<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>Agree that with or w/o AA, colleges need to make sure URMs (and all other students) who attend have the resources and mentoring to meet the work load. AA does not do any good for the child that drops out. The post-admission support is where I think many colleges practicing AA fall down.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, having said that, is there any data re drop out rates among AA candidates being substantially more than their non-URM counterparts at elite schools? The Sanders study of elite law schools showed just a 5% drop out rate even though the author opposes AA. </p>
<p>Also, “primary” is a slippery word because it implies some level of discretion for the AOs and most on this post agree there is nothing wrong with legacy, sports admits, student from South Dakota etc. So, why is AA dfferent if colleges beleive there is an educational premium for all students with diversity?</p>
<p>Re the football team analogy, isn’t the better analogy in favor of AA, i.e., that a football team needs a diverse group of players with different skills so that the team as a whole can perform better than the individual components. A football team with 20 great QB’s would not be any good without a few linemen etc.</p>
<p>^It’s a good example of how a quote can morph in a public discussion, take on its own life, maybe be seen by some as more meaningful than it is, on balance. A word omitted, a comma forgotten. Same for studies often quoted.</p>
<p>This is clearly directed at me and my earlier comments on another thread about teaching my first son algebra at age 5 because he was both ready for it and eager to learn it. Pizzagirl, I have no idea why you need to repeatedly obsess about this on totally different threads. I have been honored with the opportunity to nurture two sons with extraordinary minds; why is it that no one would raise a peep if instead I had had the opportunity to nurture two world-class athletes?</p>
<p>For AP Calculus BC, the percent chance of getting a 4 or higher is 87.7, 79.3, and 65.5 for PSAT math scores in the ranges 76-80, 71-75, and 66-70. One multiplies by 10 to get equivalent SAT math score ranges. So someone scoring in the 760-800 range has a substantially higher chance of getting a 4 or higher than someone in the 660-700 range.</p>
<p>For Physics C E&M the percentages for the same PSAT score ranges are 79.4, 67.0, and 53.1 . For Chemistry they are 84.3, 72.2, and 56.3 . The patterns are the same as for calculus.</p>
<p>The AP exams are supposed to be scored so that they are comparable in difficulty to college courses, with scores 3 to 5 equivalent to letter grades C to A. If so, someone with a math SAT in the 760-800 range has a substantially higher chance of doing well in chemistry, physics, and calculus courses than someone scoring in the 660-700 range. Therefore I think a 700 is meaningfully lower than an 800.</p>
<p>Actually, LoremIpsum, I enjoy your posts a lot and I did not have you in mind. </p>
<p>And btw two talented minds are far more important than two talented athletes, IMO. You won’t find me in the “athletics are as important as academics” camp.</p>
<p>The expectancy tables are available for those exams as well, the only difference being that the PSAT composite score, not just the PSAT math score, is most predictive. Students with PSAT scores in the 231-240 range have a higher chance of getting a 4 or higher than those with scores in the 201-210 range.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, #1406, my life seems fairly convincingly real, to me anyway. In my life, yes it did matter that I was well-prepared to take beginning university-level math, physics, and chemistry, and then go on from there to higher-level courses. </p>
<p>In real life, do you make more than I do? Very probably, based on your past posts. Are you more successful? Quite possibly. Do you have better people skills? Well, maybe. Would Harvard have been better advised to admit you rather than to admit me? This is a purely hypothetical question, since I did not apply to Harvard, and you may not have either. But I would be happy if the answer is yes, anyway.</p>
<p>I do not have a STEM “fixation.” But I do work in a STEM field.</p>
<p>That’s not what I’m saying, though. I’m saying - in the real world, on an everyday basis, is there a notable differerence in the people that you interact with, such that you’d classify the 800’s over here, the 750’s over there, and the 700’s over there? Because it just seems that there is so much more to “smarts” and success in one’s field (however one measures that success - influence, money, satisfaction, enjoyment). I work with tons of bright people - both coworkers and clients. There are some who I think are just brilliant in my particular field. I really don’t think it’s got much to do with SAT scores and there is only loose correlation between their brilliance and their ability to do standardized testing. (Or for that matter, what college they attended. I spent all of today with a colleague who attended U of Illinois in what you’d all term a “soft” major and she is superbly thoughtful and insightful in the task we were doing. I probably kicked her butt on SAT’s because that’s how I personally roll, but now what? Doesn’t mean I’m unequivocally more brilliant or anything.)</p>
I’m not sure which page of this megathread it was on, but I think you are supposed to characterize their pigmentation and then use Bayesian statistics. ;)</p>
<p>Actually, it occurred to me that I did know one set of SAT scores of a contemporary of mine: my spouse. When you add our SAT V+M and GRE V+M, the total is essentially identical. Luckily, I did not know the meaning of the word “febrile” when I was taking the GRE. Otherwise, we might have had to call the whole thing off. :)</p>
<p>“I’m not sure which page of this megathread it was on, but I think you are supposed to characterize their pigmentation and then use Bayesian statistics.”</p>