<p>
If only this were 100% true though. The fact is studies have shown that racial affirmative action will aid blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and will go against Asians, even under the same socioeconomic conditions.</p>
<p>
Lower than the national average in one section? That’s fine, but that applicant better be pretty damn special in their strong subjects. The only sub-500 scorers in sections that I’ve heard of making top schools are math stars (IMO-level) or the mega-hooked (quarterback athletes, developmental admits, etc). And if an applicant has a strong section with a 1300, that suggests that the other 2 sections border on lack of total comprehension. And if those 3 sections are balanced then what shred of academic ability has this applicant shown, period?</p>
<p>Social conditions can only go so far in terms of determining an SAT score. I recently began taking SAT practice tests (rising junior) and I’m already in the mid 2300s. That’s not to say I haven’t been aided by years of excellent education at a strong public school, but it still shows that you really can’t manipulate scores THAT much through studying/pedagogy, and certainly you can’t work your way up to a top score starting at a 1300.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is true though. It doesn’t make sense to give a wealthy black person an AA boost. I mean the black people who are qualified to go these schools typically come from upper middle to upper income backgrounds. In fact among nearly ALL the black people who got accepted to Yale have facebook pictures with mostly white people, so I assume they come from well to do backgrounds. And typically those who are well to do also do well in school.</p>
<p>In fact the black people that I met when I visited Yale went mostly to top private schools or lived in affluent suburban areas. And I would wager that they were just as qualified if not more so than other people there.</p>
<p>except that just isn’t how schools work, they care about color, not your actual upbringing or environment. Do you notice no school, at least prestigious schools, ever says the average income of their applicants? Because it’s well above the US-medians! So instead they tell us the average financial aid package of applicants, knowing only applicants who could actually use it will apply (I doubt a kid who’s parents make $120,000 with one kid would apply for financial aid).</p>
<p>This is becoming weird…
</p>
<p>and weirder…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and weirdest…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(that last one made me laugh)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the SAT is a socially biased test though. I know several white people who are less intelligent than I am who did better than i did. I got only a 2070, whereas I think the ACT is probably less biased as the scores reflected the general intelligence of the people in our class much more appropriately.</p>
<p>I don’t see how the SATs are biased in the least bit.</p>
<p>
I also dont’ see how that’s weird.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am speaking anecdotally, but from the scores that people got it was skewed towards those who were less intelligent but had the assistance of test prep. Also white kids who were less intelligent did I seemed to do better than I did. Even on subjects where I am vastly more capable than them such as math. One of my friends got like a 720 or so on the math section despite being horrendeous at math. I got a 650, but I am fairly good at math and got a 35 on the math portion of the ACT.</p>
<p>This is pure conjecture and to that I concede, but for me at least the SAT was way less indicative of my ability than the ACT. And studies have shown that there does exist bias in the outcome of the tests, I even spoke to a college rep who said the exact same thing.</p>
<p>I love how you make completely unsupported claims of being more intelligent than these kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t love that at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Well no duh prepping will help raise the score… but it will for everyone…</li>
<li>how do you know they are less intelligent?</li>
<li>again, who’s to say you’re more capable?</li>
</ol>
<p>Look, your 650 may show that either you really just aren’t that good at math, or you had a bad day. It doesn’t mean the SATs are biased. Unless you can give an example of a question that clears favors one race over another, it’s not biased.</p>
<p>So in my math class there are like what… 5 or 6 people who get a higher % than me in math class. However, during the AMC 12, I got a 118.5, while the second highest in my school was 94.5. Does that mean that the AMC was somehow increadibly biased? BTW I constantly scored marginally higher than everyone else in all the contests, not just AMC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re are missing the point. Prepping is something that is usually correlated with wealth, which on average is correlated with race which would reveal a systemic bias in the outcome of the tests. So scores could be skewed in that manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it really matter? You don’t know these people so whatever I post would be contigent on my point of view which you could roundly denounce. So the only basis by which we have to go on is what I say and you can choose to reject it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last time I checked Yale didn’t accept people who weren’t capable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are missing the central caveat that I mentioned in my post principally that it is based on conjecture and to that end is merely anecdotal. </p>
<p>The central problem with the bias that I am referring to, or rather that can be extrapolated to the population level is that when people are arguing against AA and using SAT scores as the barometer they are making a poster i arguments while ignoring the a prior i causes.</p>
<p>The bias may not occur directly from the test but rather the test outcome is indicative of bias within a system more directed explained by economic disparities, as explained above. To this end therefore, the SAT fails to be an accurate representation because it’s outcome is revealing inherent discrepancies.</p>
<p>so again, AA should be economically based, not race based. </p>
<p>From what you said, there is no difference between a wealthy black person and a wealthy white person nor is there a difference between a poor black person and a poor asian person.</p>
<p>
no one said you weren’t capable. I only said that you may not be MORE capable than your friends.</p>
<p>I never said there was a difference between a wealthy black person and a wealthy white person, which is what I am arguing. I am arguing that the blacks who are going to Yale tend to be wealthy, so it is logical to assume that they had stats equivalent to their wealthy white counterparts. We do not know the statistically breakdown by race of the people at top colleges so why would we assume that blacks have lower scores.</p>
<p>That’s what happens when Racial AA is employed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure? I mean I remember being on the AA subgroup here on these boards and the people who were accepted at Ivies had scores in the range for Ivies.</p>
<p>I am sure that people tend to think that URMs got in because they are URM regardless of whether that is true or not.</p>
<p>Ofcourse there are URMs on-par, but there are also URMs that are slightly below the norm.</p>
<p>the sat is not the least bit biased. the test prep corporations developed to take advantage of the current generation’s obesession with college acceptance, but this does not change the actual questions of the test itself. as for kids who think they are better at math, but it does not relfect in standardized test scores, they need to rethink. the sat math tests your ability to reason through problems. in a school environment, going one chapter at a time, you can study really hard and learn how to solve any type of problem in any form, but this is simply memorization. i have friends who have taken honors math throughout high school and received a’s, but i have taken regular and received b’s. the honors students in this example are more studious and organized than i am, but have no common sense or reasoning ability. on the other hand i am better at reasoning and problem solving. math class and the math sat are two different animals, and can not be treated as equals in many cases. urm’s on the other hand may or not get the huge boosts we imagine. some with lower incomes may receive a bigger boost, but none of them that i’ve ever encountered have been atrociously underqualified for any school they’ve been accepted to. no doubt there were ther asians or whites who may have been marginally better, but the adcoms saw it as more productive to keep a diverse student body at the school than to let someone with a 3.9 and 2250 in as opposed to someone with a 3.7 and 2150. fractions of a gpa and a few dozen sat points are not enough to convince adcoms that one kid is significantly brighter than another, especially when one considers recommendations, sports, ec’s and the myriad of other things that are considered in the admissions process. you also must account for the variations in teachers the students had, some bad luck over the course of four years and can do serious damage to a gpa. it’s not merely numbers that they look at, but the people that the numbers represent. that’s why when you like at colleges admissions criteria your essays and recommendations are VERY important while sat scores are merely important.</p>
<p>The SAT is most certainly biased…towards people who prepare for it.</p>
<p>Sucks for the people who can’t afford expensive prep classes, now doesn’t it?</p>