Things you've found give people a false sense of security about getting into college

Applying to College
221

<p>No, it doesn’t. You don’t need expensive prep classes…</p>

<p>And you know what? The world isn’t a fair place. The world IS and always will be biased towards the rich. You know what else? The rich are more likely going to have a better education, and know more. HYP is biased to people with higher GPA/SATs. So what? is that wrong? Rich people are likely to get a better education, learn more, and thus be more productive to society. If a poor person can match a rich person, great. If not, then too bad, it’s part of life. There’s no use in trying to make everything equal, and it’s not possible as it will be counter-productive, and also hypocritical.</p>

<p>This is coming from a lower-middle class person.</p>

222

<p>i agree. the sat is biased toward people who prepare. the collegeboard book costs about 20ish dollars, and if anyone ever cared to read the first 300 or so pages instead of skip to the eight practice tests there would be no need whatsoever to spend those exuberant amounts of money on those test prep courses. and username makes a very good point. the smart, strong, athletic, etc… will rise to the top while those less qualified sink to the bottom. it’s called social darwinism. i think it is a much better idea than to enact things like no child left behind and make everything equal. the sat is a test of reasoning. you are scored on how well you can reason. therefore those with better reasoning skills score higher, and subsequently get accepted to the better schools.</p>

223

<p>

Prep can only get you so far. In order to have a legitimate chance at, say, a 2400 with prep, you really need to start off with at least 750+ per section without preparation IMO. These things don’t happen by themselves magically.</p>

224

<p>I believe some rationality must be brought back to the race-, gender-, wealth- bias that would be present on standardized tests.</p>

<p>While some specific approaches and questions might contain a bias (the 70’s oarsman : regatta analogy question from the GRE is archetypal), standardized test scores differences reflect more underlying factors than outright “bias”.</p>

<p>It’s hard to believe (as some suggest from time to time) that SAT reveals nothing about one’s intellectual capacity to perform college-level work. It would be hard to say that an 1870 can surely perform better in freshman year than a 1850. However, I’m totally convinced that a 2100 can absolutely do better than an 1800.</p>

<p>URMs are not discriminated by SAT, GRE, LSAT or whatsoever; the difference in their scores is due merely to, as whole groups, higher poverty rates, worse neighborhoods and more problematic families, which implies greater enrollment in underfunded school districts, more hurdles to overcome, less family support. A previous post wonderfully discussed this point.</p>

<p>What bothers me, and indeed worries me a lot (I just enrolled in Grad School and want to be Uni. Professor some years ahead), is that some URM very vocal members advocates a scenario in which top universities would, ideally, commit themselves into recruiting a student body that would resemble exactly the demographics of whole US population.
Earlier, the cut-off would be something like race X gender, now there’s some claims for race X gender X wealth X immigration status X first generation status X parents’ disabilities X etc cut-offs. We would end up with less prepared student bodies and classes and college would become easier (next stop would be: add a mandatory 5th year on B.S. programs so underprepared students would not be stigmatized for their needs to take a lower pace of study).</p>

<p>These people seem to be blinded by the fact that, no matter how integrated and undiscriminating society becomes, more money invested in a group of kids’ than in other over elementary, middle and high school will result in overall more prepared, educated and intellectually developed teenagers applying to college (therefore, better scoring teenagers). Tons on money cannot transform an SAT 1200-level student into a 2200-level student, everything else kept equal. You could hire College Board top test designers to coach you, and it wouldn’t happen.</p>

<p>The overwhelming success of Asians is there do demonstrate it. No one could argue that Americans of Asian origin had, as a group, better economic or social opportunities than All-American white Americans who they beat on tests, GPA and so on. They even created the “overrepresented minority” sticker to put on them.</p>

225

<p>I remember reading that expensive prep classes aren’t even that successful, at least for the amount of money paid for them.</p>

<p>Also, correlation doesn’t mean causation.</p>

226

<p>Dbate, you can argue this stuff till the cows come home. Maybe you were as qualified as Asian applicants. But you indicated African American, and we can’t speculate what would have happened if you had checked off Asian. Similarly, if I check off legacy at a school, I’m not going to say that I’m positive I would have gotten in without it.</p>

<p>If you honestly wanted to prove to everyone that you could get in to Yale without a URM boost, you should have left the race blank.</p>

<p>And family income barely tells the whole story. Exhibit A:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“I never said there was a difference between a wealthy black person and a wealthy white person”</p>

<p>There is. The wealthy black person has lower scores.</p>

227

<p>Now that I think about it, is prepping (which is the only thing directly controllable by income) the only thing that explains the difference between rich and poor scorers? There was a 300 point gap between people saying their parents made < $10,000 and those saying their parents made > $100,000. So can prepping really raise your SAT score by 300 points (this is on the new scale).</p>

<p>[News:</a> SAT Scores Down Again, Wealth Up Again - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/29/sat]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/29/sat)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What explains this then:</p>

<p>[File:1995-SAT-Income2.png</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png]File:1995-SAT-Income2.png”>File:1995-SAT-Income2.png - Wikipedia)</p>

228

<p>

</p>

<p>Are they maybe not going high enough? I know 70 K is above the average income, and especially above the average black income, but it doesn’t indicate “wealthy” to me. If you look at a lot of Socio-Economic models of American society, 70 K family income is nowhere near wealthy and often isn’t even upper middle class. There are a couple of models here: [Social</a> class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Social class - Wikipedia”>Social class - Wikipedia). Keeping the income so low, I’m not really surprised at the numbers. Looking at such “elite” black groups as, say, [Jack</a> and Jill of America](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_Jill_(organization)]Jack”>Jack and Jill of America - Wikipedia), wealthy blacks do quite well in terms of college. </p>

<p>So if the chart went up to the scores of people who were in fact upper middle or upper class, there might be a big difference. I have quite a few SAT score charts, but none by income. I think some of the things that might be depressing black scores, even the scores of wealthy blacks, are stereotype threat and socialization, rather than lack of expensive prep, [which</a> has recently been shown to only raise scores an average of 20-30 points](<a href=“The Daily Vanguard”>The Daily Vanguard). If you don’t tell black students their intelligence is being tested, they do much better on IQ tests, because of [stereotype</a> threat](<a href=“Stereotype threat - Wikipedia”>Stereotype threat - Wikipedia). With the SAT and ACT, they know what’s being tested, and likely do worse. As for socialization, the IQ scores of black children go down once they go to school. They start on average, with an IQ of 95.4, quite within the norm, though somewhat lower than the white average, but decrease to 85 by adulthood, according to [studies</a> by James Flynn](<a href=“Race and intelligence - Wikipedia”>Race and intelligence - Wikipedia). Their IQ goes down even if they’re raised by wealthy, well-educated families, in fact, [even</a> if they’re raised by wealthy well-educated white adoptive families](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study]even”>Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia), both of whom are probably sending them to good schools and backing up their education at home.</p>

<p>But I still think the biggest thing is income. Just compare the HS drop put rates of Cambodian-Americans, whose average income is [$35,434</a> to Asian Americans as a whole, whose average income is $57,874](<a href=“http://www.hawaii.cambodiaworldwide.com/women.html]$35,434”>http://www.hawaii.cambodiaworldwide.com/women.html). Cambodian Americans have a drop out rate of 56% (from UCLA’s Asian Pacific Coalition. Link was on Youtube, so I don’t think I can post it). [Asian</a> Americans as a whole drop out at a rate around 8-10%.](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAO317JCC0.DTL]Asian”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAO317JCC0.DTL)</p>

229

<p>

</p>

<p>So all largely used tests (IQ, SAT, AP, etc) are unfair to black students?</p>

230

<p>Milancad, you’re right that today(14 yrs after that data was collected) 70k is not so much, though note that it’s 70k plus, meaning all incomes above 70,000.</p>

<p>After income is controlled for, it really comes down to culture. Among a lot of black peer groups, athletics and music are king, and academics are considered a waste of time. If all ethnic groups viewed academics the same way, and put in the same effort and preparation, scores would be consistent across the board. In this sense, AA is bad in that it creates lower standards for groups with cultural standards that are historically low, and higher standards for groups like Asians with sky-high cultural standards to begin with.</p>

231

<p>

</p>

<p>If you want to look at it as something wrong with the test, you can, but if we’re talking about stereotype threat alone, what’s wrong has to do with society. I don’t think the SAT, AP, or IQ tests are biased. The issue is that, as long as black students are aware that their intelligence is being tested, and aware of the persistent stereotypes of black stupidity, they’ll do worse. It’s the stereotypes that need to be dealt with, not the tests. Just so stereotype threat is not seen as a purely racial issue, I should state that women deal with it on mathematics tests, [File:Stereotype</a> threat gender.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stereotype_threat_gender.jpg]File:Stereotype”>File:Stereotype threat gender.jpg - Wikipedia).</p>

232

<p>The case of Asians X Whites makes it easier to understand those income-controlled score differences: culture and value of education within the family.</p>

<p>Asian families push their children harder since kindergarten. They spend more hours studying than any other ethnic group. They watch less TV and play fewer games. They have many privileges (travelling, car, allowance) tied to good performance in school.</p>

<p>White families, historically the group with highest income and education, do a good job with their kids, but today there’s such a widespread mentality that “kids should be kids” out there. Parents sometimes feel guilty to ground 13-year old daughter because she text so much and got a B-. Not every elit</p>

233

<p>Eurograd, good points but where in the world did you read that the definition of middle class is 250K a year??? I’m middle class and my family makes less than half that lol.</p>

234

<p>I was taking a point on Obama’s declaration, who defined the middle class family as one making less than 250K/year when he pledged not to raise taxes for middle class and ask then asked to “define middle class”.</p>

235

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I got a 34 on the ACT test. I am a black male, but I think the thing about socialization is true. I have long been the token, and the first time I was in a class where I was the only black student was my honors Pre-Cal class and I had doubts. On the first test I got a 73 and thought about dropping the class. But I stayed and when i felt like everyone else (because noone ever treats me any differently) I got a 90. So I think social factors play a role.</p>

236

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the culture thing is something that should definitely be emphasized. From the black students that I meet when I visited Yale ALOT of them were either: wealthy, bi-racial, or african. In fact there have been studies that show that the typical black makeup at top schools is not reflective of the black population in america as recent immigrants tend to dominate. </p>

<p>I understand asian culture pretty well, because nearly all my friends are first gen Chinese who come from the affluent parts of China. We are all about the same intelligence but the parental involvement is something that is in stark contrast to typical black culture. I will concede, however, that not all asian people grow up from privileged backgrounds but the one that I know about was successful in getting into Stanford. In fact when the process was all said and done, people ended up where they should have.</p>

<p>Something that I do find offensive in the AA debate though is the tacit conception that all minorities at top schools are supplanting the positions of white or asian students. From my school alone there were two people who applied and I was the only one who got in. I was more qualified statistically than the other student but he still attributed it to AA. And the previous year when a black guy got into Princeton who was 15 in his class and had a 2400 along with other ECs that I don’t specifically know about, a girl who was 5 in the class with lower but still great (2270 I think) scores attributed it to AA. </p>

<p>I will readily accept that the standards are lowered for some minorities to get into top schools, but I think the other side should also acknowledge that there are minorities who could get into top schools regardless of their race. I certainly deserved to get into Yale.</p>

237

<p>Clearly many URMs and legacies who are accepted to top schools might have gotten in without their hooks. But when they indicated their hook on the app, they lost the luxury of being able to say “I’m positive I could have gotten in without my hook.” And then the second problematic part of your post is the idea that you deserved to get in to Yale. HYP can be extraordinarily choosy, and nobody is entitled to a spot by virtue of their greatness Those who get in are lucky to have received a majority vote from the adcom, and even the strongest applicant can meet his doom based on a single line in an essay or rec that rubs a reader the wrong way.</p>

238

<p>

</p>

<p>When i say deserve I mean qualified. I know that it is mostly luck, but if you have the stats to get in than you are qualified. Obviously I was since I got in, so I just say deserve, because in vernacular conversation if one were to say they didn’t deserve to get in to a school it would be the same as saying that they were not qualified. I was qualified to get into Yale so that is what I meant.</p>

239

<p>But the applicant pool for HYP is not lacking in qualified people. However, many qualified applicants lack the AA boost.</p>

240

<p>

</p>

<p>True statement. I will readily concede that I got a boost because of my race, whether or not I could have gotten in without being black is something that I will never know. But what i do know is that I was qualified to go to Yale and that is unequivocal. And I bet the other minorities who got in were as well, so people are in error when they denounce minorities at top schools for not being qualified or lesser.</p>