"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
2001

@OHMomof2, I admire your tireless argument against bias and steadfast blindness to reality. I am exhausted just reading through this discussion. Please continue to fight the good fight for us all.

As to @SAY and @IQTrumpsEffort, their baseless opinions based on anecdotal accounts and stories of admission to elite institutions has no value in the real world of on campus and career success. We know that’s what matters, as do the universities admitting students of diversity. It’s not a contest of highest test scores, and THAT is irrefutable.

2002

Why does affirmative action still exist? Needs to be terminated. Hopefully 2016 election will accomplish that

2003

@Ali1302

Jesus, you and OHMomOf2 just make this so easy for me.

We are not talking about some mediocre state university. We are talking about elite colleges, so looking at the mean scores is absolutely pointless. Men dominate women in the highest intellectual areas. There are A LOT more males than females scoring in the 700+ range (Nearly 2x in the math section) from the data you linked me.

For people who scored in the 700-800 range, there were 74,461 males and 46,040 females. The proportion would shift far more in the favor of males if you looked only at 750+ scores, since that is where elite colleges would want their candidates.

Men may apply less to colleges in general, but they have far more quality candidates.

@OHMomof2

Do realize you just proved my point? Males lead acceptance stats by mere few percents in almost all the colleges you listed. Also, your stats don’t really prove males have an advantage. There are far more quality male candidates than there are female. Females also apply to colleges a lot more than males do.
All else considered, the men accepted to those colleges probably had better average stats than the females did.
I still fail to see how men having more representation in the higher IQ range is equivalent to the privilege of URM and women being accepted to top STEM schools with much lower stats than the average.

Again, check your privilege.

2004

@deeznuts “Why does affirmative action still exist?”

Mainly because of disparities among people of different races. URMs have much lower mean income, wealth, are more likely to be highschool dropouts,more likely to be incarcerated than get into college etc…

These disparities cause URMs to have lower test scores and gpa. Since minorities are socioeconomically the most disadvantaged they get a natural boost in admission. Also universities want diverse student bodies where students come from all backgrounds as opposed to schools that are 100% white and Asian. Even universities with no affirmative action try to encourage URMs to apply and reach out to highschools to improve diversity.

Finally, since there are so many subjective factors on college applications(extracurriculars, essay etc…) it’s tough to measure the impact of affirmative action on admission but I suspect it is much less of a factor than many think.

2005

@picktails

The issue isn’t about just test scores, but that’s certainly the narrative the pro-Affirmative Action people want to push.
Asian applicants, on average, are just head and shoulders above everyone else. Whether it’s in GPA/class rigor, test scores, EC activities, accomplishments, and essays, Asian candidates are flat-out superior to other candidates.
Duke did a study on this. When they blocked out the applicants name and race, all the admissions agents rated Asians higher than all the other applicants in every single category.
Considering the evidence, it’s obvious race comes into play in admissions.

Again, I do not care about Affirmative Action; I actually support it to limit Asians from overflooding colleges, but do not lie about who benefits massively from it (Saying accepted URMs have similar test scores to whites and Asians is blatant lying).
Lying about the issue isn’t going to help us achieve a constructive debate, unless you Liberals enjoy arguing over fake facts and delusional wishes.

2006

@Ali1302

“Mainly because of disparities among people of different races. URMs have much lower mean income, wealth, are more likely to be highschool dropouts,more likely to be incarcerated than get into college etc…”

I agree that URMs have much lower income, wealth, etc. but once again, you are incorrectly conflating cause with effect.
Have you considered the possibility that lower IQs cause lower income and not the other way around? Twin adoption studies and econometric modeling of SAT scores including IQ don’t support your case.

“These disparities cause URMs to have lower test scores and gpa. Since minorities are socioeconomically the most disadvantaged they get a natural boost in admission. Also universities want diverse student bodies where students come from all backgrounds as opposed to schools that are 100% white and Asian. Even universities with no affirmative action try to encourage URMs to apply and reach out to highschools to improve diversity.”

So how do poor Asians get such high test scores, GPAs and good EC activities?
If what you say is true that the environment shapes IQ, shouldn’t it be the URM’s job to make it on their own? Why do you play beggar thy neighbor? Why are we rewarding lazy parenting?
Also, I fail to see how being poor is an excuse for bad grades. Tons of Asians don’t try at all and still get high test scores and good GPAs.

“Finally, since there are so many subjective factors on college applications(extracurriculars, essay etc…) it’s tough to measure the impact of affirmative action on admission but I suspect it is much less of a factor than many think.”

Duke would like a word with you. If affirmative action didn’t affect admissions that much, then universities would do away with them. It’s because elite colleges can’t get the racial composition even through holistic admissions that they have affirmative action. Actually, a race-blind holistic process makes it even WORSE for URMs, since they would fall behind in both GPA/test scores & accomplishments & EC activities. Your belief that all races are equal in the admissions process is wishful thinking.

Also, your subtle snide that Asians are only good test-takers is factually incorrect. Asians not only dominate test scores, they dominate in the subjective areas as well. The Asian rise in the HOLISTIC UC system after doing away with affirmative action disproves your BS theory.

Again, I ask you and all your Affirmative Action friends in this thread to STOP LYING. You are free to support affirmative action; your position isn’t why I’m attacking you - it’s your lies and twisted logic that I am attacking.
If all of you just said that you don’t like Asians and want to get into top colleges with worse credentials, that would be perfectly fine, because then you’re being honest. Saying URMs are good at non-academic things is delusional nonsense that’s not supported by Duke’s study or by what happened to the holistic UC system after removing race-based admissions. Again, I ask that all of you stop lying.

2007

@IQTrumpsEffort I’d like to remind you of your previous statements before responding

“Don’t dare try to claim my Asian ethnicity is causing my emotions to guide my beliefs. I say this as humbly as possible: I am one of the most unbiased people in the world. What I say and what I believe in are guided by my understanding of facts, even if they may oppose my interests.”

“Likewise for this topic, I am criticizing the pro-affirmative action arguments because they lack solid evidence, not because I have an emotional or financial stake in the argument”

Now, I present you with you current comments:

“Asian applicants, on average, are just head and shoulders above everyone else. Whether it’s in GPA/class rigor, test scores, EC activities, accomplishments, and essays, Asian candidates are flat-out superior to other candidates.”

“Tons of Asians don’t try at all and still get high test scores and good GPAs.”

“The Asian rise in the HOLISTIC UC system after doing away with affirmative action disproves your BS theory.”

I would say it would be tough for you to argue that you have no emotional stake in this won’t you? Anyway, What’s the point in arguing with you when you discount all of my studies and evidence on this topic while promote your the studies that you agree with. You also keep referring to my theories as BS even when I present evidence backing them up.

I would first like to address what you say about URMs lacking extracurricular activities or falling short in this department. First of all extracurriculars are related to socioeconomic factors. The high school you go to effects the opportunities your presented with to take part in extracurriculars. High schools with less resources have less opportunities for EC’s. Therefore, colleges would take into account the highschool you go to and the opportunities available at specific schools. Also your comment on the fact that Asians dominate in extracurriculars clearly demonstrates your bias here and might I add emotional stake in the argument. The fact that you think you could rate such subjective factors is laughable, the fact that you ignore socioeconomic factors aswell is also laughable. Such statements are only hurting your credibility here.

I don’t want to get back to the UC argument as I think I’ve proven my point clearly on why Asians have an advantage which is due to test scores and gpa. Keep your false assumptions to yourself please especially when you lack credible evidence and especially when measuring subjective factors.

On your test score higher for males argument which is real BS. I present you with a fact. In the year 2015 their were 5,160 males scoring an 800 on sat reading and 4,746 females with the same score. So I guess women aren’t so behind as you think. OH wait you want the numbers that get between a 750-800 right? Well, I’ve got you covered. There are 15,849 males that score between a 750-800 on reading compared 14,546 women. This means that 47.85% of test takers that get a 750-800 on the reading section of the sat are in fact women while 52% are men. Don’t believe me, think I’m just a bloody good for nothing liar. Well, here’s an official link from the college board:

Source 1( critical reading score male and female 2015):
https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/sat-percentile-ranks-crit-reading-2015.pdf

If you want more embarrassing stats how about the writing section of the sat. There are 3,176 females that get an 800 compared to 2,716 males on the writing section of the sat. Moreover, 15,950 women score between a 750-800 on this section compared to 12,671 men. 56.8% of test takers that get between a 750-800 are women while only 45% are men. Don’t take my word for it another link:

Source 2(writing male and female 2015):
https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/sat-percentile-ranks-writing-2015.pdf

If you can’t access the previous links use this link then click on the percentile ranks to download the link:

Source 3( college board data tables):
http://research.collegeboard.org/content/sat-data-tables

May be I’m not lying and the fact is you can’t handle the truth!!! :)) :)>-

2008

@Ali1302

“I would say it would be tough for you to argue that you have no emotional stake in this won’t you? Anyway, What’s the point in arguing with you when you discount all of my studies and evidence on this topic while promote your the studies that you agree with. You also keep referring to my theories as BS even when I present evidence backing them up.”

You seem to have a problem with defending your assertions properly.
Just because someone has a PhD doesn’t mean his/her study is correct. The studies you link me all are biased due to omitted variable bias.
No offense, but someone who blindly appeals to authority isn’t very smart.

“I would first like to address what you say about URMs lacking extracurricular activities or falling short in this department. First of all extracurriculars are related to socioeconomic factors. The high school you go to effects the opportunities your presented with to take part in extracurriculars. High schools with less resources have less opportunities for EC’s. Therefore, colleges would take into account the highschool you go to and the opportunities available at specific schools. Also your comment on the fact that Asians dominate in extracurriculars clearly demonstrates your bias here and might I add emotional stake in the argument. The fact that you think you could rate such subjective factors is laughable, the fact that you ignore socioeconomic factors aswell is also laughable. Such statements are only hurting your credibility here.”

Asians do dominate in EC activities, which is why they always dominate race-blind holistic admissions and why URMs always suffer. Your belief that Asians don’t is wishful thinking.
Moreover, subjective factors can be easily ranked and compared as long as they are “different” enough. You just can’t give a very precise point-system like you would in objective factors like GPA or classrank, meaning that 2 very similar EC activities would be very difficult to differentiate like you would with test scores. A 2200 is definitely better than 2100, but someone volunteering in a hospital sounds the same as someone volunteering at a nursing home.
Likewise, someone winning a national competition is certainly better than someone who only volunteered for 50 or so hours. Each adcom may place different weights on these 2 activities/accomplishments, but it’s no question that all of them would prefer the former to the latter and would rank it higher than the second.

“I don’t want to get back to the UC argument as I think I’ve proven my point clearly on why Asians have an advantage which is due to test scores and gpa. Keep your false assumptions to yourself please especially when you lack credible evidence and especially when measuring subjective factors.”

Asians have an advantage in all categories, not just test scores and GPA. The hyper-Liberal adcoms at UC are trying so very desperately to find URMs using the holistic approach, but come up short. It’s actually proof that race plays a big role in admissions to elite colleges.

“On your test score higher for males argument which is real BS. I present you with a fact. In the year 2015 their were 5,160 males scoring an 800 on sat reading and 4,746 females with the same score. So I guess women aren’t so behind as you think. OH wait you want the numbers that get between a 750-800 right? Well, I’ve got you covered. There are 15,849 males that score between a 750-800 on reading compared 14,546 women. This means that 47.85% of test takers that get a 750-800 on the reading section of the sat are in fact women while 52% are men. Don’t believe me, think I’m just a bloody good for nothing liar. Well, here’s an official link from the college board:…”

So you admit men are ahead of women in the 2 most important sections of the SAT (Almost 2x in the math sections) and fall a little behind in the least important section. Thanks for proving my point men have far better candidates than women at elite colleges, which explains their slightly higher acceptance rates.
All things considered, men still have to have high scores to get in to any elite college, while women and URMs can get in STEM schools with vastly lower scores than the average. Their slightly higher acceptance rates is misleading.

Check your privilege.

“May be I’m not lying and the fact is you can’t handle the truth!!!”

You are a liar and you have an emotional stake in this argument.

2009

@picktails I’ve enjoyed jumping into this thread every so often over the years. The characters change but the arguments on the other side rarely do. If I had to read all 135 pages at once I’d be exhausted too.

2010

@OHMomof2

The arguments on the anti side rarely change because they are solid and don’t need revision.

2011

Yawn.

2012

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/26/the-argument-that-different-ra-1/

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm

Just a couple of articles in the concept of “race” and IQ.

2013

Berkeley’s latest class had only 2.8% African Americans. But 20% were CHINESE. There were 10 times as many CHINESE students compared to the entire black race. Obviously UC Berkeley does not utilize affirmative action, and this shows how much it affects the admissions of other schools.

2014

@Ali1302 The whole “URMs are disadvantaged” is entirely BS. Asians are URMs in America, yet have the highest average salary, making more money than WHITE people. In fact, on average they make twice as much than African Americans. Don’t forget that Asians ARE minorities…

Additionally, I go to a “terrible school”. The dropout rate is greater than 25%, and over 50% of the school population receives free lunch. And what I have learned is that they still have the same opportunities to succeed as with the rest of America. The problem is, they’re not good enough. They don’t even have the effort.

Affirmative action was necessary 50 years ago. Today, I have no clue why it still exists.

2015

@deeznuts Please refrain from using personal anecdotes as evidence for your case. Your statements are true in the sense that yes African Americans are hugely disadvantaged due to income, wealth, health and educational disparities. Most African Americans believe that the only way they could be successful is being the next big rapper or great athlete. These socioeconomic disparities are the reason for this attitude and the lower performance of African Americans on tests and academics. Banning anything that is to encourage such underrepresented and socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities would only make things worse not better. Also, top schools in the future would be 100% white and Asian if socioeconomic factors were discounted and the holistic admission approach abandoned.

Given these facts how can you come to the conclusion that URMs that stand for underrepresented minorities, which Asians btw are not considered underrepresented, are not in need of a boost in admission due to these wide and prevalent disparities? How could you ignore these facts? Do you now that an African American male between the ages of 18 to 35 is more likely to be incarcerated than earn a college degree? Or that the poverty rate for African Americans is almost 3 times as much as for Asians or Whites? African Americans should simply have a boost based on socioeconomic factors alone let alone promoting diversity on college campuses.

2016

Fist of all, I’m stating that Asians are minorities in America, in general.

Second, what are you talking about? Why in the world should they get a boost if they want to be the “next big rapper or great athlete”. How do you know the socioeconomic disparities are causing their lack of success? Data plz.

And here’s food for thought. If you’re parents are poor, there’s higher chance you’re gonna be poor as well. And it’s NOT 'cause of their “disadvantages”. The average rich person has a higher IQ than the average poor person.

2017

@Ali1302

And the best applicant should be accepted, regardless of race. If this means that 100% of top schools would be asian/white, so be it. For instance, MEDICAL SCHOOLS use affirmative action. The people responsible for the HEALTH of this country should be selected with a criteria that doesn’t involve race. The health of society is of more importance, “promoting diversity” should not overrule this.

2018

@Ali1302

And URMs should be outraged by affirmative action. It’s telling them that they are not as good.

Additionally, qualified applicants, even without affirmative action suffer. They are disregarded in their career, as many say “oh they only got into ___ cause he’s black”.

2019

@Ali1302

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-clarence-thomas-grew-to-hate-affirmative-action-2013-10

Here’s African American supreme justice Clarence Thomas with his thoughts.

2020

So funny, The explanatory statement for your link regarding Thomas appears after the link. The resulting effect…there is nothing there. Fitting.