I will not make any effort to analyze every aspect of their book, but as an educational researcher I believe that there is a need to be critical of the methods used to arrive at their conclusion--namely, that race-based admission policies have increased opportunities for black students to obtain jobs in professions that have been mainly closed to them.

The authors provide nothing by the way of a reasonably scientific attempt to determine the accuracy of their claim. If they really wanted to prove their point, it would be necessary for them to show that, had there been no "race-sensitive" admissions policies, the students who were enabled to attend prestigious colleges and universities because of race-sensitivity would not have been successful in life.

It seems the height of snobbery and arrogance to have former presidents of "prestigious" institutions claiming that the policies they used, and the education their schools delivered to the students, have been the "cause" of the success of these students. Implicit in this view is the suggestion that only by attending universities like Harvard or Princeton--and not some other college or university (without the "assistance" of race-based admissions policies)--could these students have achieved success.

Thomas Sowell has opined that students who are rejected from Berkeley, or any other selective college, would probably do quite well at some other (less selective) institution where they would be in the mainstream (i.e., among students of similar ability). The probability of dropping out of school is significantly greater when the vast majority of one's "peers" are functioning at a significantly higher level.

In this book, Bok and Bowen claim that students who might be rejected at the most selective schools would no longer be able to become part of the "backbone of the emergent black middle class." How about the other millions of college students who cannot attend the most selective schools? Are they being prevented from becoming part of the emergent middle class (backbone or otherwise)? Of course not!

To be truly scientific in their approach, Bok and Bowen would have to take a sample of 700 equally qualified black students (based on, say, GPA, majors, and SAT or ACT scores) who were not accepted at selective-admissions schools, and compare their success with the 700 who they did study, who had been admitted to selective schools via affirmative action. Limiting their study to students at the selective colleges and universities (and excluding all others) greatly weakens their conclusions.

It's a shame they didn't do such a study. Somebody should, if only to provide a convincing test of their hypothesis. Until this is done, Bok and Bowen will have provided a convincing political tract, but will not have answered the question about the real benefits of race-based selection policies.

The whole subject of differences in test scores, academic achievement is a touchy subject. White IQ averages 100 and Blacks IQ averages 85, a gap of 15 points. Many believe, that the difference will be less once equal opportunity is provided. These people believe in equal opportunity and believe "all races" have the ability to succeed.

Bok and Bowen basically comes and says they CANNOT succeed without lower hurdles, lower admissions criteria, the aid of white paternalism. Bok and Bowen have basically accepted the very notion that blacks are inferior to whites and they will never succeed without the white man support. It's again the ideas of the "white man burden" to civilized the Africans in our midst. If this is not white racism at its worst. I have no idea what it is. Paternalism of liberal whites toward blacks is the worst form of racism possible. It is the "plantation mentality" at work again. If you behave toward the plantation master, I will invite you inside the master's house and let you have the goodies.

There no way to get around it: Bok and Bowen are academic racists.... academic racists of the worst type because they believe intrinsically that blacks are inferior to whites and only through their "benevolence" will blacks succeed. I find this ugly, distasteful and objectionable.

For public universities like the Universities of California, Texas, Michigan, etc. It is well known for decades now that there is two-admissions process. One process is for Whites-Asians and another process is for Blacks-Hispanics. At the University of Michigan, Whites-Asians will be auto-reject at the 6% percentile of applicants. Blacks-Hispanics at 6% will be auto-accept. Berkeley has had a gap year after year of 250-350 SAT points between the two groups. The NYT published the SAT scores of white-Asians, in the 1200-1300 range, whereas blacks-hispanics were in the range of 900, under a thousand. It is no secret-open seceret now that public universities have two-admissions process based on your race. It's like there is two-universities, one for you and one for me.

The only reason I write this is that public universities are under public control and public scrutiny. Much of the data came out of Freedom of Information Act request.

Private universities meanwhile are not publicly obligated to release their admissions data. But here in this book, by the former Presidents of Harvard and Princeton, they are publicly admitting they have two-admissions process. If you are white, your application will be placed with other white applicants and if you are blacks, you will be competing against other blacks.

It's an open admission of a two-system admissions process with the blacks system of admissions with much, much lower standards. I would think this is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but Bok and Bowen insists "the only way they can make it"

This white academic racism of Bok and Bowen reminds me of the separate drinking fountains of the old US South. One fountain for whites and a shabbier one for the colored. Bok and Bowen is here endorsing the white racism of the US South. White and Blacks cannot drink from the same fountain, Bok and Bowen is saying they cannot "compete" because they are just too dumb.
Instead of the KKK of the south promoting the inferiority of blacks, we have the President of Harvard and Princeton, respected academics, promoting the inferiority of blacks. I consider this academic racism the worst form of "hate" imagination because it is an intellectual, accepted belief that blacks are inherently inferior.

Needless to say, I find the white racism of Bok and Bowen shocking and objectionable. Moreover, they openly admit that Ivy schools have a two-tier system of admissions, one for me and one for you people will be shocking to many readers. Bok and Bowen even defends the two-system admissions process.. lower standards for blacks'.Shocking.

Please buy the book, read it, and judge it for yourself. Your opinion might be different than mine, but the white racism of Bok and Bowen is the racism of the worst imaginable type.... they have concluded and accepted blacks are inferior and they need a lower set of standards to go anywhere in life or college, with the white man help of course. If this is not racism, I have no idea what is.

One book is a careful, dispassionate explication of a significant data set obtained over more than two decades for student cohorts at a set of colleges and universities practicing selective admission. These data to do not make a case for or against affirmative action in admission. They are however an extremely valuable resource for placing discussions about selective admission on a factual basis. It seems silly to this reviewer to debate whether the data are "scientific" or not. For other reviewers in this space to have attacked the book without substantiation as "unscientific" only reveals their own bias in this heated debate.

The other book is one of opinion and political values. Bowen and Bok argue a traditional progressive line of thought: that the most prestigious institutions have a responsibility to build a better society and that part of this mission is achieved by helping downtrodden segments of society to better themselves. No set of data can prove these values to be correct, nor can any data refute the dominant opposing view: that admission to the most prestigious institutions should be a reward for great personal merit as measured by an examination system. These are human values that, like religious beliefs, are not subject to straightforward empirical verification.

Readers on either side of the affirmative action debate will find some solace in the data presented in this book. Read with care, this book can provide a basis for more constructive debate. Take for example the famous Thomas Sowell assertion, cited (as Gospel!) by the Reader from Lansing, that students admitted to prestigious schools under an affirmative action plan will have a poor success rate. This is a factual assertion that is tested by the studies reported by Bowen and Bok. As it happens, success (measured by graduation rate) is extremely high at the most selective institutions for affirmative action minority students. This result does not "prove" that affirmative action is good, but it certainly should help us get past one specious argument and move on to more fruitful debate. And please, dear reviewers, read the book next time before you write your review.

Derek Bok, former President of Harvard University and author of two useful books on "the state of the nation", has done a very fine job of examining the commercialization of the university, with separate chapters on athletics (the golden goose tends to cost more to maintain than most realize, both in financial terms and in terms of negative impacts on scholarship); scientific research; and customized executive education offered on a for-profit basis.

While the author concludes with some recommendations, the book is best for its reasoned discussion of the problems. The prostitution of the universities, and the blandness of undergraduate education, are issued that will not be solved by any one community, any one state, or even by Congress. This is going to require a President committed to national education and public health as the "first plank" of any national strategy to united and nurture what I think of as the "seven intelligence tribes": national (spies and counterspies), military, law enforcement, business, academic, non-profit and media, and religions-clans-citizens.

As we have seen in time since 9-11, all of these tribes appear to be failing--national on 9-11, military in Afghanistan and Iraq, law enforcement on Hamas and Pakistani terrorists still active within the US, business in general (Boeing being had by Airbus, for example), now in this book, the universities, the failure of the media to support the debate on going to war with Iraq, and of the New York Times in ethics specifically, the self-indulgent failure of the Catholic Church to police its own priests--this is not a pretty picture. In all of this, the university is central to the creation of a public that should be fully versed in "civitas" and electing public officials who are liberally educated as well as scientifically trained. That does not appear to be happening. This book helps explain why.

As one might expect, Bok's discussion focuses on the research university, but at a time when so many universities and colleges are in financial distress, it is of relevance for all of higher education. There is a useful set of notes that indicate contemporary sources that relate to his theme, showing familiarity with a variety of interesting materials. Without a doubt a valuable work that makes the reader eager for more.

He praises professional politicians, impressed at how well informed they are about issues near and dear to his heart. (No wonder; the issues near and dear to Mr. Bok's heart involve big government programs, socialistic wealth redistribution, and grand societal architectural schemes that are near and dear to every power-loving politician.)

Bok never questions the basic premise that we need big government. He claims that as we have come to depend on the State to meet so many of our needs, our welfare depends more than ever on how well our government performs. Wouldn't it be nice to see instead a realistic exploration of how much better off we'd be if we didn't depend on the State to meet so many of our needs; if we had much lower taxes, more money to meet those needs ourselves, more time and money to support charities that can more effectively address societal issues than tired, failed government megaprograms.

Bok acknowledges that government is ubiquitous and involved in every facet of our lives, yet his view of "the trouble with government" isn't that it's too invasive, but that it's not invasive enough and isn't always run by the most effective bureaucrats. He claims that a shoddy performance by public officials today can mean:

* inadequate schooling for children (alternative suggestion: vouchers, or even get the government out of the education business entirely),

* hunger for needy families (alternative suggestions: quit trying to increase the size of a government that already consumes half of our nation's production and we'll have a lot more individual wealth available to solve problems for ourselves and our neighbors, and quit building a government so large that everyone comes to expect it to solve their problems instead of taking personal responsibility),

* sluggish growth or even a recession for our economy (sounds like the old discredited Keynesian theories that the only way to have prosperity is for the government to orchestrate it), and

* substandard health care (again, his implication is that only through government can we have good health care).

If you are a bleeding heart liberal, you'll probably enjoy this book.

If you believe in liberty and personal responsibility, however, this is just another book to add to the list of liberal mumbo-jumbo that you won't want to waste your time reading. It's further evidence that all the education in the world won't necessarily produce an author with common sense and an understanding of how a free society should operate.

Bok, Harvard President Emeritus, presents a very well researched and articulated analysis of the shortcomings of present day government. However, if you looking for highly entertaining big-ticket recommendations on how to improve government, you will not find them here. Instead, the book seems directed toward the more informed student of government and politics, who is seeking a comprehensive and well thought out analysis.

I found Bok's more academic approach and style in sharp contrast to Robert Reich's recent work, The Future of Success, which is an analysis of our current economy. In the latter, Reich is more entertaining and captivating with perhaps more mass appeal. Bok's style, on the other hand, is more intellectual and ultimately attractive to the political or social scientist type.

The Trouble With Government is Bok's companion volume to the State of the Nation, which was published in 1996. He begins with an empirical analysis, which shows the U.S. lagging behind other advanced democracies in several key quality of life indicators. In his search for the cause of these shortcomings, he first looks at the "usual suspects," which are politicians, political parties, the media and special interests. Instead of these culprits, Bok maintains the problem lies with poorly designed legislation, burdensome regulation, and the neglect of working-class interests and failed antipoverty policies. For each of these he offers his own solutions. For the most part, Bok's solutions are attainable and not too far-reaching. His recommendations would not require dramatic structural change to our existing political system. Conversely, some seem rather idealistic and romantic such as increased civic education and a call for added national community service. Ultimately, Bok places much of the root cause squarely on the backs of the general populous. Our own disinterest and disengagement are seen as the ultimate culprits. In Bok's own words we end up with the type of government we deserve. This is certainly a message worthy of our attention.