<p>"A middle class urm family does not stress education to the extent an asian low income class family does. "</p>
<p>Everyone on this thread knows that I am a devout supporter of affirmative action in holistic college admission, where race, gender, SES, athletic/art/music ability, …, is a factor in evaluating an applicant. This will enhance the academic and social missions of the universities, and benefits society as a whole.</p>
<p>However, the above message really bothers me. On one hand, I believe and hope that it is not generally true. On the other hand, if it is true, then it really saddens me for many reasons.</p>
<p>“Apparently hagwons are very much a part of the asian culture and they think nothing of plunking down $5,000 in order to get the best scores possible…”</p>
<p>Everyone on this thread also knows that I object to any shape and form of prejudice against any group of people, let it be African Americans or Asian Americans. Affirmative action is not, or at least should not be, used to curb the enrollment of any racial/ethnic group, even if some groups are “over-represented” such as Asians and Jews. It is, or at least should be, continually to be used to create a rich and diverse environment from complementary strengths to enrich the academic and broader experiences of every student.</p>
<p>Why can’t we embrace and appreciate the differences brought by different groups of people such that, together, we can build a better future for all of us?</p>
<p>Isn’t “mismatch” just another word for “bad fit”? Some high-scoring kids would not do well in an intellectual, “life-of-the-mind” environment (Columbia, University of Chicago, Swarthmore, etc.). They might have limited social skills and a narrow range of interests and thus not be seen by adcoms as people who would contribute much to the cultural fabric of the campus. Some of these kids might do better in a high-level tech program, either at an MIT or CalTech or Georgia Tech, or within, say, the engineering department of a state flagship. Of course, diversity-seeking colleges will want some of these kids just as they want students with a variety of SES and racial backgrounds. The point is, just because your kid might look perfect “on paper” for Harvard, doesn’t mean Harvard wants your kid–as has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and others.</p>
<p>This is one reason AA is important, different cultures prioritize differently. It allows different cultures to see a different point of view. This is not to say one way of prioritizing is better than another, it is just different. Why are you saddened by that statement. For me education is important but children and teens need not be obessessed with scoring a 2400 on the SAT. Placing an inordinate amount of stress on a student is not healthy, my opinion. Remember life is short, you have to enjoy your time here. </p>
<p>Collegalum314,</p>
<p>Your comment has nothing to do with my post concerning SAT/ACT scores and mismatch. I agree mismatch occurs for a multitude of reasons not one single factor.</p>
<p>No, mismatch means that a student is not academically prepared for a university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you’ve pretty much characterized why people don’t value the academic stars. However, I’ve never seen people go so far to say they weren’t a good fit for “life of the mind” universities. That’s a new one. So Caltech/MIT kids are, by and large, not intellectual, and not equipped to be in an intellectual environment such as University of Chicago, and ivy, or a high-end LAC. Or perhaps they are a fish out of water. Because they spend all their time learning how to fill in bubbles well. They can plug-and-chug through some very complicated equations, but are pretty lost when they are asked to do critical thinking. I guess math/science people aren’t that great at abstract thinking. </p>
<p>I think this is really bizarre, but perhaps you understand this better than I do.</p>
<p>“This is one reason AA is important, different cultures prioritize differently. It allows different cultures to see a different point of view. This is not to say one way of prioritizing is better than another, it is just different. Why are you saddened by that statement. For me education is important but children and teens need not be obessessed with scoring a 2400 on the SAT. Placing an inordinate amount of stress on a student is not healthy, my opinion. Remember life is short, you have to enjoy your time here.”</p>
<p>SAT is a tiny aspect of “education”, if we can call that at all. As an educator, I am NOT interested in seeing ANY students spending ANY real time on SAT preparation, other than several mock tests on the Blue Book to get familiar with the test format. </p>
<p>What saddens me is that, apparently, you do not think EDUCATION itself, not just the standardized tests, is or should be a priority (I am not say THE priority) for (some) URMs. If that is the case, then why are you arguing for AA such that URMs can attend elite universities to receive a (perceived) better education? In my biased view, receiving a good education itself is part of enjoying life, probably among the best parts.</p>
<p>Absolute generalization here - picked up from readings done years ago - so don’t ask for citations! I do remember though reading that many Asian cultures come in with an attitude that with hard work you can learn anything while traditional American culture tends to see people as having innate talent. So we will let people get away with saying “I’m no good at math.” While an Asian parents will send the kid off to Kumon instead. I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in between. In addition, I think many Asian families think that test scores are more important than they really are, so their kids study for tests like the SAT more than the rest of us. And I think they’ve proved it’s a test that can be studied for. It makes me sad that so many students have been fooled into thinking that small differences (or even medium differences) in test scores prove much of anything about one’s worthiness to attend certain colleges. I admire a culture that values education, but I wish they’d see beyond the SAT.</p>
<p>My kid with narrow interests was considered of interest by both Harvard and CMU, but he did decide he’d be happier and better served by CMU. I spent much of his childhood trying to make him more well-rounded.</p>
<p>Look, if you have a mediocre score on the SAT, it’s unlikely you are winning academic awards. And it’s unlikely you did well in a rigorous curriculum. </p>
<p>I don’t know why people keep reducing my and others’ posts to an obsession with the SAT.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the math. If you score a 700, it means you have some trouble with the Pythagorean theorem or answering such questions as “Which number is bigger, x or x^2?”</p>
<p>I didn’t say “by and large,” I said “some.” My point is that being able to comprehend math at a very high level, and other subjects well enough to score exceedingly well on standardized tests, does not mean a person is well-rounded intellectually. In some cases they do; in others they don’t.</p>
<p>No it isn’t. Those are the types of questions on that test. Many people would answer x^2 is bigger than X, but it would be obvious to anyone decent at math that that is only when x > 1.</p>
<p>Disagree with your position re innate ability (will read Jensen though), but respect you for at least not sugar coating it. If that is the case, then isn’t shrinkwrap right that the bigger achievement comes from the URM who has overcome both the societal and as you say genetic disadvantages, as opposed to the asian or white who does great but with superior societal and genetic opportunities? Also, give that most of us use just a small percent of our brain power doesn’t that further the case for AA as everyone regardless of innate ability has plenty of brainpower it just has to get tapped.</p>
<p>College football coaches care about how well potential recruits will play on their team, not
to what extent the recruits’ football skills are the result of talent or hard work. Similarly, the primary consideration in college admissions should be choosing the students who are most able to do the work, even if they did nothing to earn the high IQs that helped them get high SAT scores.</p>
<p>Where did I say education is not important? Please highlight and post for me. </p>
<p>^This bears repeating. </p>
<p>I said it is not the NUMBER ONE priority in life.</p>
<p>As for AA and diversity…</p>
<p>The educational environment is enhanced for all. Different backgrounds and varying SES bring different perspectives to a discussion. This is seen by this very thread.</p>
<p>“Similarly, the primary consideration in college admissions should be choosing the students who are most able to do the work, even if they did nothing to earn the high IQs that helped them get high SAT scores.”</p>
<p>Should be? Who says? You? Obviously elite universities disagree, else they’d simply rack and stack test scores. They want an interesting mix of people who can do the work well. And it’s interesting that you equate SAT performance with “doing the work.” SATs are about finding the right answer out of 4 options, and there is one correct one already determined. “The work” of a university encompasses much, much more than coming up with the predetermined correct answer. “The work” of a university involves publishing the paper, putting on a theater program, organizing groups of students for common causes, the arts, etc. it’s like some of you people actually believe math and science are all there is - which I know you can’t really believe.</p>