Anonymous wrote:^^The entire article should be read in its entirety explaining the reason behind the disproportionate test scores.

Here's another blurb from the same article:

Clearly, one of the main factors in explaining the SAT racial gap is that black students almost across the board are not being adequately schooled to perform well on the SAT and similar tests. Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts.

Data from The College Board shows that 57 percent of white students who took the SAT were ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school classes. This compares to 37 percent of black test takers. Some 45 percent of white students who took the SAT report that their high school grade point average was in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. The mean high school grade point average for all white students who took the SAT was 3.37. For blacks the figures was 2.99. These figures alone explain a large portion of the racial scoring gap on the SAT.

There are a lot of possible reasons why the scores might be worse, but it doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, significantly worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should this white student be denied admittance to an Ivy or any other school?

'He ranks 11 out of a class of 647, scored 2250 out of 2400 on his SAT college admissions test, took 11 Advanced Placement classes in high school, sings in the a cappella group, is an accomplished violist and athlete. He also makes time to volunteer at a local hospital.'

These are pretty pedestrian accomplishments when it comes to getting into an Ivy. You need an accomplishment at at least the state level, if not at the national level or a very significant leadership accomplishment. The stats you list are shared by thousands and thousands of kids.

that is sad, there should be a great school for someone like this. If the IVYs are not fulfilling their role, there needs to be new schools to fill the void.

^^The entire article should be read in its entirety explaining the reason behind the disproportionate test scores.

Here's another blurb from the same article:

Clearly, one of the main factors in explaining the SAT racial gap is that black students almost across the board are not being adequately schooled to perform well on the SAT and similar tests. Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts.

Data from The College Board shows that 57 percent of white students who took the SAT were ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school classes. This compares to 37 percent of black test takers. Some 45 percent of white students who took the SAT report that their high school grade point average was in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. The mean high school grade point average for all white students who took the SAT was 3.37. For blacks the figures was 2.99. These figures alone explain a large portion of the racial scoring gap on the SAT.

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.

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

No, there really aren't. Or I guess it depends on what you consider "high". Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

From this article: http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

"Let's be more specific about the SAT racial gap among high-scoring applicants. In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers. But only 1,132 African-American college-bound students scored 700 or above on the math SAT and only 1,205 scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT. Nationally, more than 100,000 students of all races scored 700 or above on the math SAT and 78,025 students scored 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Thus, in this top-scoring category of all SAT test takers, blacks made up only 1.1 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the math test and only 1.5 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the verbal SAT.

If we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the statistics and compare just white and black students, we find that 5.8 percent of all white SAT test takers scored 700 or above on the verbal portion of the test. But only 0.79 percent of all black SAT test takers scored at this level. Therefore, whites were more than seven times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Overall, there are more than 39 times as many whites as blacks who scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT.

On the math SAT, only 0.7 percent of all black test takers scored at least 700 compared to 6.3 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were nine times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the math SAT. Overall, there were 45 times as many whites as blacks who scored 700 or above on the math SAT.

If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT — a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation's most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech — we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section. "

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^The only reference to college admissions I see is the specific case of one girl. All other references are to employment.

For those of you who are not familiar with how Affirmative Action started, this is the basic historical context. Eventually and unfortunately, it has become synonymous with school admissions and preferential treatment. It was never, ever intended to be defined by this. If the PP wants to argue and belabor a trivial point that the article referred to one girl, that's their prerogative.

This was the original intent.:

The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included sex in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination because conservative opponents of the legislation hoped that including it would sway moderate members of Congress to withdraw their support for the bill. Still, in a nation where white women and black people were once considered property — not allowed to own property themselves and not allowed to vote — it was clear to all those who were seeking fairness and opportunity that both groups faced monumental obstacles.

NP here. Thank you for providing this perspective. I agree that the original purpose certainly evolved into something unintended. And I agree that if you keep talking about admissions as it relates to Affirmative Action, then knowing the real origin might clear up some misconceptions.

That was exactly my intent. I appreciate your keen insight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^The only reference to college admissions I see is the specific case of one girl. All other references are to employment.

For those of you who are not familiar with how Affirmative Action started, this is the basic historical context. Eventually and unfortunately, it has become synonymous with school admissions and preferential treatment. It was never, ever intended to be defined by this. If the PP wants to argue and belabor a trivial point that the article referred to one girl, that's their prerogative.

This was the original intent.:

The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included sex in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination because conservative opponents of the legislation hoped that including it would sway moderate members of Congress to withdraw their support for the bill. Still, in a nation where white women and black people were once considered property — not allowed to own property themselves and not allowed to vote — it was clear to all those who were seeking fairness and opportunity that both groups faced monumental obstacles.

NP here. Thank you for providing this perspective. I agree that the original purpose certainly evolved into something unintended. And I agree that if you keep talking about admissions as it relates to Affirmative Action, then knowing the real origin might clear up some misconceptions.

Again, the subject of the thread is college admissions not employment. I would suggest starting a thread in another forum for a discussion about affirmative action in employment.

Anonymous wrote:^^^The only reference to college admissions I see is the specific case of one girl. All other references are to employment.

For those of you who are not familiar with how Affirmative Action started, this is the basic historical context. Eventually and unfortunately, it has become synonymous with school admissions and preferential treatment. It was never, ever intended to be defined by this. If the PP wants to argue and belabor a trivial point that the article referred to one girl, that's their prerogative.

This was the original intent.:

The first affirmative-action measure in America was an executive order signed by President Kennedy in 1961 requiring that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” In 1967, President Johnson amended this, and a subsequent measure included sex, recognizing that women also faced many discriminatory barriers and hurdles to equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included sex in the list of prohibited forms of discrimination because conservative opponents of the legislation hoped that including it would sway moderate members of Congress to withdraw their support for the bill. Still, in a nation where white women and black people were once considered property — not allowed to own property themselves and not allowed to vote — it was clear to all those who were seeking fairness and opportunity that both groups faced monumental obstacles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Tell me where in your article there's any reference to college admissions. Isn't that what's being discussed.

Since I don't kowtow to thread police, I was giving you a bit of history as referenced to the persistent comments about Affirmative Action and black kids. Hope that clears it up for ya.

Feeble reply.

^^^The only reference to college admissions I see is the specific case of one girl. All other references are to employment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Tell me where in your article there's any reference to college admissions. Isn't that what's being discussed.

Since I don't kowtow to thread police, I was giving you a bit of history as referenced to the persistent comments about Affirmative Action and black kids. Hope that clears it up for ya.

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Tell me where in your article there's any reference to college admissions. Isn't that what's being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should this white student be denied admittance to an Ivy or any other school?

'He ranks 11 out of a class of 647, scored 2250 out of 2400 on his SAT college admissions test, took 11 Advanced Placement classes in high school, sings in the a cappella group, is an accomplished violist and athlete. He also makes time to volunteer at a local hospital.'

These are pretty pedestrian accomplishments when it comes to getting into an Ivy. You need an accomplishment at at least the state level, if not at the national level or a very significant leadership accomplishment. The stats you list are shared by thousands and thousands of kids.

There was a time when accomplishments like these would not have been considered "pedestrian." 11 AP classes. When did something like this become mediocre?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should this white student be denied admittance to an Ivy or any other school?

'He ranks 11 out of a class of 647, scored 2250 out of 2400 on his SAT college admissions test, took 11 Advanced Placement classes in high school, sings in the a cappella group, is an accomplished violist and athlete. He also makes time to volunteer at a local hospital.'

These are pretty pedestrian accomplishments when it comes to getting into an Ivy. You need an accomplishment at at least the state level, if not at the national level or a very significant leadership accomplishment. The stats you list are shared by thousands and thousands of kids.

Exactly......black and white.

Anonymous wrote:Should this white student be denied admittance to an Ivy or any other school?

'He ranks 11 out of a class of 647, scored 2250 out of 2400 on his SAT college admissions test, took 11 Advanced Placement classes in high school, sings in the a cappella group, is an accomplished violist and athlete. He also makes time to volunteer at a local hospital.'

These are pretty pedestrian accomplishments when it comes to getting into an Ivy. You need an accomplishment at at least the state level, if not at the national level or a very significant leadership accomplishment. The stats you list are shared by thousands and thousands of kids.