<p>i think that some people get more boost than others, but regardless of how big a boost there will always be diversity among a student body. look at any top school and it’s about 5-12 percent AA 1> percent alaskan native etc… so colleges try to maintain diversity and take the best applicants from that race. if a 3.7 and 2000 is among the top from the pool of hispanic candidates that year then they will probably get accepted</p>
<p>Lets be realistic here. No African American, Hispanic or Native American gets into Harvard with a 2.1, or even a 3.0. Most African Americans that apply to Harvard apply with a 3.6 or higher. Most URM’s that apply to Ivy league schools have high GPA’s, but “below average” test scores; Below average in terms of URM SAT scores in comparison to Caucasian and Asian SAT scores. In terms of minorities, students that get into Harvard with 1900 SAT scores beat the national URM average by approximately 700 points. That is outstanding and admissions officers at prestigious universities see that.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/27/sat[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/27/sat</a></p>
<p>This link shows the SAT beak down among different races. Schools that hold diversity important often accept applicants based on how they stand out in respects to their race. If Harvard wanted to, they could accept people with the highest test scores, GPA’s and EC’s. Their student body would probably be 95% white/asian if that were to happen. Look at the UC’s. Asian population is 45% and the caucasian population is roughly higher. UC’s don’t really care about diversity in many regards, but they are still an elite school. I like how top prestigious universities make it a priority to admit applicants that are diverse. They may not necessarily have the highest test scores, but they stand out regardless.</p>
<p>In response to the students that were in the top 1% of their class, but had less than a 20 ACT. They were in the top 1% of their class. That is a big achievement, but as you can see, grades don’t translate into high SAT/ACT scores. Usually students that study for months on the SAT perform higher than students that just take the test. It’s proven that the SAT is a familiarity test. I’m guessing those students will continue to work hard and will eventually achieve average scores.</p>
<p>If you look at the retention rates for URM students at prestigious universities you will see the URM’s are making progress. 70-95% retention/graduation rates for African American students in top Universities. If you compare that to the number of African American drop outs in high school, this number is certainly impressive. Most URM’s that are accepted to prestigious universities make the most of it and I’m proud to be an African American.</p>
<p>Also I was listening to a pod cast, by the Yale dean of admissions(Jeff Brenzel). He basically stated that there isn’t a cut off GPA or SAT score for many reasons. I believe those reasons include Yale’s strong support for keeping a diverse student body. Also, just because you have a 3.5 GPA and lets say a 1800, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t apply to Harvard. Harvard admits less than 1 in 10 applicants. So regardless, Harvard is a reach for any student.</p>
<p>ok, i’d like to address the top 1% of the class with sub 20 act scores. that’s horrible. urm or not that just shows lack of reasoning, basic math skills, vocabulary, and general ability to read. i don’t put much stock in class rank. it is highly over rated. if the top 1% of the class has that bad of standardized test scores then the school must have a joke curriculum or severely inflate gpa. unless all the top 1% has like 2.5’s or flat 2’s. i also imagine the course rigor is almost non-existent. top 1% of a class should only mean anything if they have a decent gpa and sat/act score. if they are the top 1% with horrible stats then it is no longer a testament to their ability, but the lack there of from the rest of their grade. as for the sat being a familiarity test, that is only true to a point. you may take a practice test and get an 1800, then over several more you get a 2000 as you become familiar with the directions and types of questions asked. but you will not gain a lifetimes worth of reasoning ability by practicing the sat. you can only improve to a certain point. i know a girl who took the bio sat 2 after bio honors, then again, then once more after ap bio, she improved 20 points start to finish. as for my sat reasoning test i improved about 450 total points, but largely because i ran out of time on my first few attempts and left many questions blank.you can not just get a 2400 through practice, unless you start out around a 2150-2200 straight off the bat.</p>
<p>Yes, there is something wrong with the curriculum of the school and probably the quality of teachers that teach, but the person who posted this information about the Michigan students left out some information. Information regarding the exact GPA’s, Curriculum, teaching standards, location, financial stability and support, etc…</p>
<p>I bet the students in the top 1% came from low-income house holds. Obviously there is a problem with the school, standards, and grading, but being in the top 1% of each class is an accomplishment. Grades, in my opinion have little correlation to test scores, especially in the context of how URM’s perform on those tests. I know many URM"s that have high GPA’s, but can’t score above an 1800, but then there are some that have lower GPA’s that score above a 2000. Getting less than a 20 on the ACT is poor, but I think I read somewhere that the average ACT score in the U.S is an 18. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there are many factors that contribute to low performance on standardized tests. I think GPA is a better indication of success in college and beyond. Also I agree that there is a limit on the highest score people can achieve. Only 300 students a year get 2400’s on the SAT out of the millions that take the test each year. Those students that achieve those scores are clearly gifted.</p>
<p>@ Maho: so? I don’t think entertainer was saying that scores would improve DRASTICALLY. But from below a 20 to a 20 or higher? Or from 460 reading to a 500 or 600? Not that much of a reach honestly. You are talking about a 2100 to a 2400, top scores are much harder to improve.
But this shows the quality of public schools that are primarily african-american. Is it entirely the students fault that some of the top 1% of their class can’t get a 20 on the ACT? The act test what you have learned, and obviously those scores show that these schools are failing their kids miserably.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>Jayay and entertainer, i see what you’re saying. But i really don’t think it has to do with the fact that they are urm, between myself and several urm friends i don’t know anyone who scored sub 2k on the sat. Some people just put forth more effort in school and therefore succeed. and i disagree when you say that the act/sat tests what you’ve been taught. These tests are used to gauge your ability to reason, and use basic concepts in abstract ways under time constraints. and the schools have only failed their students if they don’t provide text books and teachers. i find it extremely hard to believe that no one received a text book and the teachers never taught anything. if you’re in the top 1% getting a 14 on the math section you need to go back to the 2nd or 3rd grade</p>
<p>I look at this from a different perspective.</p>
<p>Teachers are very biased. From my personal experience, the top students in class ARE NEVER the actual top students. </p>
<p>Just because teachers put you in the top 1%, doesn’t actually make you top 1%. This is why GPA is completely undependable; teachers can give you WHATEVER THEY WANT. It doesn’t matter if you’re a nobel laureate; as long as the teacher hates you you can fail.</p>
<p>/\ i agree, speaking from experience right now i would have .3 or .4 higher unweighted if not for that, and there are too many factors that play into gpa because different classes evaluate on different criteria, but since the sat and act are standard across the board they are far more reliable. they also have a sample size of 1 million+ whereas any given class has around 30 students and that teacher in particular may have around 200ish</p>
<p>Maho: The ACT/SAT are not at 2nd or 3rd grade level. They test low-level high school concepts. And if your high school, middle school, and elementary school has been failing to prepare you up to that standard, you will do poorly. These ‘abstract concepts’ are not obvious if your school/peers/parents don’t care whether you pass or fail. The majority black schools, esepcially in places like Detroit, allow URM’s to slip thru the cracks and just pass by without really learning. Textbooks and teachers do not a capable student make. It takes effort from the schools, involvement from parents, and a culture that promotes learning. Three things that many if not most URM’s lack.
You and your URM friends may be at a capable, successful schools, but many/most URM’s are not.</p>
<p>mahomusic: Are you seriously saying that the SAT/ ACT are more accurate predictors of academic excellence than overall GPA? I’m sorry but that’s just a completely fallacious statement. A test that is biased and caters to those students who can pay for the educational materials (in fact, encourages the waste of money), cannot possible be a better predictor then actual hard work through doing your school work.</p>
<p>Standardized tests like the SAT and ACT give adcoms a way to compare a student from a tough academically elite high school with one from a less competitive school.</p>
<p>Do you equate a 4.0 at a small rural high school in Alabama with a 3.5 at Exeter or Andover?</p>
<p>jayay: it’s true that the act/sat are not 2nd or 3rd grade level when considering probability or geometry questions, but nonetheless there are basic addition and subtraction problems on there that a 2nd or 3rd grader could do. if you’re getting a 14 on your act then those are probably the only ones you can do too. and i never said the concepts were abstract, i said that they make you use BASIC concepts in abstract ways through difficult wording of questions that lead to many to answer a question not being asked. that’s why none of the questions on the sat are hard, but so few people get all of them right. i find that many quit before taking a serious look at text books. they really have everything you need, and curriculums are based on them. so if one can master the textbook, one can master the class. However, i do agree with you that it takes an environment that nurtures learning to spur kids into taking a more active role in their studies. i know around here a high gpa and sat are almost status symbols, and it really drives us to strive for the highest levels we can attain.</p>
<p>GPA measures how well you deal with your specifc academic curriculm regardless of competitiveness. A kid in an inner city school who does exceptionally well is unique because they are willing to do the hard work. Many of those kids do well in school but fail to do well on the SAT because while they may have the drive to do well in their school, they don’t have the money to pay for materials to learn the science of the SAT. No tutors, no books, no special classes. Maybe they don’t even know the language well. </p>
<p>In my school there are several student, speacilly from the ESL classes, who do not know the language but ace all their classes, and that includes english. They do the workand go for help, they get the good grade. Unfortunately, they have no money to pay for the materials necessary to even begin to understand the SAT. Do you think, then, that they will score well on such a test? </p>
<p>I don’t think we’re lacking good students, i think we’re lacking families with exceptional saleries. </p>
<p>Why are we, as a nation, so lazy when it comes to ways of evaluationg someone’s academic merit?</p>
<p>maho: Exactly. And around other areas a flashy car and some money in your pocket is a much bigger ‘status symbol’ than a high SAT score.
I don’t know any 2nd or 3rd grader who could do the algebra or word problems on the SAT. In fact, they would probably not score above a 300. It’s alot more than adding and subtraction. You are vastly oversimplifying the test in order to prove your point. True, it’s not a ‘hard’ test for the average white student. But we are not talking about that person. We’re talking about economically, culturally, and societally disadvantaged URM’s. </p>
<p>And as a said before, just because the textbooks and curric are there, if you are not encouraged,inclined, or prompted to use them by your surroundings, you will not succeed.</p>
<p>
is it really a fallacious statement? i think not. while it is true that a gpa is the result of several years of consistent effort, and a significant amount of work, there are too many outside factors that can influence it that make it unreliable across the board. there is the question of secondary school rank, course rigor, and the unfathomable amount of different teachers who may be biased against some kids and favor others which will ultimately affect the outcome of their gpa’s. in addition some teachers may grade on effort and class participation while other only take into account your test performance. however for standardized tests the same questions are asked of all students under the same conditions across the board. it is not biased as some teachers can be, and it is certainly not biased to those who can pay for materials. unless you can’t afford the 25 dollar collegeboard book then you don’t really have a case. all of the “prep classes” are just the first 300 or so pages of the book regurgitated to you in class form. if you have 25 dollars and can read you have access to the same preparation as everyone else. many also find the 1200 or so dollar classes useless, and private tutors rates are just exuberant. 25 dollars and some will power is really all that is required to raise an sat score. i like BigG’s point, a high school in a low income urban area simply can not compete with an exeter or hun academy. the top 0% at one is just not comparable to the top 10% at the other. i would be impreesed by a 3.75 gpa from exeter, but i would not be impressed by a 3.75 gpa from an inner city school</p>
<p>Juliaa: in comparison to most other schools i doubt the work they do is “hard”. they do well in these classes because the difficulty of those classes is a far sight lower than that of many other schools. The sat is not a science, it is a test. i can understand how many people can’t afford the astronomical rates of tutors and classes, but as i’ve mentioned several times the collegeboard book is only 25 dollars. many libraries also have quite the selection of prep. material for free, and some schools also provide free online courses. the material is out there if you want it, but these kids with all that “drive” your talking about clearly don’t have the drive to go to their local library. you also forget that for international students there are the toefl and ielts, and if they can’t speak or understand the language how are they doing well in english class? grade inflation? easy class? if they can’t understand the language then they need to learn it before they can attend a university that conducts classes in ENGLISH. if you can not read and write well it will hurt you on your essays, in other classes, short response questions, and, of course, the sat. it is of paramount importance to have a solid grasp of the english language before getting to college, and if you don’t then you will obviously struggle there.
Jayay: I am not oversimplifying anything. go look at the first 2-4 questions on any sat math section and then tell me that a 2nd or 3rd grade can’t do them. and if one chooses to go for cars and money instead of education then that is their choice. as for the lack of encouragement, support, and motivation, if they did not have it to try and do well in high school then why should we let them into top universities and expect them to turn over a new leaf? and why does everyone assume i’m white? i like diversity as much as anyone, and i do not have anything against a urm with 3.7+ and 1900+ getting into a top school, they can probably handle the work, or at least not fail out. however, the ones with less than 3 gpa’s and less than a 1500 sat getting into a place like stanford is ridiculous.</p>
<p>i’d just like to go back to the kids in the top 1% of their class with sub 20 act scores going to u mich. they clearly can’t handle the work there because, as mentioned above, they had to take remedial summer classes. which just further proves my point that being a urm shouldn’t get you into a top school unless you can actually handle the work there.</p>
<p>There is something you aren’t understanding. Michigan reaches out to underprivileged, low-income minorities in the city of Detroit and other areas to help these students have access to a good college education. Michigan values diversity. That is priority for the university. They are doing the state of Michigan a favor by doing that and I hope they continue to help these disadvantaged kids.</p>
<p>These students clearly can handle the work at Michigan, because when they arrive they succeed. Michigan wouldn’t continue recruiting disadvantaged minorities, if they knew they weren’t succeeding. Michigan has a large student body so I understand why they have such a strong commitment to diversity. About 750 incoming freshman are URM, compared to the entire freshman student body of 6,000 students.</p>
<p>“Yar, a University of Michigan math professor was talking to me the other day about how she runs a mandatory summer math program for incoming college freshmen. The only reason these kids got in was because they were the top 1% of their respective high schools. Some of them scored <20 on the ACT. One person reportedly scored a 14 on the Math section on the ACT. They can barely add fractions together, yet they got accepted into one of the top universities in the country. Why? Because they were URMs, and U of M loves diversity =P”</p>
<p>@MahoMoushi: They weren’t taking remedial courses. It was just a mandatory summer math program for incoming freshman to make sure that they were ready to handle college mathematics. It’s similar to the placement tests that many students take here at Michigan. Even students that get AP credit in calculus and other subjects have to take placement tests or a course through other programs.</p>
<p>I don’t see how taking a test for four hours proves your academic success in college. GPA is biased in some regards, but I’m sure most teachers don’t fail students because they hate them. I think you are exaggerating.</p>
<p>
Exactly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
mahomusic: Are you seriously saying that the SAT/ ACT are more accurate predictors of academic excellence than overall GPA? I’m sorry but that’s just a completely fallacious statement. A test that is biased and caters to those students who can pay for the educational materials (in fact, encourages the waste of money), cannot possible be a better predictor then actual hard work through doing your school work.
[quote]
I LOL’ed hard at that. </p>
<ol>
<li>Tests aren’t biased, except to people who knows the material, but that’s not really a bias.</li>
<li>GPAs on the other hand, are VERY biased. A teacher who hates you can easily give you an F even if you deserve an A, just because he can.</li>
</ol>