Anonymous wrote:^^^ Oops my comment was in response to:

The biggest beneficiaries were white women who kept hitting their heads on low and high glass ceilings.

The biggest beneficiaries were white women. That's just a fact. Just like the creation of affirmative action was to assist physically challenged people and others who were disenfranchised. But there are those who made it all about blacks and that wasn't its intention overall.

Not sure why there's an issue with this historical fact. There certainly is no shame in that.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

The bottom line is that those who have the gold make the (admissions) rules.

I have looked at dozens and dozens of college websites, and the one thing they have in common is their insistence that they want a well-rounded student population. There are just so many Intel winners they want, just so many violin players and, yes, just so many black and white students they want. After all, those aren't the only ethnic nor interesting groups in town.

^^^ Oops my comment was in response to:

The biggest beneficiaries were white women who kept hitting their heads on low and high glass ceilings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

The doubt comes from the hearts and minds of those who question the ilntellect. Affirmative Action was never exclusively meant for blacks. The biggest beneficiaries were white women who kept hitting their heads on low and high glass ceilings.

The black kids who are legitimately qualified (whether at an Ivy or state school -- whether A or B student) don't need affirmation from whites. They know what they are capable of.

Don't know what period in time you're referencing. It is far harder for girls to get into college than it is for boys. Of any race. Since so many more girls apply to college than boys and there's a policy of gender parity at any co-ed school, the deck is stacked against girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Naviance and talking to your student's guidance counselor can yield the best information. That said, the top top colleges are a crap shoot unless you have a hook (won state science fair, nationally top ten ranked in his/her sport, grandfather just gave $2M, won a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize, discovered a treatment for Ebola....). It doesn't mean not to take the crap shoot if you think you may be one of the lucky ones, but make sure you have a backup.

you forgot URM. the score gap between asian and black at a place like princeton is insane. A black kid with 2100 boards and decent grades will get into multiple top 10 schools.

I was reading an analysis of this for UVA; being Black gives a massive boost; being Hispanic gives a significantly smaller advantage. In another article the average Black student at UVA has a ~1050 on the SATs and the average white student had a ~1350.

Here: http://www.nas.org/images/documents/report_affirmative_action_at_three_universities.pdf

Some interesting stats:

The odds ratio for blacks compared to whites at NCS is 13 to 1, but at UVA it is 106 to 1 and at William &Mary 267 to 1. In other words, at UVA the odds of a black student being admitted is more than 100 times the odds of admission of a white student with the same qualifications. The odds of admitting a black applicant at William & Mary is more than 250 times the odds of admitting an equally-qualified white applicant. The odds ratios for Asians at all three schools are less than one, meaning that Asians are less likely to be admitted than equally-qualified whites (the odds ratio for Asians at UVA is not statistically significant). The odds ratios for Hispanics are 2.8 and 1.9 at UVA and NCS, respectively, but less than one at W&M.

This is absurd. By these stats, not just UVA but many colleges would be majority African American. That certainly is not the case, and it's misleading to consistently suggest that black applicants get this 'massive boost' in admissions.

UCLA has a significant Asian admittance rating and, using your words, the odds are more than 100 times the odds of a qualified white or black student to be admitted.

I don't follow your reasoning. How would top colleges be majority AA? Do you think there are a ton of Black students out there with high SAT scores? The average SAT scores for Blacks in the US was about 860. And these aren't "my" stats or words; they came from the article supplied. They were obtained using FOIA. I think anyone who doesn't think that being Black gives you a big advantage in selective college admittance is being willfully obtuse.

If you think Black kids are getting into Ivy schools with inferior grades, scores, and aptitudes then it is you who is obtuse. Do you really think places like Harvard would let anyone in who couldn't hold their own academically regardless of color?

So concerned about the handful of qualified Black applicants being admitted while Asians and other foreign applicants have systematically snatched up far more seats than Blacks.

Where is the outrage?

Quite common knowledge that it is harder for Asians to be admitted than any other group. Turn your laser on white males. They get the biggest pass of all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Naviance and talking to your student's guidance counselor can yield the best information. That said, the top top colleges are a crap shoot unless you have a hook (won state science fair, nationally top ten ranked in his/her sport, grandfather just gave $2M, won a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize, discovered a treatment for Ebola....). It doesn't mean not to take the crap shoot if you think you may be one of the lucky ones, but make sure you have a backup.

you forgot URM. the score gap between asian and black at a place like princeton is insane. A black kid with 2100 boards and decent grades will get into multiple top 10 schools.

I was reading an analysis of this for UVA; being Black gives a massive boost; being Hispanic gives a significantly smaller advantage. In another article the average Black student at UVA has a ~1050 on the SATs and the average white student had a ~1350.

Here: http://www.nas.org/images/documents/report_affirmative_action_at_three_universities.pdf

Some interesting stats:

The odds ratio for blacks compared to whites at NCS is 13 to 1, but at UVA it is 106 to 1 and at William &Mary 267 to 1. In other words, at UVA the odds of a black student being admitted is more than 100 times the odds of admission of a white student with the same qualifications. The odds of admitting a black applicant at William & Mary is more than 250 times the odds of admitting an equally-qualified white applicant. The odds ratios for Asians at all three schools are less than one, meaning that Asians are less likely to be admitted than equally-qualified whites (the odds ratio for Asians at UVA is not statistically significant). The odds ratios for Hispanics are 2.8 and 1.9 at UVA and NCS, respectively, but less than one at W&M.

This is absurd. By these stats, not just UVA but many colleges would be majority African American. That certainly is not the case, and it's misleading to consistently suggest that black applicants get this 'massive boost' in admissions.

UCLA has a significant Asian admittance rating and, using your words, the odds are more than 100 times the odds of a qualified white or black student to be admitted.

I don't follow your reasoning. How would top colleges be majority AA? Do you think there are a ton of Black students out there with high SAT scores? The average SAT scores for Blacks in the US was about 860. And these aren't "my" stats or words; they came from the article supplied. They were obtained using FOIA. I think anyone who doesn't think that being Black gives you a big advantage in selective college admittance is being willfully obtuse.

Of course there are. What a racist comment. And what a twisted way to use statistics. Shame on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

The doubt comes from the hearts and minds of those who question the ilntellect. Affirmative Action was never exclusively meant for blacks. The biggest beneficiaries were white women who kept hitting their heads on low and high glass ceilings.

The black kids who are legitimately qualified (whether at an Ivy or state school -- whether A or B student) don't need affirmation from whites. They know what they are capable of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

Since the highest score you can get on the SAT is 2400, I think it's entirely reasonable that PP's niece scored a 2375 on the SAT. Plenty of kids do.

No, plenty of kids don't.

In 2012 there were 613 who scored higher out of almost 1.7 million test takers: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-Composite-CR-M-W-2012.pdf

People around here act like getting in the high 2300's is no big deal. I wonder how much of this is due to word of mouth about kids who scored that high vs. real knowledge about it. I think people tend to exaggerate scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

Since the highest score you can get on the SAT is 2400, I think it's entirely reasonable that PP's niece scored a 2375 on the SAT. Plenty of kids do.

I assume it was a reference to the 5. Scores are only done in 10s. So she could have gotten a 2370 or a 2380 but not a 2375.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

Since the highest score you can get on the SAT is 2400, I think it's entirely reasonable that PP's niece scored a 2375 on the SAT. Plenty of kids do.

Anonymous wrote:I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

You can't even get that score; I'll assume that's a typo. With scores and qualifications that high none of the previous conversation relates to her; she's clearly qualified. The only reason that people will assume she got in because of the color of her skin is because many do. If it was a open meritocracy then there wouldn't be anybody suggesting she didn't earn her way in. That's one of the biggest problems I see in affirmative action; it casts doubts on the talents of the kids who legitimately qualified. I feel the same way about athletic recruits; I don't assume that they're as talented as non-recruited students.

I am so glad my black niece who will be attending an Ivy in the fall was admitted with a 2375 SAT, perfect GPA, plenty of honors/AP courses, ECs, and on and on and on. And for those who would suggest that these are public school scores, she attended one of the so-called Big Three privates in this area.

No one will EVER be able to throw in her face that she got in because of the color of her skin (but there will be those who will allude to that as evidenced in this thread) as she outweighed or equaled academically all of her competitors.

She owes no explanation to anyone how or why she was admitted just as she would not expect that from anyone else she encounters on campus or anywhere else.

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative Action = legally sanctioned discrimination. It is wrong and will be recognized as such one day.

Same with legacy admission or any privilege that leads to discrimination.

In fairness to the NAS, there should be no question about their stance. So, this is who they are. What you believe is how you base your opinions, liberal or conservative.

Positions
The National Association of Scholars opposes campus speech codes, which they argue violate the First Amendment. The NAS strongly objects to racial and gender preferences in college admissions and hiring, but states that it does not oppose all forms of affirmative action. Time Magazine in 1991 called NAS the "faculty opposition to the excesses of multiculturalism."[11] The NAS describes its main work as the defense of "the core values of liberal higher education."[3]

William A. Donohue, former NAS board member[12] and leader of the politically conservative Catholic League,[13] writes in American Conservatism: an Encyclopedia (2006) that the NAS wishes "to foster renewed respect for the proposition that rational discourse and scholarship are the basis of academic life" and to emphasize "the Western commitment to freedom and democracy."[14] On the other hand, Jacob Weisberg stated in 1991 that NAS is "prone to conflating its admirable ideals with far less compelling political prejudices."[15]

Since its founding, NAS has released six official policy statements.

“The Wrong Way to Admit the Other Half: Why We Oppose Class-Based Affirmative Action” (June 2013) critiques class-based affirmative action for undermining the principle of individual merit.[16]

“Fixing Sustainability and Sustaining Higher Education” (April 2011) recommended that colleges and universities protect the academic freedom of scientists who express skepticism of man-made global warming and treat the campus sustainability movement as an object of inquiry rather than a body of precepts.[17]

“Rebuilding Campus Community: The Wrong Imperative” (July 2008) expressed concern over the proliferation of non-curricular, typically residential, programs instructing students in progressive ideologies of social change.[18]

“Sexual Harassment and Academic Freedom” (January 1993) urged colleges and universities to respond to instances of sexual harassment promptly and firmly and to avoid vague definitions of harassment.[19]

“The Wrong Way to Reduce Campus Tensions” (January 1991) articulated NAS’s belief that individual evaluation on the basis of personal merit is central to achieving educational opportunity for all and to maintaining academic community.[20]

“Is the Curriculum Biased?” (November 1989) defends Western Civilization courses.[21]

NAS describes its mission as “to foster intellectual freedom and to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate.”[22] It publishes research articles and commentary on its website, including arguments on both sides of debated issues. After the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate"), NAS published articles by Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences, defending the science of global warming[23] and by H. Sterling Burnett, an environmental ethics Ph.D., expressing skepticism about climate change.[24] NAS has also published articles in favor of[25] and against[26] the new Common Core State Standards Initiative for K-12 education, and articles defending[27] and criticizing[28] online education.

Affirmative Action = legally sanctioned discrimination. It is wrong and will be recognized as such one day.