<p>OK. But no black student benefited from racial preferences at my high school. I agree that many of them were less fortunate than me, but I don’t see how I’m “pulling the rug from under them” considering that they weren’t standing on said rug.</p>
<p>And let’s think about what you’re doing. You’re referring to the “less fortunate.” But xiggi has strongly argued that it is not the mission of racial preferences to select poor "URM"s; rather, it is supposed to select "URM"s in general, most of whom who happen to be not poor.</p>
<p>So what is the mission of racial preferences, exactly? Do the boons accrue only to the “less fortunate” or to everyone who can claim group membership?</p>
<p>Here’s some data–something which is sometimes in short supply in this thread–which shed some light on some of the issues here, I think, especially in terms of what would happen if you got rid of AA.
[SAT</a> Data Tables](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/data-tables]SAT”>SAT Suite of Assessments - College Board Research)
If you look at the table breaking out SAT scores by ethnicity, it appears to me (although I’m not an expert at math) that if you look for the number of people of various ethnicities who scored 700 or above on SAT CR, you get the following (I am too lazy to add up the Hispanics, and I left out the Native Americans because there are so few):
White: 50,294
Asian: 13,285
Black: 1969
For SAT math, it’s
White: 50,294
Asian: 21,588
Black: 1969
In other words, there are less than 2000 African-American kids in the whole country who got over 700 on either CR or math–that includes poor, rich, and immigrant black kids. That’s not very many to go around for the most elite schools, plus state universities, HBCs, etc.</p>
<p>To follow up on my previous post, here’s a little more math. The Ivies, plus Stanford, have room for (by my math) 15,565 kids in their classes. If they took ALL of those 1969 kids with SATs over 700, they’d have about 12% black kids. But that wouldn’t leave any high-scoring black kids for any other colleges. Also, we don’t know anything about the GPAs of those kids. Or how many got over 700 on one part of the SAT but less on another part. And 700 isn’t that high for the Ivies, anyway.</p>
<p>Also, I’ll just note that if 700 SATs are a threshold after which other factors are considered (as some seem to think), then the numbers above suggest that Asians are not really likely to get half of seats at highly selective schools even if discrimination is currently keeping their numbers down. Maybe 25-30%, I suppose.</p>
<p>It is true that there are not enough blacks who scored above 700 on both sections (or even one section) for “the most elite schools, plus state universities, HBCs, etc” to have their diversity fill.</p>
<p>So what’s to be done? Well, why don’t these elites assume some LEADERSHIP and de-emphasize the SAT? They can put their money where their mouths are and find alternate ways of measuring “intellectual vitality, talent, character, and promise,” things that have nothing to do with racial classification.</p>
<p>Or, they can again assume some LEADERSHIP and use their large endowments to finance test prep for the “less fortunate,” whoever they may be.</p>
<p>Either of those is better than taking the cheap way out and employing racial preferences.</p>
<p>How is symbolically admitting black kids to the most prestigious schools going to boost black SAT scores so that AA can go away? Not seeing it. Are there studies showing that since AA has been employed there has been any improvement at all in black standardized testing scores - SAT, K-8, whatever?</p>
<p>I am skeptical that upper income black kids going to HYPS has any impact whatsoever on the cosmos of the black kid in the grip of economic disadvantage. They are going to gravitate toward drug trafficking, sports or show biz as the way out. The failure lies in the public schools and our collective failure at addressing the cultural issues holding them back.</p>
<p>My inner cynic regards AA as basically an institution that assuages liberal guilt. If HYPS really wanted to lift up black kids in a meaningful way, they would dip into their vast endowments and use a goodly portion of it – not to provide FA for solidly middle class kids who are already knocking the SAT out of the park. Instead, they’d erect K-12 ivy academies in the war zones and come out of the Ivory tower and address racial inequality in a meaningful way. Test early in the life course, kindergarten or 1st grade – and find the raw G scores out there and then apply the vast Ivy resources toward nurturing that talent so that those kids are leading the pack on the SAT by the time they are juniors in high school.</p>
<p>sewhappy,
Or HYPS could de-emphasize the importance of the SAT and use their endowments to catapult URMs once they get there. Wait, I think that is what they are doing now. </p>
<p>I don’t disagree with your ideas, but I think they are too far-ranging to put HYPS on the hook for.</p>
<p>fab,
I’m just curious, do you personally know any Black or Hispanic people who go or went to HYPS?</p>
<p>Did I ever say or imply that? I’m not the one arguing that without racial preferences, "URM"s will be “shut out” of “HYPS” or even higher education as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for copying that out-of-context, mathmom. Let’s re-insert the rhetorical question that preceded what you quoted: Well, why don’t these elites assume some LEADERSHIP and de-emphasize the SAT?</p>
I don’t think that makes any difference, but put it in if you like. </p>
<p>I don’t think they emphasize the SAT nearly as much as kids think they do. Or as one Yale Admissions officer said when asked about how much the SAT counted: “Less than you fear, more than we’d like.” :)</p>
<p>Oh come on, mathmom–that was my whole point! You don’t have to agree with my views, but I don’t believe I failed to express my position clearly.</p>
<p>Well, Harvard thinks it’s good policy to admit some black kids, even if their scores aren’t as good as those of non-URMs. I think it’s good policy, too, for reasons I’ve described enough times, I think. I just wanted to dispel the fantasy that it wouldn’t make that much difference to URM enrollment at those schools if you dropped AA. It would make a big difference.</p>
<p>Here’s one more look at some of the figures from that chart, this time looking at whites and Asians. Here are the numbers of those scoring at higher levels:
CR 800
Whites: 8382
Asians: 1660
Math 800
Whites: 8382
Asians: 6642
CR over 750
Whites: 16764
Asians: 4981
Math over 750
Whites: 16764
Asians: 21583</p>
<p>This raises the question of how the elite schools consider CR vs. math scores–which relates again, I think, to the idea that interest in STEM fields might hurt those who are looking at schools like the Ivies. Of course, schools could simply rig their admissions criteria to give greater weight to CR scores–which would, if I’m reading the numbers right, result in about the percentages of white and Asian kids they have now. Is this wrong? Does it matter why they are doing it?</p>
<p>Another interesting data point I noticed on one of the charts was the change in SAT scores over the last 10 years for different ethnic groups. For whites, they were essentially unchanged. For Asians, they went up 20 points (I think it was points and not percent) for CR and 26 points for math over ten years. Why the difference? If it’s due to prep, I think it’s possible that adcoms are discounting Asian scores because they suspect they are heavily prepped. Is that fair? No, if they’re no more prepped than whites. But what if they are?</p>
<p>Guys, guys. You are not playing the game right. Half of you said that the crystal ball is wrong. Another half said that those thousand kids should go to MIT/CalTech. That’s breaking the rules of the game.</p>
<p>I repeat. In order to the play the game, you have to assume that the crystal ball is right, each one of these 1000 kids will do truly amazing things that will change the course of human history for the better. However, they can only do that if they get in at a SPECIFIC institution. They have all applied for H, and no where else. If they don’t get into H, their potential is ruined and humanity will suffer.</p>
<p>You are an AdCom faced with this dilemma. You still have 1000 seats left to cover URMs, Whites, and non-STEM applicants. What would you do with these 1000 Asian STEM geniuses? Nurture them, and in turn nurture humanity (again, remember, no questioning the crystal ball), or reject them in favor of balance?</p>
<p>Just to make your life a little bit more complicated, the kids all wrote essays about particle physics, game theory, and stochastic calculus. You can’t understand a single one of the essays. But you took them to the STEM faculty, and the faculty is extremely impressed, and ready to take these kids right into the PhD programs.</p>
<p>I will check back in later for your answers. </p>
<p>Note: I understand that this is a made up unrealistic situation, but running exercises like this really helps people understand their own biases, and strengths and weaknesses thereof.</p>
<p>It’s a stupid question. Their life won’t be ruined humanity won’t suffer. There are plenty of other places for them to go. Besides there are 1000 poets, historians, economists (name your favorite group) that are also applying. Harvard can divvy up their limited spaces however they like. I don’t think the STEM kids should have a monopoly.</p>
<p>It would make a big difference if the SAT matters as much as you’re suggesting. There doesn’t have to be a big drop if</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The SAT is de-emphasized in favor of other measures that address what Casper called “intellectual vitality, talent, character, and promise,” or</p></li>
<li><p>The elites finance test prep for the “less fortunate,” whoever they may be, or</p></li>
<li><p>"URM"s dominate Asians and whites on subjective criteria in holistic admissions.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I find it funny that the same people who tell Asians that they overemphasize the SAT suddenly flock to the SAT to defend racial preferences for "URM"s.</p>