<p>Love of Learning: Which Children Have It Most
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: January 24, 2007</p>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Thought this was an interesting article, especially in context to the recent activity on CC with respect to Asian performance, stereotypes, AA (more anti- that pro-), and a desire by some to move away from a holistic private college admissions process that considers social, economic, political (as well as gender and ethnicity) factors to one more dependent on single-sitting tests.</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody wants a single do-or-die test for college admissions. I think most people are for an evaluation system that values qualities like passion and leadership, but not when they’re unbalanced to the point where anybody with an Asian name is red-flagged as a “textureless math grind” unless the applicant does extraordinary things to prove otherwise.</p>
<p>Recently, there has been some suggestion on CC that college admissions rely more heavily on stats than on other aspects of a private college application.</p>
<p>I have an Asian name, but my experiences with the college admissions process at private colleges have been positive, even though I’m interested in science & math. I’d consider myself pretty average with respect to EC’s, etc…but did well despite being part-East Asian and part-White.</p>
<p>The issue, at least to me, is that we consider highly regarded colleges as normal goods, while those that do not meet the criteria are seen as inferior goods, whether they are or not. Also, when discussing state schools, there are also issues where in-state residents have a built in advantage that in-staters see as an equitable trade-off because it costs them nothing, while those affected see it as an unfair practice–since it limits competition.</p>
<p>Everyone, myself included, believe that trade-offs are necessary until it hits us individually or with respect to our group affiliations. And yet, the normative banner is equity, while the positive reality is less equality (whether based on gender, ethnicity, income, etc…)</p>
<p>if one looks at things like college data, especially schools outside of california, b/c california legislature kind of weakened the racial preference thing, 300 sat score points difference betweeen admitted whites/asians and admitted hispanics/blacks…i think this is discriminatory towards blacks though…anyhow…yea…</p>
<p>Completely, inaccurate and (purposely?) misleading statement!</p>
<p>YOU CAN TAKE THE STUPID TEST AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT!
The scores between sittings correlate quite closely to each other.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with a holistic admissions process if used properly, but it gives admissions officers a free pass to give **too much ** preference to blacks and other URM’s. They have a strong self-interest in overadmitting blacks (more filler for their glossy brochures and a desire to avoid bad press)</p>
<p>For socioeconomically challenged applicants/test takers taking the tests multiple times is sometimes difficult.</p>
<p>And, the holistic process at private schools weigh gender, test scores, EC’s, ethnicity, legacy status, essays, etc…more so than public systems (i.e. UC system). That is sometimes public schools are more discriminatory because they use a modified admissions practice, which is not consistent.</p>
<p>I do have a problem with non-holistic admissions decision that are heavily biased towards high test scores, legacies, athletes, and in-state residents, as well as the lack of weight placed on other factors (like socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, race, recent immigration to the US, etc).</p>
<p>most holistic processes weigh ethnicity alot…i mean alot…
edit: i mean being asian/white won;t hurt you but being a urm will definetly help you alottttttt…like 300+ sat pts and .4 boost on like unweighted gpa…look at college data for privates who use holistic approaches…</p>