmounted the hurdles
of removing the entrance conditions, improving English, “adjusting,”
etc. In fact, those that did, staying on in college even to graduation,
were so few and so outstanding in ability that every counselor can
remember them out of hundreds of student clients. They were able,
as most of us are not, to go it alone.

The Project marked the beginning of a change and was unques-
tionably an instrument of change. In the spring of 1965, the director
of the Project made a number of specific suggestions to the Dean of
the School of General Studies and the President aimed at bringing

42

a ee

“KEEP THEM COMING”

ngly large numbers of “disadvantaged” students to the Brook-
ellen? campus. (See Appendix B.) It is difficult, of course, to
lyn © the progress of the seed planted in 1964-65 by these forty-
follow dents and their dedicated faculty. Very good growth weather
two stu aA and later must be conceded. The situation was indeed one
in 1965- where nothing is so irresistible as an idea whose time has
of pea w, in the fall of 1968, Brooklyn College has close to 700
come. who have been admitted under discretionary admission pro-
students n Fall 1969 the figure is expected to be over 1000, with the
oats divided among several programs.

8

increas!

THE SEEK PROGRAM

First to come after the Academic Talent Search Project was
(Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge). This pro-
SEEK anced jointly by the City and the State and all the senior
a. aie University participate, each with some administrative
me Gesiin? variations. Starting at Brooklyn College in 1966 with
and rent students, the program took over without significant
cee the structure of the Academic Talent Search Project and, toa
large extent, its personnel. As the terms progressed, a number of
changes were made to suit the quite different student body. Special
sections in speech and drama, and in the social sciences were intro-
duced, for example, for the far more heterogeneous SEEK group.
Also, in an effort to absorb these outspoken students as rapidly as
possible into the mainstream of college life, the program was re-
moved in 1968 from the School of General Studies (where most of
the College’s experimental programs have begun and where great
flexibility in programming is possible) to the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences. The number of SEEK students now enrolled is approxi-
mately 420. The College has no authority for their selection. They
are recommended to a central office by schools and social agencies or
may be self-referred. They must have a high school diploma or the
equivalent and live in a Federally-designated poverty area. A total
number of over 2700 are assigned to the various colleges in the
University where space is available.

43


“KEEP THEM COMING”

SEEK students at Brooklyn College have shown
ing differences from those in the Academic Talent
These may be the result of the larger numbers invol
rigorous screening through Establishment channels,
widened intellectual range, or mainly a reaction to th
times. In any case, the students are more militant, more conscious of
black and white, less content to be absorbed into the middle class
pattern, less “grateful,” more articulate, more eager to effect social

and educational changes with or without the encouragement of the
Establishment.

some interest-
Search Project.
ved, of the less
of the greatly
ie tenor of the

“The SEEK Program is not doing me a favor; I’m part of society and
society must do some things for me.””

“We're let into this door to conform. We’re here because society
needs us here. Society wants us to go back and get others to conform.”

“Education is primarily of pragmatic value to the SEEK student in
that he likes the money it can make. He would do well to rid himself of
any romantic attitudes about education.”

These remarks, made by SEEK students at a faculty-student-
administration symposium held over a year after the program’s incep-
tion may send chills down some spines. The original Academic Talent
Search Project students did not talk like this. Yet many faculty
complained that they were remote, inarticulate, uninvolved. We may
propose that their presence on campus in a special program helped
make it possible for those who came after to become involved, ar-
ticulate, intensely aware of themselves and their role in society.

THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Another program, now comprising 200 freshman with 200 more
to follow in Fall 1969, is indigenous to Brooklyn College and in its
particulars is unique. It was created through the strong recommenda-
tion of the President’s Committee on Educational Opportunity that

44

“KEEP THEM COMING”

udents from poverty areas be admitted to the College of
Arts and Sciences by discretionary admissions procedures
er pressure, including a sit-in in the Registrar’s office,

me from the largely white student body, who demanded imme-
asta admission of 1000 students from poverty areas. There was a
ee deal of sentiment for the proposal on the part of the faculty

gr administration (though much opposition too). It was voted to
and : 200 students each year on an experimental basis for two years.
ey figure 1000 was deemed unrealistic in terms of available facili-

ties.

more st
Liberal
Even strong’

The Educational Opportunities Program differs from many
other programs of similar intent in that it requires specific acudenaic
reparation and does not depend on the recommendation of teachers
a counselors for selection. Students must have the same academic
units as other matriculants and must have a high school average of at
least 75% or a score of at least 450 on either the mathematics or
verbal subtests of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Before admission, the
students receive five weeks of intensive preparation for college in a
workshop in reading, writing and study skills and a thorough orienta-
tion to the College from faculty and upper classmen. (It is interesting
to note that one of the most experienced English teachers in the
Academic Talent Search Project recommended just this kind of pre-
admission orientation period.)

The students attend as fully matriculated students in the day
session. They limit their programs to twelve credits in the first term
and are given the option of electing to receive pass or fail ratings
rather than letter grades. Otherwise, they receive no special academic
treatment. Indeed, part of the program’s philosophy is that the stu-
dents must face the stiff competition at the College or leave. They
have developed an extraordinary esprit de corps, and a system of
mutual aid came almost at once into being. This, plus volunteer
faculty mentors and student tutors are the primary supportive
measures used by the very effective director of the program, an
educational psychologist who is counselor as well as administrator.

45


NYS YET’ 1) ee”

“KEEP THEM COMING”

OTHER PROGRAMS

Still other programs exist in the City Univers;
advantaged” youth and adults. y ENOOY ie

The College Discovery and Development Program started at the
same time as the Academic Talent Search Project. Working with th,
high schools, the staff attempts to discover and foster talent from the
9th grade on. The program differs from the ATSP in that it et
primarily to place students in the junior colleges in specially-paced
Programs. Currently, it has about 1600 students in college and many
more are receiving help in the high schools.

Individual colleges in the University have their own programs.
City College has had its Pre-Baccalaureate program; Queens College
has its Adult Continuing Education Program; the Urban Centers cater
to the needs of the dropout or general diploma graduate with educa-
tion for employment and guidance services designed to develop maxi-
mum potential.

Other projects are just beginning. The One-Hundred Scholars
Program will offer senior college admission to the top 100 graduates
of each academic high school. Approximately75% of the students are
expected to be black or Puerto Rican. In the words of the Uni-
versity’s Chancellor, “It is our belief that for students who have
spent their academic careers in the debilitating climate of many of
the inner city high schools, achievement in relationship to their
peers is a more equitable admissions criterion than comparing their
achievements with that of students from academically superior

schools.”*

One further proposal, with far-reaching consequences, is that
the University take over the operation of selected high schools—those
in the poverty areas. If approval from City and State can be gained
for this plan, Brooklyn College with its important role in teacher
education will have a crucial part to play.

46

“KEEP THEM COMING”

From the start in 1 964 with the Academic Talent Search Project's

-two students at Brooklyn College, the number enrolled by the
forty University in special programs for the “disadvantaged” has in-
City ato approximately 4700. While the economy of New York City
crease hat most of the students are Negro and Puerto Rican, poverty

also yield a fair sprinkling of Insh, Jews, Italians and Orientals.
areas: surveys had never been made in the University until recently. In
eon re have been only two such and they differentiate only the
fact, t ~ of Negro, Puerto Rican and “other.” The second, in 1968,
cate 981 Negro and Puerto Rican students, an increase of more
ee 0D over the previous year. The senior colleges are now
than ; 0.4% Negro and Puerto Rican students. While actual figures
for earlier years are not available, long-time members of the University
staff recognize that the current figures represent so drastic a change as

to constitute a kind of social revolution.

One is reminded of the time in 1946 and 1947, after the passage
of the New York State law prohibiting discrimination in hiring, when
Negroes appeared from “nowhere” to become salesclerks, secretaries,
banktellers, accountants and fill a wide range of other jobs for which
they had been mysteriously unfit until a law was passed. Where had
they been before? And where had these students been before they

had the chance to participate in the intellectual life of their city?

It is too early really to judge the value of these programs. As of
now, it is possible to see in them whatever one is predisposed to see.
Success? Failure? Ruination? Palliative? Radical social reform? It will
be years before a reasoned judgment can be made. Only one thing is
certain: the impact on the social, intellectual, economic and political
fabric of the City will be enormous.

The Academic Talent Search Project, its students, staff, and
sponsors have contributed more than a mite to the changes now

moving in the City. And to Brooklyn, the Project made a difference

47


—_

“KEEP THEM COMING”

in many ways, but particularly in openin:
showing the students and the community
College gave a damn.

8 UP possibilities and in ij
that even in 1964 the

Postscript
OO