<p>@poetgrl,
</p>
<p>Yes, I fully agree that education is the cure. And I think it is imperative for the URM community to graduate more students. </p>
<p>I just take issue with the idea that some posters are claiming: you won’t die if you don’t get into fill-in-the-blank-school. Why will these posters not apply the same idea to EVERYONE regardless of their race, that they won’t die if they don’t get into fill-in-the-blank-school. </p>
<p>Let’s have some consistency of logic here.</p>
<p>I just wanted to say thank you for your compliments, guys. I have this habit of recoiling when people do that. :S</p>
<p>Lorem: Brazil does NOT count as Hispanic…at least in most cases.</p>
<p>@LoremIpsum,</p>
<p>Some posters earlier pointed out the it is possible to get fee waivers to take the test more than once, so apparently poor kids have the opportunity to superscore too.</p>
<p>Agree re K-12 improvement and think in some cases vouchers can help. But vouchers are no panacea as (1) some parents have informational barriers to making the most out of them, (2) the best schools tend to be over admitted relegating other students to lesser public schools that have now thanks to vouchers lost their core of solid students, and (3) vouchers tent to promote charter schools, which are of wildly uneven quality (and sometimes frequented by scam artists).</p>
<p>Good luck, Philovitist! I can’t wait to hear where you have been accepted this spring. :-)</p>
<p>Is anyone aware of any statistics re the average number of SAT tests taken per students broken down by income levels or race? My guess would be due to informational barriers caused by poor guidance counselors there would be a strong correlation between income levels and number of SATs taken. But even assuming the same number of tests taken, the super score opportunity is hardly the same given differences in tutoring and other preparation opportunities based on income levels.</p>
<p>@muckdogs,
Just because vouchers are not a complete solution, can people at least have an honest look whether any of the kinks can worked out? Because doing nothing but the status quo isn’t helping the kids.</p>
<p>If charter schools are uneven in quality, then should we get rid of the good ones along w the bad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rich will always have more resources and more opportunities. But if poor Asian immigrant kids w parents who can’t even speak English can study on their own for the SAT and perform well, then I refuse to believe that poor URM kids aren’t also capable of doing the same.</p>
<p>If the URM community is aware of informational barriers, then those in the know should be shouting from the rooftops in these poor neighborhoods to inform the kids.</p>
<p>Interesting editorial by an Asian college student on this subject.</p>
<p>[Annu</a> Subramanian: Race above all? – The GW Hatchet](<a href=“http://www.gwhatchet.com/2012/10/15/annu-subramanian-race-above-all/]Annu”>http://www.gwhatchet.com/2012/10/15/annu-subramanian-race-above-all/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I was the first one to point this out. However, there is a limit of 2 fee waivers for each test, and someone else pointed out that transport to a testing site might be difficult for families without stay-at-home soccer moms who do this sort of thing routinely. From a standpoint of standardization, comparing students who took the test once or twice to others who took the test 5 or more times is not statistically valid. </p>
<p>I won’t argue the matter of test prep – a properly motivated student can learn as much from an old test prep book found for a buck at a book sale as a less-motivated one can learn from a $1000 prep course. But why not just take the best single score? Superscoring really only benefits the test companies (who make more money) and the colleges (who get to report inflated scores); the students waste a lot of time and money in what essentially becomes an arms race – they have to retake to remain competitive with their socio-economic peers who have already chosen to pursue that strategy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is complete consistency in the logic on this thread. You don’t see it, because you are too busy proving a point to actually listen. I, actually, took each point, researched it, brought forth a position on it, and discarded it. You just keep going round in circles. So, listen very closely:</p>
<p>The reason it matters that URMs are in these schools, aside from the obvious reasons of the United States of America being a diverse culture (which should be enough, and which the schools, in fact, believe IS enough), is because nobody benefits more from an elite school education than URMs.</p>
<p>[Revisiting</a> the Value of Elite Colleges - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/]Revisiting”>Revisiting the Value of Elite Colleges - The New York Times)</p>
<p>from the article, from which you can also access the academic study:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody knows why, but only URMs benefit from attending elite schools. Other students do just fine and end up exactly where they would have ended up if they’d gone the top school that rejected them. </p>
<p>It’s very logical. It is also, since it was in one of my very first posts, very consistent.</p>
<p>You might not like the conclusions, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.</p>
<p>That’s an awesome finding, poet.</p>
<p>“My advice to elite colleges: Recognize that the most disadvantaged students benefit most from your instruction. Set financial aid and admission policies accordingly.”</p>
<p>Indeed. Except financial should always be need based.</p>
<p>sseamom: Yep, your daughter must’ve taken that spot from my Asian daughter! Lol. But my daughter, who was adopted and has “brain damage” wouldn’t really qualify. So, wow…people sure make some assumptions when they see her, too (though quite the opposite of what you’re talking about, of course)!
“AA” is not limited to the color of one’s skin, folks! Women at the military academies, while just as qualified as men, have historically been accused of “stealing” spots that “should’ve” been filled with men…even when they have higher class ranks and the like. Oh, and race/ethnicity isn’t seen as an AA “thing.”
So there’s always another way to consider this. Women, do you feel you should be denied admittance to your school of choice b/c of your gender…and the “fact” that you “should” (instead) be home, barefoot, & pregnant? Same difference, if you want to get down to it…</p>
<p>Each time someone makes an assumption based on race, one is exhibiting prejudice. Simple definition: a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea.</p>
<p>This includes assuming college kids of certain races (or races and SES,) are ill-prepared, had only lousy high school experiences, cannot compete with kids who experienced better, and/or are doomed to fail. The problem with prejudice is it limits your thinking, rests on your personal slant or anecdotal experiences, and allows you to predict, based on your own narrow certainty. </p>
<p>People who are so enmeshed in their views that certain groups cannot compete successfully, will find documentation to prove their point. Unfortunately. </p>
<p>Someone will twist this around, to prove his/her point. But, the so-called stigma does not come from AA, from a law that says opportunity should be spread equally. It comes from other people. </p>
<p>I’ve said before: beware that you do’t fall into, “I think it, so it must be true.” Before making pronouncements, before letting your fingers skip across the web to find the applicable proofs, can some of you please examine your pre-conceived notions?</p>
<p>I get that they are just kids, but I can’t resist. What does this mean? </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1409676-bragging-about-not-studying.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1409676-bragging-about-not-studying.html</a></p>
<p>Wow, why did that show up at 4:56 PM ?</p>
<p>GMTplus7,</p>
<p>Because of the disparate opportunities that favor the rich as you recognize, would you agree that it is not always obvious which student has the most potential notwithstanding test scores (ie 2200 super score after 3 tests with tutoring v 1900 after one test w/o tutoring)? </p>
<p>Even putting potential aside, most colleges believe there is educational value in presenting diverse view points in the class room, which is why in addition to URM preferences colleges seek geographically diverse students and int’l students. Do you agree that there is educational value in this? </p>
<p>On tutoring, in my view getting a good tutor is way more beneficial than studying from a book and that is why wealthy parents pay premium dollars for the very best tutors (and get another one if the first does not work out). </p>
<p>But even assuming this is not the case, doesn’t your point admit that the college board tests do not measure potential or IQ? If these tests really measured those things wouldn’t it would be very unusual for a student to improve significantly in just a few months after more studying. Yet, this happens all the time even though what has changed is not potential but information about the test. </p>
<p>As for charters/vouchers, I have no problem with either of them and in some cases think they are needed as alternatives to horrible school systems. But charters are lightly regulated and no panacea as it is often difficult to tell the good ones from the bad until a student is well along in the school. </p>
<p>Finally, as for the “model minority” asians - it is true that some asians overcome humongous barriers and do well (just like some URMs do, but not at nearly same percentages). But just because some asians have been able to do does that mean we should hold all URMs (or whites for that matter) to the same standard and if we did would we lose the educational benefits of diversity (as well as a terrific means of mobility)? Also, do we really want all universities to follow the CA model (no preferences) and enroll classes 95% white, indian, and asian. Or do we really want to resort to gimmicks like the Texas 10% rule, which at times allows thoroughly unprepared students into Texas publics that then have little follow-up programs to assist them and excludes some of the most academically qualified URMs who attend good schools and just miss the 10% threshold?</p>
<p>@poetgrl,
Thanks for sharing that link re the Dale and Krueger paper. It’s making me rethink some of my assumptions. Interesting to note too that the paper also mentions the benefit to “low-income students and students whose parents did not graduate from college”.</p>
<p>I have always my kid to not get hung up on HYPS, because once you start working no one really cares where you went to college.</p>
<p>That study also says loads about the complaints about “mismatching” — that AA hurts those who are admitted through it is a load of melarchy.</p>
<p>I hope things like these are being brought up by UTexas.</p>