<p>
</p>
<p>Well, just as higher math / science flummox some people, apparently fitting in with peers socially and having normal social relations flummoxes others. That’s why they need a “strategy.” Too bad that no psychologist helping a lonely person become less lonely would recommend “go ask your fellow students for their SAT’s” as a way of making friends, LOL.</p>
<p>That makes sense to me, hebejebe. I happen to like smart people. I am one. I married one. I bore one. I’ve dated plenty. I now live with one who is much smarter than I’ve ever been (and I totally dig that). Do you really think that the presence of some people on campus who didn’t break a certain SAT threshold would confound someone’s efforts to find a suitable study or any other kind of partner? I expect most people have enough common sense to go with their brains to accomplish such basic social tasks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no, they won’t, philovitist. You’re dealing with a handful of people here who clearly have some kind of social awkwardness. Maybe they’re not neurotypical. Go apply to your schools of choice, best of luck to you, and enjoy. The kind of people who would look at you and think, “Oh, he’s black, maybe he’s not as smart, he must not really belong here” aren’t worth knowing in any sense.</p>
<p>Who is this mythical poster that asked his/her study partners their SAT scores? This has taken on a life of its own.</p>
<p>Phil, clearly you ARE smart, a thinking kid. That’s worth it’s weight in gold.</p>
<p>“People are going to look at me and think that I am therefore relatively stupid. Because the average SAT score for blacks admitted to my school is lower than it is for whites and asians.”</p>
<p>There is not a single person on this board who does not appreciate your intelligence, and your strength. You will do well wherever you go.</p>
<p>What’s a lot more likely than asking about SAT scores (which I believe Beliavsky would do, after ascertaining racial heritage first if it wasn’t obvious) is that a student would “stalk” a prospective friend/GF/BF/study partner on Facebook and see if the person seemed as interesting as the first impression had led them to believe.</p>
<p>In any event, no matter how book-smart (or SAT-smart) some people here might be, emotional intelligence seems to be in short supply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the record, Philovitist, most of my friends that would qualify in the “smart group” (programmers, kids who run businesses, research, writers, artists etc.) would know better than to a) judge people solely on the average SAT score for their racial group and b) use an SAT score to determine how smart someone is. </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure most of us judge intelligence after conversing with a person or (if you don’t know a person well) by their accomplishments. And I’m pretty sure we’re not the minority either! :)</p>
<p>Well, I have been trying very hard to stay away from getting too involved (well, I did posted a few short messages earlier), but …</p>
<p>After being educated at HYP, I have been a STEM faculty (currently tenured full prof) at several universities, from HYP to very good ones (probably “top-tier” enough for some CCers but not for some others). Anyway, I think that I can provide some “insight” that might be missing from this discussion. I want to make it clear that some of my perspectives more closely relate to graduate students, particularly on admission matter since undergrad admission is handled by admission office but not by faculty/department. </p>
<p>I also hope that the discussion can be conducted in a civilized manner. We do not have to agree with each other, but we should treat each other with respect. Personal attacks of any kinds should not have a place in this “Parent Forum” 
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I am supportive of affirmative action (race, gender, SES, athletic/music/artistic/… abilities, etc, but not legacy) and holistic college admission. While academic ability should be, and is, the most important mission for a university, I embrace the ideal that universities should shoulder additional social responsibilities to make us a better people. “Top” universities (or any universities) do not exist to only produce scientists, engineers, teachers, bankers, artists, politicians, doctors, lawyers for certain race(s), they exist to “educate” scientists, engineers, teachers, bankers, artists, politicians, doctors, lawyers to serve all segments of the society and to promote the general welfare of all of us. Holistic admission makes sure that we do take many non-academic factors into account to fulfill our broader mission.</p></li>
<li><p>While SAT/AP/HS GPAs are important indicators for college performance, in my opinion and experience anyway, they DO NOT determine the college experience and performance for a given student, not deterministically at least. If the accepted students have surpassed certain thresholds (we may have different views on what they should be), which in my opinion all of them have done so in my careers, these eighteen-year old can and have a lot to grow in college and grad school. It is the responsibility of the university/faculty to nurture every student to maximize his/her potential. I have seen students of all races/genders/… growing into capable excellent adults from different starting points.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>For example, one of my former doctoral student X was brought up in housing project, with no extended family members having ever graduated from high school. And to be honest, in terms of raw, measurable “ability” (GRE, GPA, quickness to understand problems, etc), X was among the least capable of my 20+ students. He was accepted into my lab because I saw the passion, desire, determination, and perseverance in him, and because of my “soft spot” for people who have to overcome extra obstacles in life. Oh boy, wasn’t he a great student for 7 years and isn’t he a great scientist now! Three years ago, upon graduation, he was offered a permanent position in a most prestigious research lab in Europe to co-lead a ~$26M/year EU project. Today, he is invited to speak all around the world about his works.</p>
<p>This personal story is not intended to show off a great former student. It is to illustrate that, at least some times, it is a rewarding thing to give people a chance. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I do believe that “top” universities offer certain advantages over “lesser” ones, however “top” or “lesser” are defined. Such advantages are often intangibles such as networking, confidence (or arrogance :)), opportunities to meet scientific/literary/… giants. For this reason, I particularly support AA practice among the nation’s most elite institutions.</p></li>
<li><p>I do not believe that STEM disciplines are any more special than other fields. From the Duke study, African Americans are more likely to switch from STEM to other majors. So what! People can and should choose the best possible path for their interests and careers.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Sorry for the somewhat incoherent jot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hat off to the professor. We need more educators like you, from college down to K. By the way, did HYP make you you? If so, I want to send my kids there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my experience, those students with perfect test scores put in much less time into test prep and completing homework than their peers. It’s ridiculous to argue that such students are less inclined to get involved in ECs, since they generally have more net time available after their required academic tasks.</p>
<p>I’m inclined to believe that the 2250-2350 scorers who repeatedly re-take these tests are the ones adcoms should be wary of admitting.</p>
<p>Yeah, you really gotta watch out for those 2350 scorers … out there diluting the pool of intelligent people. /sarcasm/</p>
<p>I will go this far with you … intelligent persons tend to score higher on standardized tests. But I also have a challenge: Would you offer a guaranteed lifetime job to a 17 year-old with a good SAT score?</p>
<p>“Hat off to the professor. We need more educators like you, from college down to K. By the way, did HYP make you you? If so, I want to send my kids there.”</p>
<p>Thanks, Lake. We all do our parts to be better individually and collectively. </p>
<p>I do want to admit that my experience at HYP made me who I am today, in addition to my upbringing by two academics :). The most significant event in shaping my world view, however, was my experience in college interacting/tutoring/helping a 2nd grader from the housing project. I owe my “life” to this experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One can argue that consideration of where a person started and what hurdles s/he had to jump to get to where s/he is now is of significant importance in finding actual ability / motivation / merit. I.e. the common analogy of scoring a run after being born on third base versus having to hit a triple first.</p>
<p>However, it does appear that most people, both the pro and the con in this debate, seem to see any sort of beneficial consideration other than the usual academic stats as something that is not really about actual ability / motivation / merit, but about institutional goals and fairness / unfairness that may be seen as counter to the idea of finding the best ability / motivation / merit.</p>
<p>But then looking for merit among those who had extra hurdles may require another level of holistic review, beyond just looking at a check box to the race or ethnicity question (e.g. how high were the extra hurdles in each individual case, and such extra hurdles may have been placed in front of people of any race, even though URMs find them more often).</p>
<p>"In my experience, those students with perfect test scores put in much less time into test prep and completing homework than their peers. "</p>
<p>My experience has been the same. The smartest person I have ever known made his 4.0 look easy, and he had time to be president of two clubs, and was the life of the party. He could down far more beer than I ever could, and be fully functional the next day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, if it was my child. ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, maturity and a willingness to work hard and meet deadlines is more important than raw potential alone. Nevertheless, having that and high intellectual ability would be the best combination.</p>
<p>And, again, it’s not the 2350 scorers per se, it’s the 2350 scorers who continue to obsess about the test rather than move on to more productive uses of their time.</p>
<p>Great point re not all URMs are created equal (Hotchkiss/Andover/Sidwell Friends URMs vs those from mediocre school districts). I know there is a debate in academic circles about gearing AA for URMs more toward individual circumstances and also expanding it to low income generally, but not sure if this has been done at any top universities as a matter of institutional policy (although I suspect some admissions officers do this as part of the holistic review).</p>
<p>I know that MIT’s institutional research showed that women with lower SAT scores got the same grades at MIT as men who scored higher. This was given as a reason why it was not “unfair” that women with lower scores were admitted at a higher rate then men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you would see a bias toward poorer URMs if it weren’t for the strainthat this would place on endowments.</p>
<p>"… it’s the 2350 scorers who continue to obsess about the test rather than move on to more productive uses of their time."</p>
<p>My brain must be Hurricane-addled … I missed your point. Sorry. You’re absolutely right.</p>