Proof of why URMs do NOT want SES-based affirmative action to take place of race-based policy

[Anonymous]

12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

[Anonymous]

Its weird that people focus so much on college, when the problem is with K-12 education. The segregation in K-12 is absolutely rampant. Many affluent whites have never spent a day in a state school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

[Anonymous]

Colleges should base affirmative action on the secondary school you attended, rather than race. In a tie, give the edge to the kid who went to a mediocre state school.

This would help reduce the growing segregation in K-12 and give affluent parents an incentive to keep their kids in state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny...the % of Black kids at any PWI is less than 10%. Instead of doing whatever it takes for their kid to be in the other 90%, folks want to snipe at the Black kids. In a class of 1000 freshmen, less than 100 will be Black - and few of those will be recruited athletes. So let's say that 65 of those kids are academic admits. You guys have your panties in a bunch over 65/1000 kids. Think about that!

Actually, about 2,200 offers are made per school for top schools although incoming class sizes vary somewhat and the yield rates vary as well. 10% of 2,200 is 220 per school. Remember, balck applicant doesn't just get one acceptance from top schools but multiple acceptances. Multiply 220 for top 20 schools and you get 4,400 acceptances. Subtract about 600 for recruited athletes and you have 3,800 acceptances for the top 20 schools.

So 3,800 acceptances across 20 schools? And you think that undercuts my point? Out of how many applications across those 20 schools? Also, if the kid accepts at ONE school, doesn't that free up space (waitlist or otherwise) for others at the schools that student chose not to attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges should base affirmative action on the secondary school you attended, rather than race. In a tie, give the edge to the kid who went to a mediocre state school.

This would help reduce the growing segregation in K-12 and give affluent parents an incentive to keep their kids in state schools.

Mediocre state school? Do you mean public school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

Yeah PP really wants to get rid of something like legacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you direct your vitriol at them. As opposed to recruited athletes, legacy, big money and international students. And BOYS!

Totally agree. It's so wrong that boys get an advantage. And rich people, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny...the % of Black kids at any PWI is less than 10%. Instead of doing whatever it takes for their kid to be in the other 90%, folks want to snipe at the Black kids. In a class of 1000 freshmen, less than 100 will be Black - and few of those will be recruited athletes. So let's say that 65 of those kids are academic admits. You guys have your panties in a bunch over 65/1000 kids. Think about that!

Fine. Tell you what; you can keep AA as long as you promise to quit complaining about people who will rightfully assume that blacks (or legacy, of athletic admits) aren't as qualified. If you want a lower bar for admittance accept that fact that people assume you can't clear a higher bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:49. Now we see the true motivations. You want zero.

Yes, that is correct. I think that there should be zero students who have been offered admissions due to their race, not their merit.

Really? Is that your only hot button? Race? Because kid are admiited for a myriad of reasons that do not depend soley on academic "merit." Would you wipe those kids out too or is it just race?

When I said MERIT, I meant MERIT. What is so difficult to understand about merit? No, I do not believe a legacy should trump merit, nor should athletes who can't do college work but can throw a football, nor should money buy your way in. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please tell me what exactly the argument over SES-based affirmative action is?

It will drastically reduce the number of URMs in top colleges. The children of poor whites score the same on the SAT as as the children of affluent Blacks.

This is a gross generalization and wrong, to boot. Affluence is what affects the score, not race.

Yes, that's the party line, but it isn't backed up by data. From this link: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."

So yeah, if you actually changed affirmative action to help out poor kids it would drastically reduce the number of URM students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please tell me what exactly the argument over SES-based affirmative action is?

It will drastically reduce the number of URMs in top colleges. The children of poor whites score the same on the SAT as as the children of affluent Blacks.

This is a gross generalization and wrong, to boot. Affluence is what affects the score, not race.

Yes, that's the party line, but it isn't backed up by data. From this link: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."

So yeah, if you actually changed affirmative action to help out poor kids it would drastically reduce the number of URM students.

This is just ...wow. How can this be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please tell me what exactly the argument over SES-based affirmative action is?

It will drastically reduce the number of URMs in top colleges. The children of poor whites score the same on the SAT as as the children of affluent Blacks.

This is a gross generalization and wrong, to boot. Affluence is what affects the score, not race.

Yes, that's the party line, but it isn't backed up by data. From this link: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."

So yeah, if you actually changed affirmative action to help out poor kids it would drastically reduce the number of URM students.

This is just ...wow. How can this be?

A couple of things probably explain it:

1) The percentage of dirt poor whites going to college is undoubtedly lower than that of affluent blacks; thus you're probably only getting the better students out of the bunch.

2) Blacks in the US have an average IQ of 85; whites of about 103; basically the same one standard deviation we see in the SAT scores. The kids are regressing to different means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please tell me what exactly the argument over SES-based affirmative action is?

It will drastically reduce the number of URMs in top colleges. The children of poor whites score the same on the SAT as as the children of affluent Blacks.

This is a gross generalization and wrong, to boot. Affluence is what affects the score, not race.

Yes, that's the party line, but it isn't backed up by data. From this link: http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

"But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of more than $100,000."

So yeah, if you actually changed affirmative action to help out poor kids it would drastically reduce the number of URM students.

This is just ...wow. How can this be?

It can't. Who the frack has income of less than $10,000 and is taking SATs? And where are these $10,000 incomes where schools are promoting higher education?