<p>
</p>
<p>So then why do we need AA? If there are so many qualified applicants, what is the justification for the policy? As you said, there are PLENTY of qualified applicants who could gain admission without special consideration,</p>
<p>The AA boost for hispanics, while significant is not huge as it is for African Americans. The ACT people don’t seem to have provided a report for that group, though. :S</p>
<p>“It’s weird how the ACT has public data for hispanics and not for african americans. :/”</p>
<p>I found it odd that the national statistics exactly matched the Hispanic statistics. Then I realized that the presentation had a filtering problem: </p>
<p>Try this link:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/National2012.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/pdf/profile/National2012.pdf</a></p>
<p>Again, there is an element of subjectivity involved in the admission process. Therefore this debate will go on forever.</p>
<p>I got that only 5% of African Americans were ready for college in 2012, but there’s no data about which AAs score highly. :</p>
<p>I bet JBHE has it…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo, Sally305!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every year there are kids on CC who complain that they “only” got into Emory instead of HYP (etc), they applied to all top 20 schools and only got into 1 or 2, it isn’t fair, blah blah blah. I am supremely unimpressed with those kids and even more so with their parents if that is the line of thinking they have encouraged, perpetuated, or refused to stamp out.</p>
<p>My kids got into top 20 schools and they were OVER THE MOON with excitement at their tremendous good fortune. I would not have countenanced one bit of whining if they hadn’t gotten in, or if they were disappointed at “only” one top 20 acceptance, or if they spent one minute bothering to “resent” the kid in the next town who got in. We explicitly told them that the fact that they had put forth applications that were worthy of schools at that level showed that they had the goods to be successful, regardless of whether or not they got in. Contrast that with the parents who are teaching their kids to a) notice the stats of the kid across town and b) resent that kid for taking their birthright. Sorry, that is the province of losers, I don’t care if that’s “offensive.”</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>No, it is not “rational” to think like this. The “rational” reaction to meeting another student in your class / dorm is to say, “Hi! Nice to meet you! Where are you from?”
Not to pretend that you are the reviewing adcom who REALLY knows whether or not they are qualified.</p>
<p>Do you seriously spend one minute’s worth of time evaluating the “worthiness” of fellow students on your campus? Well, that’s a sure way to be alone on a Saturday night.</p>
<p>“No, it is not “rational” to think like this. The “rational” reaction to meeting another student in your class / dorm is to say, “Hi! Nice to meet you! Where are you from?””</p>
<p>There is a difference between who you want to hang out with and who you want as your study partner. Your approach is fine for the former but not for the latter. AA hurts those who earned their spot.</p>
<p>Oh, so do you ask for your study partner’s high school transcript, SAT scores and a list of EC’s – as well as his income level, essay, and teacher recs - before you deign to study with him? It’d be so much easier if everyone just wore their SAT scores on their foreheads, amirite?</p>
<p>And what do you do afterwards if you find out, for example, that he was a legacy (you wouldn’t necessarily know that), or an athlete (ditto), or has a family history making him a URM but he doesn’t “look” it? That must change EVERYTHING.</p>
<p>What’s all this about the top 20 schools? Why wouldn’t you be thrilled to get into a top 30, or a top 40 school.</p>
<p>Exactly. You should be thrilled to get into a top 30 or a top 40 school, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Find me ONE example of an AA admitted into HYPC who did not earn his/her spot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, let’s be serious.</p>
<p>To you, posting rational arguments are “not ethical”, “not decent”, “crying for not being admitted”, etc. </p>
<p>The fact that AA does create the unintended consequence of stigmatization is well documented. I am just explaining the rationale behind it. The better the information people have, the better decisions they can make.</p>
<p>But maybe you could start a Super PAC… The anti-probility-calculations PAC. From now one, none should have the right to calculate probabilities. Freedom of Speech? Yes, well, no, maybe… Just don’t say anything I don’t like. Freedom of Calculation: That for sure no! Math is evil.</p>
<p>Caltech is holistic.</p>
<p>Again, saying probability…the person was admitted based on racial preferences and again I will say, qualified, prepared kids. I said I see apps and there are posters here who have interviewed.</p>
<p>Forgive the wording here, but I m having touble with the vast assumptions (ie, guesses.) Are you saying, since there “can” be a miplaced stigma, owing to an assumption not supported by evidence, minorities should not aspire to competitive colleges?</p>
<p>AA hurts those who earned their spot.
No, friends, prejudice hurts all.</p>
<p>"I for one appreciate Philovitists statements, even if I don’t agree with them all the time. Let’s start with why URMs are URMs in the first place? In other words, given equal socioeconomic status, why do some groups out-achieve others? I think that a good part of that reason is culture.</p>
<p>Improving the lot of the URMs is a noble goal. It also has tremendous benefits for society as a whole.</p>
<p>I just believe that the solution to helping URMs must begin much earlier (starting with preschool and throughout high school). It is a dis-service to everyone when trying to fix the inequality at the college level by introducing another inequality." </p>
<p>Hebegebe! We agree! I was nodding my head in complete agreement with you (until I reached the very end, but let’s leave that for now). I could not agree more emphatically though that fixing American education, both academically and nonacademically, at earlier points is key. My cousin works in an inner city elementary school and is an extremely positive force with kids whose parents work two and three jobs and have neither the time nor knowledge of how to help their children’s achievement. Not only don’t these kids get the enrichment that other middle and upper class American kids do, but they don’t get the encouragement either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly the issue. Because it is very difficult/costly for people to reveal they inner qualifications, observers use signals (such as your degree, school you attended, etc.) to make an assessment of the qualifications of the person. When schools admit people based on other non-academic criteria, the signal-to-noise ratio is weakend, and the observer cannot be sure if the credential you exibit truly represents your qualifications.</p>
<p>Schools greatly care about their retention and graduation rates, thus they are not going to admit anybody that they feel can’t handle the work. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, just wow! Stereotyping much?</p>
<p>I agree with Pizzagirl that it is not rational to wonder about other students’ stats and entrance qualifications. It is small-minded, is what it is. </p>
<p>Also, if you are a smart person (as smart as some people on this thread seem to think their kids or they are), you ought to be able to evaluate the fitness of a study partner without subjecting that person to a credentials review. COME ON! </p>
<p>And I’ve got news for anyone who thinks he or she is too smart to have anything to learn from someone who comes to the table with less of the qualifications you think make you so special: You are not that smart. Really, you’re not. I don’t care what the College Board told you.</p>