The committees that are in charge of admissions decisions in universities and other higher institutions of learning are only concerned with their own personal gains. They claim to be interested in the betterment of their respective universities, but that is not always the case. Affirmative action is meant to create a more diverse learning environment in order to better simulate real life; however, some colleges are abusing this process and discriminating against deserving students in favor of a more varied student population. This is not the most intelligent decision though, and now some colleges are faced with difficulties that could have easily been avoided. .
Universities are becoming more and more concerned with broadening their horizons; they want to become more attractive to a larger group of prospective students because they would like the revenue that more students would bring. In diversifying the collegiate atmosphere the acceptance committees are doing more harm than good. They are placing students in an environment which may seem like a good idea to both parties at the time, but in the long run there is a greater chance that neither group will be as pleased as they could have been with a different decision. .
Michael Barone would agree that some university environments are not for everyone, especially those at selective universities. In his article, "After Quotas, A Better Way,"" he argues that varied groups admitted under laws geared towards increasing diversity on college campuses just increases the likelihood that such groups will drop out. By doing away with quotas, and other similar affirmative action procedures, students have a better chance of graduating because they will go to schools more suited for them, not ones that have been force-fitted to their needs. In general, people tend to assume that everyone is striving to get ahead in the same way, through the same higher education pathways.