<p>No, Sally, I know you agree. I was agreeing with you. I should have put a roll eyes. I was making a preposterous jokey answer to your question.</p>
<p>^Ah. Sorry. Haven’t had enough coffee this morning to appreciate sarcasm just yet. :)</p>
<p>@Poetgrl,
</p>
<p>Yes, indeed, my kid attends an elite boarding school. And why not? He competed and earned his place there on the basis of merit-- that is why he is at the top of his class.</p>
<p>And no, I am not fearful that his life trajectory depends on him attending a 1st tier school. Lol, I didn’t attend one, and I turned out OK to the extent that I can afford his hefty tuition bills.</p>
<p>Oh, snap, poetgrl. Did you mention the University of Nebraska for any particular reason? Was it because you knew that I, a meritorious sort if ever there was one, went there? Go big red, baby.</p>
<p>@sally305,
</p>
<p>I don’t know of anyone who has qualms about giving poor kids a leg up. I only question the fairness of using race as the determining factor for who gets the help. </p>
<p>To draw from poetgrl’s mention of the Tax Code, our tax code has graduated taxation rates in acknowledgement that poor people have less money to contribute than rich people. Our tax code does not have different taxation rates based on the race of the taxpayer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true. In STEM area, if the answer to a certain problem is wrong, it’s wrong. There is no way for the professor to compromise, except for some partial credits. But if half of the class are elite students who get it right, there is no reason for the prof to give partial credit. In humanity areas, the grading rubrics are normally grey, so the students are less likely to fail, so they at least don’t get discouraged right away.</p>
<p>There is a relevant article in the NY Times today about admissions to Stuyvesant:</p>
<p><a href=“Asians’ Success in High School Admissions Tests Seen as Issue by Some - The New York Times”>Asians’ Success in High School Admissions Tests Seen as Issue by Some - The New York Times;
<p>Stuyvesant, in the unlikely case that anybody here doesn’t know, is a competitive admissions school in New York. They admit on the basis of a test, and the test preparation is freely available to anyone in New York. </p>
<p>The article profiles one Chinese student, whose parents are first generation immigrants that work ~70 hours per week in their laundromat. The student lived in a bunk bed in the same room as his grandparents, and saw his parents only on Sunday. He studied for the admission test for over 2 years and finally received admission. </p>
<p>The New York school system is about 65% Black and Hispanic. However, the admissions rate into Stuyvesant is 72% Asian. The NAACP is crying foul, saying that the test discriminates. </p>
<p>Poetgirl, perhaps you don’t realize this, but THIS is the American dream. It is about rewarding hard work and ability. The reason that America retains its vitality is because it is (was?) a magnet for the talented people in the world.</p>
<p>Anyone can choose to emulate what this family did. Some families do, other families don’t. And sadly, this effort seems to b concentrated in some cultures more than others. Why is it no surprise that the ones that don’t put in the effort to succeed are the ones that cry foul?</p>
<p>Right. But Stuy has a different mission from Harvard et al. Stuy feels its mission is best accomplished by looking at test scores and accepting x level of performance. Great for them! Harvard sees itself as having a different mission, hence they don’t rack and stack test scores.</p>
<p>Actually, the people I hear crying “foul” right now are not those you are referencing. </p>
<p>However, I have the American Dream. I also understand, as do those in admissions at many schools, that the U.S has a complicated history. My kids could have gone anywhere and had all the advantages. They will make of it what they will. if they don’t, the safety net beneath them is such that they will still end up just fine. I’m not crying foul, but I don’t know why I would.</p>
<p>the admission rates for asians at top schools far outstrips that of any other minority population group. I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with any other admission policy.</p>
<p>I really just wish parents wouldn’t teach their kids this stuff. It leads to misery in abundance come April 1st. </p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>Umm, did you folks get the memo? No discussion of Stuyvesant is permitted without cobrat and his virtual entourage of cousins and former classmates. :)</p>
<p>My children too will do fine. That is not the point. </p>
<p>While the US does have a complicated history, it is also equally true that the children going to school now had nothing to do with it. Immigrants have repeatedly shown that it is possible to overcome to overcome dire circumstances within one generation.</p>
<p>I am completely comfortable with giving a leg up to people of low socioeconomic status, as I recognize that not all will have the advantages that my children do. However, after controlling for SES, there is no excuse whatsoever for having differential criteria based upon the color of one’s skin. Discrimination should always be stopped.</p>
<p>^(Message #210)</p>
<p>Sorry. Don’t post enough to get the memo. ;-)</p>
<p>Anyone who is using the argument that America is the land of equal opportunity and admission to college should be solely based on test scores has not read the thread about women earning less out of college. Take the blinders off people!
We do not live in the land of fair, we live in the land of the Bottom Line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just read a handful of cobrats past posts and you’ll get it.</p>
<p>@hebegebe–</p>
<p>I’m not opposed to your opinion, actually. However, your opinion assumes discrimination based on test scores. The fact of the matter is you should go back and read lookingforward’s last post. These universities are not in place to carry out your mission. They have their own mission. It is much vaster than the culturally biased favoring of test scores.</p>
<p>I understand most asians come from a culture which worships at the altar of the test score. Here, the majority does not. It is what makes the country different. We see people not just numbers, and so do these schools.</p>
<p>The last time I took a standardized test, I was in my early twenties. It’s certainly a skilll set, but it’s not a measure of everything meritorious. You have to understand (or not) that some students are admitted to these schools based on other outstanding qualities which can’t be quantified on the SAT. </p>
<p>there is the orchestra, the theater, the lit mag, the athletic teams, the political class. And, so… you are looking at this one metric and calling “foul.” I am saying your metric is beside the point. There are other metrics at play which are equally, if not more, important to the school. </p>
<p>If they wanted to change this, they would.</p>
<p>
I’m just teasing cobrat BTW. I find many of his posts very interesting. My own posts are pretty predictable - for example I’ve been known to complain vehemently about topics in which I also generally participate.</p>
<p>This thread contains elements of many other threads, but with some interesting twists. A few points:
- I think arguing about whether heredity or environment drives academic performance is like arguing about whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint.
- It’s interesting that people who think America is about individualism and self-determination want to take autonomy away from private institutions.
- I feel I have to note that the question of whether colleges are discriminating in favor of certain ethnic groups is different than whether they are discriminating against certain ethnic groups. For what it’s worth, in my view it’s clear that selective colleges are discriminating in favor of URMs–that is, they are admitting URMs who would not have been admitted but for being URMs. Personally, I support this. But are selective colleges discriminating against Asian applicants–that is, are they rejecting applicants who would have been admitted if they had been white? There is enough evidence to ask the question, but there isn’t nearly enough to prove that it is the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From my perspective I see many AAs and most AA advocates come from a culture that worships race far more so than Asians worship scores. The latter for the most part try to look at the tangible measures that are used - be it scores, rigor, ECs, volunteering, whatever, and try to get an edge in areas over which they have an opportunity to exercise control. The former look at outcomes in areas that suits them, and if it is sub-par, blame the criteria.</p>
<p>Do people at “elite” schools get as up in arms about less academically qualified students being admitted because of athletic prowess or because Daddy donated an entire building? Somehow it seems that that is more accepted–maybe because they believe the benefits of those decisions transfer to them as well (i.e., good sports teams are fun to watch and bring in alumni dollars; rich donors make the facilities nicer for all the students). It’s too bad the critics of AA don’t see the value of having a more diverse student body with kids drawn from a wider range of experiences. My kids’ high school is incredibly diverse along racial/socioeconomic/cultural lines, and they have learned much from their classmates who have radically different backgrounds. They are far more open-minded and tolerant than many of their peers who have only lived in more homogeneous environments.</p>
<p>That is rather harsh, Dad<em>of</em>3. However, I will say that the black community might be able to glean some lessons from the experience of Asian immigrants. And if I were a black parent or community leader, I would look for ways to invigorate the commitment to learning among black children and their families. </p>
<p>I live in a community where the achievement gap between white and black students is shocking. And very disheartening to me as a member of the community. School administrators are wrestling with the problem. And so are black parents. In my area I’ve seen more action and discussion at the high school level, though, which seems like the classic “too little, too late” scenario. </p>
<p>I do think, though, that making decisions regarding admission to elite public high schools strictly on the basis of test scores is a cop out. Is it fair? I’m not sure it’s unfair, per se. Principally, my problem is that it excuses school leaders from the hard work of finding and nurturing talent in kids who need a boost but have potential. This one of the sacred duties of education, IMO.</p>