<p>I think a lot of the students on here that oppose AA do so not because of race but because it’s something they can’t control. A lot of people seem to exaggerate its importance, and many believe that it’s the one little thing that could keep them from getting into the college they want, are qualified for and would otherwise be accepted to. And when they find out that all their accomplishments weren’t enough to differentiate themselves from the thousands of other applicants, they need something more to blame than just the whims of the admissions committee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still doesn’t answer the question of socioeconomic status. The results threads tend not to be very detailed in that regard.</p>
Yes, it does – but the point is that if my daughter were black, everyone would assume that to be the reason. (And if we were rich, people would assume that to be the reason for her admission). </p>
<p>Essays & LORs make a difference for admission at all of the Ivies, so it is likely that the qualified black applicant who got admitted over you to an Ivy wrote a brilliant essay, or had amazing recs, or some other factor that would impact on his admissions. But you ASSUME it is AA – even though that same Ivy probably rejected hundreds of other equally qualified black or minority applicants that year. </p>
<p>I actually have a good idea as to what the tip factors may have been for my daughter in college admissions, and I don’t think it was anything I’ve told you. I could be wrong of course – but the essay I mentioned was submitted as part of an EA app, and my daughter was deferred – after deferral she submitted some additional material – which is why I don’t think the witty essay got her in, although it may have helped her avoid being rejected in the initial EA review.</p>
<p>No, I quite clearly do. They just don’t coincide with your own conclusions, so you don’t like them. And another strong insult; shouldn’t you move beyond such unsubstantiated vitriol?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly what you want to be assuming - they reduce admissions standards for these applicants or are more inclined to accept them. I don’t see what’s so difficult about saying the same thing for minorities, as well. I disagree with the athletes to a certain extent, the development cases to a great extent, and the minorities equivalent with the wealthy applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a bit different when nothing you tell me applies to me, so any attempted point was lost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s kind of difficult for me to guess why she was admitted, beyond my general principle, if you are withholding information. With that said, while people would have assumed AA caused her acceptance, the current situation in admissions justifies thinking so. Moreover, its hard to think that her results would have been the same if you were black.</p>
<p>Regarding the Ivies, perhaps in isolated cases. The amount of evidence I have seen on CC suggests as a general trend, it is something to the contrary. Ivies accept 30% of their black applicants. Black people are not necessarily more academically competitive than whites, nor are they given some special writing ability as a result of being black (not a hint of racism intended with either comment, it’s just truth - notice I’m not saying they are worse, either.) What else would explain their acceptance rate? Logic dictates affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I argue against it from a parity perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. However, I was just saying that results threads do show that minorities with weaker stats get accepted. Also, I can recall multiple instances where minorities qualifying for no financial aid were accepted at all top schools - two on this forums (one with likelies at Harvard and Yale, although he was clearly academically qualified), and the black kid I was talking about earlier. I’ve also seen white candidates with 2300s and parental income in the 20000 - 40000 range get rejected by multiple Ivies. It give a crude indication that race plays more of a factor than socioeconomic status in the determination of acceptances given to students.</p>
What do you mean? She got in – are you saying that you think she would have been rejected if she were black? If so, how does that fit your AA frame?</p>
<p>That the stats are weaker than the very strongest stats is unimportant, since the stats are still remarkably strong. Moreover, merely because the stats are not generally the very strongest does not mean the kids themselves are not the very strongest. I assume Obama’s stats were not amongst the strongest, for example. He himself has said he did not rise to his potential in high school. But while his stats were not the strongest, he is obviously one of the most exceptional people on earth, indeed in the history of the earth. Schools like Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford tend to recognize these traits in students, and they see that stats do not even come close to pointing them out.</p>
<p>I have never read a person who whined about stats who also had that certain special exceptional trait that top schools want. The only kids and parents who whine here are people who only have stats (and ECs that really are just for show), and they become angry to find that stats and insignificant ECs are just not enough. These weak people simply betray themselves when they whine on and on about how unfair the system is, simply because the system does not eliminate information about an applicant that is most critical in telling the story of that applicant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If those minorities are black, they are still enduring the racism that also assaults poor blacks, and this racism serves as a ball and chain around their necks just as it does for poor blacks. So it is an exceptional thing to see a black kid, regardless of class, doing well enough to study at the top schools. They deserve entrance in the top schools, particularly in view of their unique circumstances. For these kids to do well despite racism adds to the chance that they have that special something that allows them to endure and conquer, even when it seems hopeless. The schools would be most ridiculous to pass up these kids simply because weaker kids with high scores whine that their scores do not take precedence over everything else.</p>
You are focusing way too much attention on test scores. The colleges do not look at test scores the way you (and most people looking for “chances” on CC) do. They are not looking at them as a raw number used to compare a student from Boise with one from Boston. They always look at them in context.</p>
<p>That’s the real reason my d’s scores didn’t count. There was an Asian kid from her school who was active on CC and posted his scores online for “chances” – and got a very skeptical reaction. (Many posters told him his scores were too low). His scores were better than my daughters, but no where near the level considered impressive on CC. He got accepted at 4 Ivies, is at Harvard now. No surprise, everyone at the high school knew he was “the one”. (Daughter’s high school tended to have 1 kid accepted to an Ivy each year). His scores were fine for the school and area he was coming from – as (obviously) were my daughter’s. </p>
<p>ANY person with 1800 on the SATs is intelligent enough to do the work at an Ivy League college. The colleges know that. They know statistically what to expect in terms of numbers from kids in rural areas vs. urban areas, public vs. private schools, and from different states. Just as the cutoff for National Merit trends lower in my state, so does the expectations of college ad coms. </p>
<p>One huge problem with SAT scores is that they are NOT a race neutral measure. It has been documented over and over again that blacks and hispanics tend to perform lower on the tests, but that the tests are far less predictive for them in terms of college performance. If the colleges used the scores as the sole criteria for admission, and simply took the kids with the highest scores – the would end up with race discriminatory admission practices. It could be subject to challenge in the court, because the tests could not be shown to have a strong enough correlation with actual college performance to justify their use, if their effect were shown to have a disproportionately negative impact on one group – the colleges avoid that challenge by implementing holistic admission practices, and they know that a score of 2100 does not mean the same thing for every kid that manages to submit that.</p>
<p>No that does not follow logic. Fewer blacks apply to top schools, so for every one black person that is admitted is a larger proportion of blacks. For example blacks constituted about 10% of the population at typical Ivy League schools. So admissions officiers are looking for that amount. If only 1200 blacks apply out of 25,0000, and 140 is the target number then that would mean an acceptance rate of 12% acceptance rate. Now if 16000 whites apply and 900 are admitted that is an acceptance rate of 5.63%. </p>
<p>So yeah blacks statistically have a higher rate of admission, but that is because there are fewer blacks applying period.</p>
I seriously doubt that. Colleges defer when they want more information about an applicant, and as EA is not binding there is no advantage to a college to lock in a candidate. They are just as likely to do that with a minority candidate as any other. </p>
<p>But I think it is a virtual certainty that there were minority candidates to the colleges my daughter applied to who had better test scores than she did and who were rejected or waitlisted. (I don’t feel like digging up 4 year old posts, but I seem to remember some who were in that position, and I have certainly seen it at the college she now attends, where I have followed results more closely over the years). </p>
<p>I don’t know if your stats about Harvard admissions are correct or not, but if Harvard admits 30% of black applicants, that means it turns down 70%. Which mean that a any given black applicant has more than a 2 out of 3 chance of being rejected. Given that blacks constitute a relatively small portion of the applicant pool, it is not surprising that they would be admitted at a somewhat higher rate. But the same would be true if you broke down statistics based on other criteria that correspond to what a college wants. For example – what is the percentage of accomplished athletes who get admitted vs. the applicant pool at large? How does family income level impact admission chances? What are the admission stats of applicants from private schools vs. public schools?</p>
<p>I know a white girl who wrote a few years ago right here on CC that her scores were low, that she had gone to a school in Vermont, and while she had done okay, she had not done exceptionally, and wished to transfer to Harvard. Many parents reading the kid told her outright to set her sights much lower, and at least one told her she hadn’t a chance to transfer even to Georgetown, so low were her stats.</p>
<p>But I saw that this kid was different. Reading between the lines, I could sense that she was being driven by a passion and that due to several events had found herself trapped in a place in life where she could not fly as she longed to fly. So I told her straight up that she had the stuff and that she should press for Harvard.</p>
<p>She is a white kid. Very special, but lower stats. And now she is at Harvard.</p>
<p>True, my SAT score is nowhere near acceptable for Yale (2070) and many white kids who are less intelligent than I am did better on it than I did. And I am not insulting them but it is a fact that I was smarter than they were, yet they scored higher on it. But thank goodness for the ACT (34).</p>
<p>Well none of the tests are IQ tests, and test prep & repeat testing skews whatever value the tests could in that area in any event. The tests are basically a weed-out tool and a means for the admissions committee to put other data about the kid in context. </p>
<p>I think the biggest fallacy on CC is the assumptions people make about tests and test scores.</p>
<p>Wow, this is a lot to respond too, and I’m rather tired. I’ll make a couple points and address the rest tomorrow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is this fact based on? Your research paper compared to their research output, or just the general sense you’ve gotten from interacting with them? I am not trying to challenge you here; I am genuinely curious. The black kid at my school had very similar test scores to you (within 50 points on the SAT and 1 or 2 points lower than you on the ACT), and I can assure you he was not smarter than me (with all due respect to him). I realized this just from seeing his work and how the teachers talked about him compared to me, and thought that perhaps you had arrived at your conclusions through similar means.</p>
<p>Also, on the general front of test scores, I’ll concede I may look at test scores a bit stronger than most, because I got my 2350 on the first time with minimal prep. I guess its because my experience with them has been as a more legitimate indication of mental aptitude than something to be mastered on the road to college acceptances. With that said, a serious question about racial bias in the SAT. Where exactly does the data show it is biased towards whites, and does any such research analyzed potential confounding factors? I’ve read something which shows black and Hispanic test scores are lower, but it never discussed other reasons this might be aside from bias in the test itself (how can a math section be biased, anyways - did they conduct research analyzing each section of the test separately to see if the supposed bias was localized in the reading section as intuition says it would be?)</p>
<p>I’ll also leave you with a note about your other statements. Colleges will accept kids they want over kids they do not want, as they construct a class fitting a certain vision through their acceptances. It is why athletes get in so easily, why certain white people with low stats get in easily, and why so many minorities with lower stats (GPA too - this isn’t just test scores) get in easily. Naturally, the colleges aren’t selecting from their applicant pool equally - their class doesn’t represent the composition of the applicant pool - which is why different segments of the pool have lower and higher acceptance rates. I think it’s admirable that colleges are trying to create a class this way, but I also think that in certain instances it is remarkably unfair to classify certain people in an easier applicant pool simply because their skin color is different, moreso if these candidates have not had any difficulty financially or familially in creating the application they have. It was racism when African-Americans were given different drinking fountains because of their skin color, and it seems half-racist now to make admission into a top college more difficult to someone for the exact same reason. I am not trying to assert that black people do not deserve the colleges they are accepted to, because like most applicants who are honest, they do. I am, simultaneously, trying to assert that from a perspective of parity, the boost some minority candidates receive is a travesty. Nothing less, nothing more. It’s quite clear how and why colleges make admissions decisions, but that does not necessarily mean these decisions are fair.</p>
<p>As a final note I noticed this in Drosselmeier’s post…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can’t pretend to know how much the election of an African-American president means to an African-American who has undergone racism as you say you have, I think you should refrain from making such statements until you have the benefit of retrospect to evaluate his presidency and his overall legacy. Saying he is one of the most exceptional people in the history of the is difficult anyways, but saying it before he has accomplished more than breaking the presidential color barrier (and simultaneously serving as an indication of America’s waning racism) seems myopic at best and willfully ignorant at worst.</p>
<p>In a sentence, Obama cannot be called exceptional until he has a legacy to evaluate, so you should refrain from passing such broad judgement on him until said legacy exists after he has concluded his presidency and potential career in public service.</p>
<p>In retrospect, it seems I covered most of your statements. I think this response will suffice.</p>
<p>That article basically states what we’ve been hashing out over here.</p>
<p>If you google “two black men with backpacks” you will get a ton of hits. This story is being discussed in forums all over the place. I have the feeling that Gates won’t sue or file a complaint because he’s already suffered enough in this case but I’d love to be proven wrong.</p>
<p>Fired just in time is about right. Scary level of rage here and willingness to use excessive force. </p>
<p>He sent this email not just to his National Guard buddies, but to the Boston Globe! I can’t fathom how someone this stupid even gets hired by the Boston PD.
Don’t they have to take a test or something? Pass a personality review?</p>
<p>The latest from the cop who sent the racist e-mail. Raise your hands if you believe that he’s being honest when he says he’s not racist, and he always treats people with dignity and respect. I have a bridge to sell you.</p>
<p>"BOSTON – A suspended Boston police officer apologized for using a racial slur to describe black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in an e-mail, saying he made a poor choice of words, didn’t mean to offend anyone and isn’t racist.</p>
<p>The police commissioner put 36-year-old Justin Barrett on administrative leave pending a termination hearing after learning of the slur. Barrett is a member of the National Guard and has been suspended from his military duties pending an investigation.</p>
<p>My hands not up. When people say they are sorry about being racist, just add “that I got caught” after the “I’m sorry” part and you have the truth.</p>
<p>“I am not trying to assert that black people do not deserve the colleges they are accepted to, because like most applicants who are honest, they do. I am, simultaneously, trying to assert that from a perspective of parity, the boost some minority candidates receive is a travesty. Nothing less, nothing more. It’s quite clear how and why colleges make admissions decisions, but that does not necessarily mean these decisions are fair.”</p>
<p>It’s no more of a travesty than the favoring other qualified applicants get as top colleges build the type of classes they want. This includes the tips received by star athletes, legacies, wealthy donor and celebrities’ kids, students from underrepresented parts of the country and world, and students with unusual academic, extracurricular and other interests and backgrounds. In addition, the top college classes don’t make their selections purely on students’ stats. The top colleges’ way of building diverse classes of qualified students is what makes those colleges so special. </p>
<p>What was a travesty was when women, Jews, and people of color – including African Americans were automatically rejected from top colleges strictly because of their race, religion, gender or socioeconomic class even though far less qualified well off white men were accepted.</p>
<p>When you meet white men who, for instance, were accepted to top colleges before such practices stopped (and such practices didn’t stop until after the 1970s when it came to favoring men over more qualified women), do you have difficulty accepting their accomplishments because they may have taken the place of a more qualified person of color, woman, low income person or Jewish man or woman? When the legacies whose parents benefited from the earlier admissions policies, do you have difficulty accepting their accomplishments because those young people got a tip that came at the expense of more qualified people in their parents’ generation who were shut out of those colleges?</p>
<p>It always amazes me that the people who complain about affirmative action don’t complain at all about the affirmative action for well off, non Jewish, white men that went on for centuries here, and that many people (legacies, for instance) still are reaping the benefits of.</p>