<p>I don’t think the bottom 25% of the student body(SAT score) at stanford are athletes/URM"s. That is approximately 417 students. Also, there are no statistics that show the distribution of SAT scores among the URM population. How do you know that there aren’t URM’s that achieve higher scores than the average? </p>
<p>For example I know a black student that was accepted to Stanford at my school. He was in the top 10%, National Merit Finalist. AP scholar, and he received scores over 2200. </p>
<p>I’m just saying that URM’s don’t receive preferential treatment. I’m saying if an Asian applied with the statistics that the Black person had, there would still be a chance that he would be accepted. They wouldn’t be rejected on the spot. There is a false perception, that Asian and Caucasian people can’t apply to Stanford or other elite schools with scores around 2000. They think they must have scores over 2100 and in some cases 2200 to be even considered. That isn’t the case, but many people believe that it is.</p>
<p>These schools are very competitive anyway. MIT rejected many applicants with 2400’s and 4.0’s. No one has a high chance of getting into Stanford anyway.</p>
<p>most asians who apply to stanford have over 2200.</p>
<p>I don’t actually have proof of the SAT scores, but from what I’ve seen here on CC, most URMs who get accepted have much lower scores. Besides, there simply isn’t enough high scoring URMs to actually have more high achieveing URMs than asians.</p>
<p>
I’m just saying that you’re wrong.</p>
<p>For example I know an asian student that was rejected by stanford at my school. He was top 1%, 2380 SAT single sitting and only took once, USAMO (or really high on AIME I forget), great ECs, etc.</p>
<p>and ofcourse not 25% of the studnet body are recruited athletes… that was my point… the rest are URMs…</p>
<p>I highly doubt that the rest are URM’s. MIT and other schools reject students with 4.0’s and 2400s. Schools like Stanford don’t accept all students that meet the statistical “requirements.” Go look at the official accepted students for MIT. Many students with superb scores and GPA’s were rejected.</p>
<p>Are colleges supposed to accept everyone with high scores/GPA’s? No! That is basically what you are saying.</p>
<p>Most people that apply have high scores though, no doubt about that.</p>
<p>URM’s aren’t admitted solely because of race. You are saying that they are and that isn’t true.</p>
<p>If you read the thread “What to infer (and not to infer) from 25th-75th score ranges” in the College Admissions Forum, you’ll see that the SAT averages at top schools are largely influenced by hooked applicants: athletes, students with an extraordinary talent, legacies, and URMs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The typical unhooked Stanford applicant/admittee has an SAT score closer to the 75th percentile than the 25th. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Poor Asians aren’t struggling people? I suppose this is a legitimate reason to limit Asian representation at top universities? </p>
<p>You hope that people look beyond race, and yet you support the very vehicle that continues to give weight to race. Is that really “looking beyond race?”</p>
<p>Your argument essentially holds different races to different standards. The Duke Mismatch study I posted earlier underscores the freshmen GPA disparities among the races. The “below average stats” apparently are there both pre-acceptance and post-acceptance (however, I admit that GPA upon graduation is not shown so the data is incomplete). </p>
<p>Many Black students at top universities are recent immigrants with estimates ranging from two fifths to two thirds of the total Black enrollment ([Top</a> Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones? - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html]Top”>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html)). Moreover, many other URMs are from high-income families. Thus, your hypothetical students have limited representation even within the African American/Black slice of the college demographic pie chart. Economic AA would still benefit the type of people you are advocating for, as well as those who happen to be Asian or Caucasian.</p>
<p>Edit: more posts</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One CC poster compiled all the SAT scores from the Stanford and Yale SCEAs and arranged them by race and decision. While there was limited data from the URM pool–probably due to the fact that fewer URMs apply–there was a definite difference in SAT score.</p>
<p>To Entertainer: While MIT et. al. certainly do reject lots of 4.0s 2400s, I highly doubt that many URMs with 4.0s above 2300s get rejected. Sure there are some, but I’m willing to wager that a high percentage gets accepted. </p>
<p>I’m not saying URMs are admitted solely because of race. Recall the Duke study I provided that also revealed differences in other admission criteria. Asians and Caucasians had the highest in every category.</p>
<p>I didn’t say poor Asians and Caucasians weren’t struggling. I was looking at the distribution of income, access to better schools, ability to get a job among Asians and Caucasians as a whole.</p>
<p>Well if your looking at this from a socioeconomic perspective, there are more poor blacks than whites or asians. So if a low-income black person applies to an elite school, there is a chance that he or she would be accepted. If a poor white or caucasian applied to a school with similar stats that the accepted black person from Stanford received, they would have the same chance of admittance.</p>
<p>So if rich URM’s are the ones getting accepted into elite universities then does that mean that they are accepted solely because of their race and not their academic merit or achievements? </p>
<p>Even if that typical unhooked applicant has scores closer to the 75th percentile, does that mean they would have no chance of getting admitted with the scores that the URM had? If they would be, then that would mean that schools are giving preferential treatment to URM’s. At these elite schools everyone that applies has a high chance of getting rejected. </p>
<p>Well your comment about MIT. I think URM’s would have a high chance of getting accepted with scores of 2300/4.0. That is extremely rare, compared to Asians and Caucasians so I guess your point is valid that in some cases URM’s are given a “boost.”</p>
<p>Yes, even though asians with 2400 get rejected, URMs with 1900 don’t. YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT…</p>
<p>Seriously, at least try to aruge for your side… this is getting boring.</p>
<p>and IMO yes, admissions should be based purely on standardized testing, though not necessarily how the SATs are set up right now.</p>
<p>and No, URMs don’t get in SOLELY because of their race; no one is saying that. However, whether or not all of them would get in if they were asians is a different story.</p>
<p>URM’s with 1900’s do get rejected from schools like Stanford and MIT. I’m not saying all of them do, but a good portion does.</p>
<p>Why should admissions be based purely on standardized testing? What does that prove? Even though it proved higher first year college GPA in the duke analysis, standardized testing doesn’t tell the whole story about an applicant.</p>
<p>Unless you are applying to Graduate School, college GPA doesn’t mean very much as long as you are getting grades above the requirements to graduate.</p>
<p>most URMs get rejected with 1900. All asians get rejected with 1900.</p>
<p>Do you know what preferential treatment is?</p>
<p>Seriously.</p>
<p>and why? Because as I’ve said, not necessarily SATs, but a better standardized testing. In reality, no one cares if you like chess, or play basketball or was the president of 5 clubs… you need to be able to do the work. </p>
<p>And why not choose the best, instead of a person who’s skin color is different?</p>
<p>Preferential treatment is basically giving a person an advantage because of race or gender. I think I know what it means.</p>
<p>You also have no proof that every asian with a 1900 is denied from prestigious universities. They don’t publish that data, however it can be valid assumption. Universities state that there is no cut-off GPA, or test score. Even though this statement seems like a load of garbage and sometimes I think it is in terms of the statistics of admitted students; it means exactly what it says.</p>
<p>If all of these policies were ignored and people were just judged on their standardized test scores as you have stated, then URM’s would be virtually non-existent in colleges. The point of diversity is simple and clearly stated here:</p>
<p>“We know from research and from our experience as educators that building a diverse community adds to the quality of our teaching and learning, our scholarship, and our creative endeavors.”</p>
<p>“The University strives first and foremost to be academically excellent. Diversity is an essential component of our excellence. The quality of our academic programs is enhanced by the rich and varied contributions of our diverse students and faculty, who approach problems from different perspectives.”</p>
<p>Standardized tests alone don’t prove how well someone will perform in college. In addition, it doesn’t prove how successful someone will be. It also doesn’t prove someone’s ability to handle college level work. If that were the case, placement tests wouldn’t be required by any top university. </p>
<p>“Be careful not to judge people’s abilities or intelligence based on one test score. It is unwise to do so. I have known many people who are smarter than myself who did not score nearly as high as I did on the SAt. From my experience, and it is substantial (more so than any study conducted by so-called experts), GPA is a much better indicator of ability than SAT. And one must never confuse academic ability with overall talent or intelligence. Einstein was academically incompetent…as was Thomas Edison. Those guys flunked! Just because a person cannot excel in an academic environment does not automatically mean that they aren’t capable or intelligent.” - Alexandre</p>
<p>I also think the statement above is a true testament to why diversity is so important.</p>
<p>Exactly. They had a fail GPA. But had they taken the SATs, I’m sure they would’ve gotten a very high score.</p>
<p>
Placement tests are standardized testing.</p>
<p>
An asian with 1900 is much more likely to be denied than an african. You can’t deny that. Which means there is preferential treatment.</p>
<p>
No, there would still be some. Unless you’re questioning URMs’ intelligence? Either way, there would be less, but it’s better than artificially manipulating and getting less qualified people in just because they’re URMs.</p>
<p>
Loads of BS. Some blacks are more similar to some whites than other blacks, and vise versa. Skin color doesn’t contribute to mental diversity. </p>
<p>
different students of the same race can approach probelms from different perspectives. Students who can’t even solve the problem can’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Success is different for different people, thus that line is complete bogus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>which is why I said not necessarily the SATs.</p>
<p>You have to be kidding. If a URM was admitted to college solely based on standardized tests, they would be virtually non-existent in colleges. They would represent .05% of the student body population at any college. I’m not questioning their intelligence. I’m basing my answers from actual standardized test score statistics.</p>
<p>Placement tests are used to see what college classes you are ready for. They aren’t used to gain admittance into a university like the SAT’s are. What is the point of admitting someone based on SAT scores, if they have to take placement tests to prove what classes they are ready for. Shouldn’t the SAT’s prove how ready they are? They are required to gain admission into college. Doesn’t gaining admission, mean you can handle the work? at least according to you.</p>
<p>“admissions should be based purely on standardized testing” This is a quote from you.</p>
<p>^It depends on each university’s cutoff score though. If it is 2300, I doubt many people could get in.</p>
<p>If it was close to the national average like 1500 or 1600(obviously doesn’t apply to top universities), than anyone can get in there of any color.</p>
<p>Personally, I think universities should just put out min SAT scores and GPA’s, it’d make the process a lot less stressful and chance-like.</p>
<p>JAJDUDE: Most top universities have no cut off GPA or test score. According to those exact words, any person with any score or GPA can get into the university, but obviously that isn’t the case. Top universities stress academic and personal achievement. They want outstanding applicants and usually outstanding applicants have high GPA’s and high test scores. </p>
<p>To me a 1900 isn’t a low SAT score. Maybe I have different standards. A 1900 falls within the 88th percentile. If that is “low” then I have no idea what a good score is.</p>
<p>Compared to other African Americans a 1900 is impressive. Obviously not so much so once you look at the average SAT scores for whites and asians. This has nothing to do with the argument. It was just an interesting finding. Depending on what race you are, you are going to have different perspectives on what a good SAT score is. Thats my opinion. From these statistics I can make an assumption that universities compare URM’s to URM’s, Asians to Asians, and Caucasians to Caucasians. Apples to Apples comparison.</p>
<p>Do you guys not understand that while the SATs are standardized tests, standardized testing is not SAT???/</p>
<ol>
<li><p>yes, an applicant IS only as good as the numbers for the purpose of a school, which is to LEARN. Just because you’re the world’s best basketball player doesn’t mean you also deserve to be at a top science school. </p></li>
<li><p>I never said a single test. I said a DIFFERENT standardized test.
Also, I’m saying that that’s all that should matter in terms of colleges, not life. </p></li>
<li><p>I don’t see the benefit of diversity. Unless you can give me hard facts, I doubt there are any benefits of diversity. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>^By diversity I mean skin color, race or ethnicity. Other diversity such as different cultures or way of thinking may be beneficial.</p>
<ol>
<li>yes i am. So is everyone else. got a problem?</li>
</ol>
<p>
He’s saying if they did…</p>
<p>dude please, actually read and think before you type.</p>
<p>“^ it depends on each university’s cutoff score though.” That’s what he posted. </p>
<p>Even though he might have stated something else later on in his post(something hypothetical), that is what he stated and he referred to my post for that.</p>
<p>Also, we all know SAT isn’t all standardized testing, but most of the argument about whether or not URM’s get preferential treatment is based on college admissions. What other standardized tests are used in the college admissions process?</p>
<p>"yes, an applicant IS only as good as the numbers for the purpose of a school, which is to LEARN. Just because you’re the world’s best basketball player doesn’t mean you also deserve to be at a top science school. "</p>
<p>They clearly weren’t admitted because of their academic skills or numbers as you know. They were admitted specifically for sports. So regardless of if they happen to be at a top science school, they were still qualified. Lets take a school like Stanford. They won’t recruit an outstanding sports player if his grades don’t meet a certain criteria. Even though the main reason he or she gained admission was because of sports, they still have to fulfill the requirements to graduate.</p>
<p>Usually athletes are given extra help in many ways to help them succeed.</p>
<p>In case you didn’t know, many businesses look for diversity when hiring.
Why? People from different backgrounds provide experience and new dimensions to the business. These people are able to bring something new to the table. Diversity brings new ideas and a friendly, favorable environment.</p>
<p>What are colleges? That’s right: businesses.
They select who they believe is right for their school, in their own interests. Selecting similar applicants only because they have high numbers would do nothing for their own benefit. Do these applicants deserve a spot? Perhaps, but not according to the schools. The selective colleges want people who can think for themselves, not people who can simply answer a question correctly on a multiple choice test.</p>
<p>No, but you did mention “a single test” and “multiple choice test” which implies SAT, or a similar test.</p>
<p>Not all standardized testing has to be that way. IMO college entrance should be based purely on academic achievement. That’s why I said a standardized testing without any of the other stuff. However, as you said, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>which is completely true. Which is why they won’t change for the better of the world, but anyway,</p>
<p>the point was, URMs have a significant advantage over non URMs, it’s a fact.</p>
<p>the nile is not a river in egypt, entertainer</p>
![http://aapf.org/focus/images/trackillustrationweb.jpg[/url]](http://aapf.org/focus/images/trackillustrationweb.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
