<p>“…colleges are less & less relying on any standardized tests as measurements of intellectual promise.”</p>
<p>That is so true. In fact, the UCs are leading the charge here. They have been talking about eliminating the SAT/ACT requirement for admissions for several years, because it has not been proven to be the best method for evaluating admittees’ potential.</p>
<p>“I’m saying that AA only <em>potentially</em> “favors” a URM once a qualified pool has been determined.”</p>
<p>How is this true if 80% of the seats set aside for minorities at top colleges would’ve went to whites and Asians if AA wasn’t around? I have a feeling that this some of this “qualified” pool you speak of really isn’t qulaified at all.</p>
<p>“Even a non-URM student who goes to a school lacking in both of these advantages will therefore be disadvantaged by the test.”</p>
<p>This non-URM student will have a poor education and unlike URMs who may be in the smae situation, the non-URM won’t have AA to help him/her out. In fact, a rich URM who went to a really good HS would probably have an advantage over the poorer non-URM. This advantage would be solely race-based, which is all that AA does: favor certain races over others.</p>
<p>
Uh…Bay? I hate to break it to you, but the UCs are eating the dust of other colleges.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fairtest.org/optinit.htm[/url]”>http://www.fairtest.org/optinit.htm</a></p>
<p>“Hepstar, you are just blatantly ignorant on the current reality of AA: what it does & doesn’t supposedly “promise,” what it does & doesn’t excuse, promote, forgive, etc.”</p>
<p>Another ad hominem-type attack that adds absolutely nothing beneficial to the debate. “You promote ignroance.” Sounds pretty ad hominem to me.</p>
<p>“However, many people on the board have made ad hominem & amazingly racist remarks directed at URM’s & implying de facto superiority of certain races & nationalities.”</p>
<p>If anything, it is you that makes such statements. In all of your posts regarding Asians and AA, there is an undertone that shows me that you feel that Asians are nothing but a bunch of math nerds who contribute nothing to the college experience. You seem to think they are expendible because by supporting AA, you are supporting limiting their influence and enrollement in college. To me, that’s racism. It’s advocating a preference for one group over another. You seem to feel that URMs are unique and desirable while Asians are boring and uniform, all math and science academics with nothing positive to contribute.</p>
<p>“Uh…Bay? I hate to break it to you, but the UCs are eating the dust of other colleges.”</p>
<p>I guess Bay likes to fabricate things to support his/her position. How about some real statistics?</p>
<p>warb,</p>
<p>Based on your link, you are right that the UCs have not actually eliminated them yet, while many other schools have already de-emphasized them.</p>
<p>So I retract my “leading the charge” phrase, but it is still true that they are seriously considering dropping them. In fact, the UCs were the driving force behind the new SAT I format. The UCs felt that the straight objective math/language test was not comprehensive and/or biased, so Collegeboard added the writing portion after the UCs threatened to abandon them.</p>
<p>Despite the UC’s attitude toward the SAT, Asian enrollement in the system is still higher than anywhere else. Why? One reason: no AA. Even in the UC system which you said doesn’t put too much emphasis on the SAT, Asians have a much higher enrollement % than at any other school.</p>
<p>Hep, </p>
<p>Here is an article from 2001, when UCs started talking about eliminating the SAT: <a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i25/25a02101.htm[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i25/25a02101.htm</a></p>
<p>Hep,</p>
<p>I didn’t say the UCs don’t put emphasis on SATs. They still do use the GAP/SAT formula and that is why Asian enrollment is so high. I was merely pointing out that elimination of SAT scores as an admissions criteria is seriously being considered by many universities (see warb’s list) because they are no longer considered the “holy grail” of qualifications.</p>
<p>Racist is the one who claimed that Asian gain unfair preference to UCB by misinterpreting “First Generation to attend college” to mean “first to attend a U.S. college”. This is a pure fabrication.</p>
<p>They talked about eliminating the SAT and switched to a more “holistic” admission process which didn’t consider just SATs and GPA. Here are the most recent percentages of Asian students at some of the UC schools:</p>
<p>UCI: 52%
UCLA: 41%
UCB: 47%
UCSD: 43%</p>
<p>Comapre these percentages to those at a few of the top schools:</p>
<p>Harvard: 19%
Princeton: 13%
UPenn: 17%
Stanford: 23%
MIT: 24%</p>
<p>Then you’ll say “HPMS and UPenn are private” schools as if that makes a difference. Okay then, here are the Asians percentages from the SUNY system, which is also a state university system. Here are the percentages of Asians at some of them:</p>
<p>Binghamton: 13%
Stony Brook: 27%
Geneseo: 8%
Albany: 6%</p>
<p>I know that there are A LOT of Asian applicants to Stony Brook because it is good for science and medicine. Still, it doesn’t come close to the UCs as far as Asian enrollment. This has a lot to do with AA.</p>
<p>Maybe it has to do with AA, or maybe it has to do with the fact that those UCs are better schools that the NY ones, so more high GPA/SAT applicants apply there.</p>
<p>“Maybe it has to do with AA, or maybe it has to do with the fact that those UCs are better schools that the NY ones, so more high GPA/SAT applicants apply there.”</p>
<p>No, it’s AA. Stony Brook’s average SAT range is 1080-1280 (out of 1600) according to the College Board Website. That range is very similar to UC Irvine’s (1110 - 1310). Yet, Stony Brook is 27% Asian while Irvine is 52%. The only explanation is AA.</p>
<p>“I know that there are A LOT of Asian applicants to Stony Brook because it is good for science and medicine.”</p>
<p>Hep,</p>
<p>Do you see any hypocrisy in this statement of yours? I mean, you are stereotyping Asians as flocking to schools with good science and medicine!!!</p>
<p>"Stony Brook’s average SAT range is 1080-1280 (out of 1600) according to the College Board Website. That range is very similar to UC Irvine’s (1110 - 1310). "</p>
<p>Maybe, but I think you chose the lowest scoring UC to compare with NY, didn’t you?</p>
<p>Stony Brook isn’t even the higest scoring SUNY. Binghamton’s range is 1160-1350. Geneseo’s range is 1200-1340. I used Stony Brook and Irvine because they have similar SAT scores and both have a large amount of Asian applicants.</p>
<p>Maybe, but I think your comparison is worthless unless you know what percentage of Asians applicants was admitted to each school.</p>
<p>“Do you see any hypocrisy in this statement of yours? I mean, you are stereotyping Asians as flocking to schools with good science and medicine!!!”</p>
<p>I know 2 Asian kids already, one of which is a friend of mine, who are enrolling at Stony Brook and are pursuing medicine. That’s what it is known for and from what I’ve seen, a lot of Asians are taking up careers in medicine and science. That’s not racism. Your attitude that academically strong Asians who are interested in science are boring, undesriable people in the eyes of colleges is bordering on racism.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do inequities that affect Blacks still exist in this nation? Yes.</p>
<p>Do racial preferences resolve such inequities? No.</p>
<p>“Maybe, but I think your comparison is worthless unless you know what percentage of Asians applicants was admitted to each school.”</p>
<p>Maybe the % of blacks at both schools will make you understand what AA does.</p>
<p>Stony Brook:
8% Black</p>
<p>UC Irvine:
2% black</p>
<p>The numbers all show what AA does. You just choose to ignore them.</p>