<p>No but from the cases I have seen…they just let blacks/hispanics/indians COMPLETELY fail the SAT. They drop standards noteably for URMs and you really cant deny that. Plus, the numbers are important as they are the best measure of intelligence.</p>
<p>Schools are not letting in “idiot” minorities. However, the minorities they let are not usually as qualified as their asian/white counterparts. You can blame this on “discrimination” or “poverty,” but the truth of the matter is that poverty and race hate is not unknown to asians too…but they excel in ways that other minorities simply do not.</p>
The SAT is a very bad indicator of college success. A test you take in 4 hours will not determine how successful you are over 4 years in college. These same URM’s who get into colleges because the colleges “drop standards noteably for URMs” also graduate at the same rate as their counterparts in college.</p>
<p>^^ Rtgrove, what a load of crap. It doesn’t matter if you’re black white or purple, if you bomb the SATs or something, you are not going to go to an Ivy or something. All AA really does is if candidate A is black and has identical stats to person B, who is white, give the boost to person A because he/she had to “overcome more”. That being said, I do not support AA based on race, but rather on socioeconomic status. </p>
<p>And standardized tests are NOT a good measure of intelligence. I would rather have a 4.0 student who was worked hard for straight As for four years and not be a good test taker (ie, 25 or so on the ACT) rather than someone who slacked with a 3.0 and happens to test off the charts (say 35/36 ACT).</p>
In that case, I can say that the standards have not dropped significantly as I’ve seen URMs with 2200s+ (and other great stats) get rejected. Though I don’t know what your definition of ‘failing the SAT’ is. I highly doubt that just because someone is black/hispanic/URM, they could get away with a 1900 at an elite college (at least, in the vast majority of cases). Plus, maybe the URMs can convey a better story and/or passion through their essays?</p>
<p>Regardless, the plural of anecdote is not data. For all I know, you’re miffed about a URM getting in with a 2200 when some Asian got rejected with a 2300. ZOMG.</p>
<p>I think a black person can get away with a 1900 at an elite college. It happens all the time. I have a friend who got into williams college and he got a 1750 on his SAT. He went to a prestigious private school, but that shouldn’t really make a difference. Bottom line is that URM’s are given an edge especially when it comes to standardized tests like the SAT’s. Most URM’s who do very well in school, but poorly on the SAT can get into elite universities. It has happened many times. URM’s have a lower graduation rates than their white or asian counter parts in many colleges, especially in prestigious state schools like UNC, UVA, UMICH and UCLA.</p>
<p>Was your grandfather Black? If he was then technically you could check off African American. If he was Arab then I don’t think you can consider yourself Black.</p>
<p>That’s approximately like saying that a 100 meter dash you run in the United States Olympic team trials doesn’t say you’re a good enough runner to run in the Olympics. The four-hour performance a person has on the SAT reflects years of reading and doing math problems in much the same way as the one-hour performance of a professional football player reflects years of scrimmaging and drilling. Neither high school grades nor SAT scores PERFECTLY predict who will gain good grades in college (because both are somewhat unlike taking college classes), but neither is bad enough evidence to completely disregard. College grades, in turn, are suggestive, but not completely predictive, of who will have a thriving career after college.</p>
<p>Are you saying the grandfather was a black African (someone from a tropical African ethnic group) or an Arab? There is not any doubt at all that a Sudanese Arab person is “white” by the federal definitions, just as an Algerian Arab person is white. Sudan is part of the Arab League, so there are presumably a lot of Arabs in Sudan. Having an Arab grandfather from Sudan makes you no less “white” than having an Arab grandfather from Palestine.</p>
<p>No, to keep this as succinct and clean as possible:</p>
<p>Being Northern African is basically categorized as “white.” I would strongly disagree with you if you considered to put down African American. You’re not a URM no matter how badly you want to be one just in time for college admissions LMAO. What disgusts me is that so many people lose integrity of their personal culture and race because of AA. If I miraculously found a way to put down African American instead of Pakistani on my common app and not get caught, I still wouldn’t. I love my culture, and take intense pride in who I am. I wouldn’t want to be anyone different.</p>
<p>@tokenadult - I’m not disregarding the SAT, but I don’t believe that “numbers are the best measure of intelligence.” Graduation rates for minorities at top universities prove otherwise.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The whole point is that it isn’t like it. There was a study done by Princeton that showed that there IS a skewing of stats based on URM or ORM.</p></li>
<li><p>Standardized tests may not be a good measure of intelligence, but your example isn’t putting it right either. You’re basically saying you’d rather have a not-as intelligent hard worker than an “intelligent” slacker. GPA for the most part measures how hard you’re willing to work, not intelligence really either. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Also, the ACT is by far less critical thinking involved than the SAT. ACT definitely tries to see how well you can manage your time and think on your feet, SAT more or less tries to give you tougher, but trickier questions. Not to say one is better than the other, they’re just different methods of thinking. I know people who get 2300+ but less than a 33 on the ACT (about a 100 point difference or more when converted), and I know people who can’t pass 2200 but get 33+.</p>
Not true; URM status is used for a lot more than tie-breakers. In fact, top schools are probably able to maintain consistent percentages of students by race by grouping applicants into race before even looking at the application.</p>
<p>I do agree with your latter point, however. AA should be socioeconomically based.</p>
<p>Ok, well I could definately be wrong but I stand behind my statement that admissions standards are dropped significantly for URMs. Lol just look at those “official” results threads on elite college forums. I literally can guess based upon the stats/ECs and the admissions result whether the accepted person was URM or not…it just makes me sick to see a native american with a 1700 get accepted into stanford when a brilliant asian with a 2400 gets rejected (I am white by the way). A black person could definately get into an HYPS with a 2000 on the SAT…while it would be MUCH rarer people of races that are deemed “more education-focused.”</p>
<p>Some have raised the point that the SAT is not a good standard of intelligence. Now, I personally dont think that the SAT is perfect (it is MUCH better than the ACT though), but it is not a bad indicator of mental acumen. </p>
<p>The CR does a brilliant job of testing the breath of ones vocab and how they can intrepret passages- many passages are about the “struggles” of URMs, so I think it is a little funny how a white guy from NE got an 800 on this section while most URMs fail it. </p>
<p>The math section, again, is brilliant. It tests not only your knowledge of basic math concepts but also makes you APPLY them…lol sorry if URMs dont like that. Again, dont see any real cultural bias on that test. How could it improve?</p>
<p>The writing section is based almost purely on grammar rules. This section is studied for EASILY…I improved from a 50 on my PSAT sophomore year to a 780 this june…there is NO reason why anyone, URM or not, would get a 690 or below unless they just didnt study.</p>
<p>Moral of the story, the SAT does a GREAT job of testing how much you actually learned over your educational life. So, the only way you can account for lower average URM scores on these tests is:</p>
<ol>
<li>They are just innately not standardized test-gifted (it really doubt it)</li>
<li>There is a cultural bias on the test (dead wrong)</li>
<li>URMs are raised in “anti-educational households” (possible…but no real excuse…I was raised in one too and got a 2340 on my SAT and a 35 on my ACT…but getting into HYPS will still be dicey for me but EASY for a black with comparable scores)</li>
</ol>
<p>SAT is designed for meticulous people and what you mentioned does not really pertain to intelligence. CR the passages can be in the critical thinking range, but honestly half of CR is just purely based on vocab, which is NOT a measure of intelligence. And plus, half those words you will never even hear in any job.</p>
<p>Math is better than CR. But still could be better. Math is intentionally badly worded to trick you. </p>
<p>Writing is badly designed in the sense that essay barely matters, except to set your curve. I don’t see how it’s fair that someone who gets a 5 on their essay with no wrong multiple choice can qualify for an 800 still or near that. Because they obviously are not talented at writing or their conveying of ideas.</p>
<p>As I said before, ACT and SAT test differently HOW you think. Neither is easier than the other, it completely depends on person.</p>
<p>I think it’s more like (especially Asians) are raised IN educational-stressed households. Ever see how many prep classes for Asians in California and NYC? The rest are just impartial.</p>
<p>The URM question sometimes I feel like is more like a “limit the ORM” question, especially when numbers DO matter a lot for top schools. </p>
<p>Personally I feel like we should just do away with the SATs and replace it with many more SAT IIs. </p>
<p>But back to the topic, I think you exaggerate a bit on your scores part. An Af. Am can not FEASIBLY get into HYPS with a 2000, though I won’t say the same for Nat. Am because of the small population.</p>
<p>I haven’t been on this board for very long, but I hope everyone sees the trends I’ve seen.</p>
<p>If you’re white or Asian, you dislike affirmative action because it doesn’t help you and may hurt your chances of getting admitted to your dream school. If you’re African American, Native American, or Hispanic, you favor affirmative action for the opposite reason. </p>
<p>Is it any surprise that people our age embrace interpretations that favor “our side”? As my parents often remind me, “there’s nothing more self-centered than a teenager.” </p>
<p>Is it possible that the adults who make up the admission staff know something that we don’t? Maybe they are more mature and more wise than the applicants who apply to their schools. Maybe this maturity and wisdom have taught them that their college campus will be more enjoyable if it is made up of different kinds of people. Maybe they don’t want a campus of people who scored 2400. Maybe they realize that a campus with some of those 2400 scorers mixed with some who grew up poor, mixed with some who we are first generation, mixed with some who are legacies will make their campus a more enjoyable place to become educated. </p>
<p>To me, a college campus is like a fine meal: It is enjoyable because it is made up of a variety of flavors, tastes, and experiences. Who wants to eat a meal made up of just one thing? </p>
<p>One last point. For those who score 2300+ and don’t get into HYSP, they will get into some other great school. They will achieve success whether it is with a Harvard degree or a Duke degree. I don’t worry about them. They’ll be fine.</p>
<p>The idea that we are only arguing for our own side is completely false. I am a blend of multiple races (Caucasian, Asian, and even African) and I am vehemently against racial affirmative action. It’s nice to see that you’re thinking about the sides of affirmative action but it’s important to look past psychological simplicities as well.</p>
Indeed, the math section of the SAT is an extremely poor indicator of quantitative skills. Its curve is designed to award meticulousness and not mathematical aptitude. Many people are able to earn even 800s on the exam by simply plugging in values for variables and being careful, whereas a brilliant USAMO qualifier could still easily score a 770 because of one minute moment of negligence.</p>
<p>I think the section should be altered to encompass more difficult problems requiring some of the abstract thinking required on exams such as the AMC, and in turn its curve should be mitigated to allow for a reasonable margin of error. But alas, I am drifting off-topic here. :P</p>
<p>The SAT in general is designed to award meticulousness. And I hated the stupid 10 sections and flipping back and forth between reading and math. The problem with putting in harder/abstract questions in the time concern considering each section is only 15 minutes? </p>
<p>I personally would have preferred harder questions in the level of math involved, as I still do not see why the only two things in the SAT math section are algebra and geometry.</p>
<p>Nothing is more correlated with the overall IQ score in a typical IQ test battery than the vocabulary subtest. And validation studies of taking vocabulary tests alone as predictors of adult achievement or other validation criteria for IQ show that vocabulary tests work quite well for that purpose. It would of course be unfair to test a first-generation immigrant who didn’t grow up speaking English SOLELY on English vocabulary as a proxy for academic ability, but there are first-generation immigrants from non-English-speaking countries who do quite well when they take the SAT, because they are smart and they study vocabulary thoroughly. (My recommendation for getting ready for the SAT is simply to read widely and avidly.)</p>