Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed my son may have been a beneficiary of AA, but he has accomplished something quite significant in college that has garnered the attention of HYP administrators. My point being that just because your SAT score is 150-200 points lower than someone else, it does not mean you are less qualified, because using the holistic approach to admissions, the admissions office may believe you bring other qualities than standardized test-taking to the college community.

That may be true, but it is also true that those other qualities might not have been enough to tip the scale if your son had had a different skin color. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Not at all. There were many times through out his school career when he was treated negatively because of his skin color and socio-economic status. In third grade he came home crying because a teacher told him there was no way he would grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice. ( He argued with her citing Thurgood Marshall.) He had to petition to be allowed to take more advanced math classes. In prep school he got better grades on essays when his English teacher did blind grading ( assignments were coded rather than with names). When he tells people where he goes to school, many ask what sport he plays. Yet he kept all this in stride and kept studying, getting a very high grade point. So, if his skin color helped him get into college, that is just fine by me.

Affirmative Action/Racial preference in college admissions is unconstitutional and the Court will find such practice violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in the near future.

Anonymous wrote:There are many qualified applicants that are denied admission. Every individual is different, so an individual who has a lower than average (for the class) test score may do just fine. However, research shows that "on average" URM perform better when they are matched with classmates having comparable scores. There are now many URM graduates of top schools, but we aren't seeing that translate into success outside of government and politics.

Please don't take our non replies as agreement with you. It's just that your racism and lack of logic have worn us out.

There are many qualified applicants that are denied admission. Every individual is different, so an individual who has a lower than average (for the class) test score may do just fine. However, research shows that "on average" URM perform better when they are matched with classmates having comparable scores. There are now many URM graduates of top schools, but we aren't seeing that translate into success outside of government and politics.

Anonymous wrote:Indeed my son may have been a beneficiary of AA, but he has accomplished something quite significant in college that has garnered the attention of HYP administrators. My point being that just because your SAT score is 150-200 points lower than someone else, it does not mean you are less qualified, because using the holistic approach to admissions, the admissions office may believe you bring other qualities than standardized test-taking to the college community.

That may be true, but it is also true that those other qualities might not have been enough to tip the scale if your son had had a different skin color. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Indeed my son may have been a beneficiary of AA, but he has accomplished something quite significant in college that has garnered the attention of HYP administrators. My point being that just because your SAT score is 150-200 points lower than someone else, it does not mean you are less qualified, because using the holistic approach to admissions, the admissions office may believe you bring other qualities than standardized test-taking to the college community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. As a parent of a minority with a 2050 SAT score, I think he got in because of wonderful recommendations and amazing leadership qualities. BYW, the difference in score made no difference in his performance at HYP. He works very hard and is excelling. Was he less qualified than others? I do not believe so.
This is what schools mean when they say they consider "the whole student."

That might be true for your child, but overall minorities do considerably worse at selective schools. This disparity disappears once you correct for SAT scores. In addition, many URM students leave the more challenging majors at a much higher rate than their white and Asian counterparts. In one study I saw, 85% of AA students were in the bottom 40%, with 53% in the bottom 20%. Only 5% were in the top 20% of the class.

Source or it never happened. This site has had a rash of faux CEOs, faux "neurobiological researchers" (different DCUM forum) and the like, all with their private sets of BS facts and stats.

Here's a source fro you: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action

Thanks for digging out a source, I do appreciate it! I'm pretty cynical about DCUM factoids, and it shows. Thanks again.

I do notice that the case discussed, involving Texas, involves larger discrepancies than the Harvard examples above. From the article: "For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at 1524 and 2.57." So the SAT discrepancy was as large as 400 points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. As a parent of a minority with a 2050 SAT score, I think he got in because of wonderful recommendations and amazing leadership qualities. BYW, the difference in score made no difference in his performance at HYP. He works very hard and is excelling. Was he less qualified than others? I do not believe so.
This is what schools mean when they say they consider "the whole student."

That might be true for your child, but overall minorities do considerably worse at selective schools. This disparity disappears once you correct for SAT scores. In addition, many URM students leave the more challenging majors at a much higher rate than their white and Asian counterparts. In one study I saw, 85% of AA students were in the bottom 40%, with 53% in the bottom 20%. Only 5% were in the top 20% of the class.

Source or it never happened. This site has had a rash of faux CEOs, faux "neurobiological researchers" (different DCUM forum) and the like, all with their private sets of BS facts and stats.

Here's a source fro you: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action

I'm the OP, here's one of the articles I was referencing: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444799904578050901460576218

From the article: There is now increasing evidence that students who receive large preferences of any kind—whether based on race, athletic ability, alumni connections or other considerations—experience some clear negative effects: Students end up with poor grades (usually in the bottom fifth of their class), lower graduation rates, extremely high attrition rates from science and engineering majors, substantial self-segregation on campus, lower self-esteem and far greater difficulty passing licensing tests (such as bar exams for lawyers).

Affirmative action is well intended, but using "skin tone" as a proxy for low SES is just plain silly. The biggest defenders of affirmative action are well-to-do minority parents (some of whom were also beneficiaries of AA) who should know better, but want to keep this "perk" even at the expense of the low SES "strivers." Schools should focus on identifying and supporting the low SES regardless of skin tone or creed:

http://tcf.org/bookstore/detail/rewarding-strivers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. As a parent of a minority with a 2050 SAT score, I think he got in because of wonderful recommendations and amazing leadership qualities. BYW, the difference in score made no difference in his performance at HYP. He works very hard and is excelling. Was he less qualified than others? I do not believe so.
This is what schools mean when they say they consider "the whole student."

That might be true for your child, but overall minorities do considerably worse at selective schools. This disparity disappears once you correct for SAT scores. In addition, many URM students leave the more challenging majors at a much higher rate than their white and Asian counterparts. In one study I saw, 85% of AA students were in the bottom 40%, with 53% in the bottom 20%. Only 5% were in the top 20% of the class.

Source or it never happened. This site has had a rash of faux CEOs, faux "neurobiological researchers" (different DCUM forum) and the like, all with their private sets of BS facts and stats.

Here's a source fro you: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you are talking about a lower ceiling of kids scoring in the 95th+ percentile, then you are really splitting hairs in terms of people's qualifications. Basically everyone's test scores are in the 95-99th percentile nationally. Do you really think that once you are in that pool, there will be a meaningful distinction in classroom performance?

There is a meaningful difference between 2050 and 2250.

In college apps, the difference is between an average HYP candidate and an average Michigan, Boston College candidate. All good, but a meaningful difference to be sure.

PP was asking about a meaningful difference in classroom performance, not in college options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you are talking about a lower ceiling of kids scoring in the 95th+ percentile, then you are really splitting hairs in terms of people's qualifications. Basically everyone's test scores are in the 95-99th percentile nationally. Do you really think that once you are in that pool, there will be a meaningful distinction in classroom performance?

There is a meaningful difference between 2050 and 2250.

In college apps, the difference is between an average HYP candidate and an average Michigan, Boston College candidate. All good, but a meaningful difference to be sure.

Anonymous wrote:When you are talking about a lower ceiling of kids scoring in the 95th+ percentile, then you are really splitting hairs in terms of people's qualifications. Basically everyone's test scores are in the 95-99th percentile nationally. Do you really think that once you are in that pool, there will be a meaningful distinction in classroom performance?

There is a meaningful difference between 2050 and 2250.

When you are talking about a lower ceiling of kids scoring in the 95th+ percentile, then you are really splitting hairs in terms of people's qualifications. Basically everyone's test scores are in the 95-99th percentile nationally. Do you really think that once you are in that pool, there will be a meaningful distinction in classroom performance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. As a parent of a minority with a 2050 SAT score, I think he got in because of wonderful recommendations and amazing leadership qualities. BYW, the difference in score made no difference in his performance at HYP. He works very hard and is excelling. Was he less qualified than others? I do not believe so.
This is what schools mean when they say they consider "the whole student."

That might be true for your child, but overall minorities do considerably worse at selective schools. This disparity disappears once you correct for SAT scores. In addition, many URM students leave the more challenging majors at a much higher rate than their white and Asian counterparts. In one study I saw, 85% of AA students were in the bottom 40%, with 53% in the bottom 20%. Only 5% were in the top 20% of the class.

Source or it never happened. This site has had a rash of faux CEOs, faux "neurobiological researchers" (different DCUM forum) and the like, all with their private sets of BS facts and stats.