Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

All the money in the world wont turn a slob into a college level wide receiver or shooting guard. Parents who think that it will are delusional.

Irrelevant. Millions of kids who have the character traits to succeed in college sports never get a chance to due to the expenses of participation and parental involvement.

Everyone harps on about test prep, but test prep can be done alone, as millions of immigrant kids do every year. Sports cannot be played alone.

People harp about test prep because it indicates a false positive, so to speak.

And sports meanwhile are completely orthogonal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Football is the largest sport on any campus in terms of scholarships (85 compared to 9.9 for soccer) and roster size and it does not skew wealthy at all. Next in line is Basketball which is not a sport for the wealthy at the college level. Track and field which also does not favor the wealthy. Even soccer is becoming largely foreign students. Football alone is the bulk of scholarships on the mens side, so athletics without money are the norm

Um what???? Not anymore.

Distance track skews wealthy for sure.

6'8 and athletic is not a trait determined by wealth. You can put your kid in AAU as a third grader and pay for all the training you can possibly jam into their day and it won't make a difference if the genetics aren't there. Look around college basketball and you'll find a lot more poor kids than rich kids

Yes, 20 years ago. Not anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

It has never, ever been the mission of universities to take the most “meritorious” (and that word is doing a lot of work in your post) by taking some combination of GPA/SAT/ACT (with whatever weighting might be applied) and work their way down the list till they fill out their class. Evaluations of student is necessarily much more complicated that something that reductive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

All the money in the world wont turn a slob into a college level wide receiver or shooting guard. Parents who think that it will are delusional.

Irrelevant. Millions of kids who have the character traits to succeed in college sports never get a chance to due to the expenses of participation and parental involvement.

Everyone harps on about test prep, but test prep can be done alone, as millions of immigrant kids do every year. Sports cannot be played alone.

People harp about test prep because it indicates a false positive, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals hear feel-good stories about black kids that grew up playing football and basketball in the ghetto and made it to the NFL through a scholarship at Stanford, and act as if that's the common standard for all football and basketball players, let alone athletes in other sports like swimming, soccer, lacrosse, golf, field hockey, etc. etc.

Club sports from a young age is very expensive and requires high parental involvement, far moreso than an SAT prep class. And students getting into college sports having played only pickup before high school is extremely rare and only getting rarer.

College sports is no longer a way for working class kids to go to college on the basis of their talents, if it ever even was that. It's a way for UMC kids to get admittance despite lower academic stats.

+1

Exactly this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Football is the largest sport on any campus in terms of scholarships (85 compared to 9.9 for soccer) and roster size and it does not skew wealthy at all. Next in line is Basketball which is not a sport for the wealthy at the college level. Track and field which also does not favor the wealthy. Even soccer is becoming largely foreign students. Football alone is the bulk of scholarships on the mens side, so athletics without money are the norm

Um what???? Not anymore.

Distance track skews wealthy for sure.

6'8 and athletic is not a trait determined by wealth. You can put your kid in AAU as a third grader and pay for all the training you can possibly jam into their day and it won't make a difference if the genetics aren't there. Look around college basketball and you'll find a lot more poor kids than rich kids

Liberals hear feel-good stories about black kids that grew up playing football and basketball in the ghetto and made it to the NFL through a scholarship at Stanford, and act as if that's the common standard for all football and basketball players, let alone athletes in other sports like swimming, soccer, lacrosse, golf, field hockey, etc. etc.

Club sports from a young age is very expensive and requires high parental involvement, far moreso than an SAT prep class. And students getting into college sports having played only pickup before high school is extremely rare and only getting rarer.

College sports is no longer a way for working class kids to go to college on the basis of their talents, if it ever even was that. It's a way for UMC kids to get admittance despite lower academic stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Cross country, field hockey and wrestling are dominated by UMC/rich kids. Look at NXN and EastBay nationals results for xc, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single kid not from a wealthy public or private school. To train you need, yes, safe, large areas to run in outdoors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Football is the largest sport on any campus in terms of scholarships (85 compared to 9.9 for soccer) and roster size and it does not skew wealthy at all. Next in line is Basketball which is not a sport for the wealthy at the college level. Track and field which also does not favor the wealthy. Even soccer is becoming largely foreign students. Football alone is the bulk of scholarships on the mens side, so athletics without money are the norm

Um what???? Not anymore.

Distance track skews wealthy for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Football is the largest sport on any campus in terms of scholarships (85 compared to 9.9 for soccer) and roster size and it does not skew wealthy at all. Next in line is Basketball which is not a sport for the wealthy at the college level. Track and field which also does not favor the wealthy. Even soccer is becoming largely foreign students. Football alone is the bulk of scholarships on the mens side, so athletics without money are the norm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

You would hopefully agree that the most important question is not who is at fault, but what is the most effective way to avoid an accident. That is the analogy here. Our society is at fault. That doesn't mean that we can fix the problem.

When the accident had already happened, our entire justice system is geared towards determining who is at fault. If society is at fault, then it’s up to society to fix it. Or do you only believe in responsibility and accountability for the victims?

Justice and effectiveness are two different matters. On justice / fault, we agree. On effectiveness, there is really only so much that external help can do. To continue your analogy, you got hit by a car. You're in a hospital doing therapy. It sucks that it's true, and it's not fair, but really the only way for that therapy to work is for you to put in the effort. It has to be you, nobody else can do it. Again, concede not fair. That's not the point.

Well the guy who hit me with their car is paying for my hospital bills, my therapy, my lost wages and my pain and suffering. So if you prefer straight reparations to affirmative action I guess you’ve made the case.

If your theory of AA is that it is compensatory, this works. Assuming the people actually compensated are disadvantaged, which in practice is dubious. If it's supposed to change things, it seems to be failing.

How is it failing? Because you personally don’t think the recipients are deserving?

DP: it is failing because it isn't working. Heard of massive debts? Of massive drop out rates? Of massive and open racial discrimination against minority groups?

The point of AA is to increase minority representation. How is it not working?

Well, it goes to the heart of what should be the point of AA. Should it be to help a minority graduating from Anacostia HS...or should it function as it currently does where the vast majority of African Americans at elite schools are coming from elite backgrounds. From a Harvard economist:

"Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans."

Full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/30/affirmative-action-supreme-court-college-admissions/

"I benefited greatly from affirmative action. ... The problem is not affirmative action per se. The problem is lazy implementation of it as a set of blunt racial preferences. ... A machine-learning model would be fed historical admissions data, including candidates’ family background and academic achievement, and noncognitive skills such as grit and resilience, along with outcomes of past admission decisions. It would use these data to predict new applicants’ performance ... The Supreme Court seems poised to strike down the explicit use of race in university admissions. My hope is that it will still leave room for data-driven approaches to affirmative action that ensure real meritocracy."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?

Of course not. The answer is for Black people to prioritize education, study hard and compete. Even if the playing field isn’t fair, which is true for many groups. This is society’s problem, but it is not society’s problem to solve. It’s a Black problem with a Black solution.

I like this logic. The next time I run someone over with my car I’ll tell them the solution was for them to have prioritized getting out of my way. Even though it is unfair to hit them with a two ton vehicle that’s not my problem to solve. It’s their problem.

You would hopefully agree that the most important question is not who is at fault, but what is the most effective way to avoid an accident. That is the analogy here. Our society is at fault. That doesn't mean that we can fix the problem.

When the accident had already happened, our entire justice system is geared towards determining who is at fault. If society is at fault, then it’s up to society to fix it. Or do you only believe in responsibility and accountability for the victims?

Justice and effectiveness are two different matters. On justice / fault, we agree. On effectiveness, there is really only so much that external help can do. To continue your analogy, you got hit by a car. You're in a hospital doing therapy. It sucks that it's true, and it's not fair, but really the only way for that therapy to work is for you to put in the effort. It has to be you, nobody else can do it. Again, concede not fair. That's not the point.

Well the guy who hit me with their car is paying for my hospital bills, my therapy, my lost wages and my pain and suffering. So if you prefer straight reparations to affirmative action I guess you’ve made the case.

If your theory of AA is that it is compensatory, this works. Assuming the people actually compensated are disadvantaged, which in practice is dubious. If it's supposed to change things, it seems to be failing.

How is it failing? Because you personally don’t think the recipients are deserving?

DP: it is failing because it isn't working. Heard of massive debts? Of massive drop out rates? Of massive and open racial discrimination against minority groups?

The point of AA is to increase minority representation. How is it not working?

Well, it goes to the heart of what should be the point of AA. Should it be to help a minority graduating from Anacostia HS...or should it function as it currently does where the vast majority of African Americans at elite schools are coming from elite backgrounds. From a Harvard economist:

"Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans."

AA is not solely socioeconomically based. Students of African descent are underrepresented in highly selective colleges, regardless of socioeconomic status. And most of the students in these colleges come from UMC or wealthy households regardless of race / ethnicity. URMs come from various income ranges.

Assuming you support AA at all, if you want to make the argument that it should be based on income, that fine. The 41% you cite will still get admitted because they have the academic preparation and credentials, which by the way, is highly influenced by your zip code.