Affirmative action from a Korean POV.

Applying to College
61

<p>I have not read any of the preceding posts except the first one.</p>

<p>I am personally against AA. Affirmative action and even antidiscrimination legislation generally violate freedom of association, as protected by the first amendment. (AA may be an outgrowth of antidiscrimination legislation, because, you see the disparities among races, and that ends up being assigned to discrimination, so AA must be enacted.) Therefore, the government should not, (and in my opinion violates the constitution) force affirmative action.</p>

<p>But, I see universities fundamentally as a brand. Like every other market (think cars), they should try and corner a certain niche market. I would expect that a 'diverse' student body would appeal to some (although I bet it's a lot less than AA advocates like to think), and thus AA might be needed to achieve this 'brand.' A sidepoint is that the amount of preference currently practiced would be less neccesary (depending on the amount of URMs you want), because you wouldn't have colleges competing for less qualified URMs.</p>

<p>I find most odd the great uniformity in admissions practices. I was looking at the Cornell Board, and was thinking, Cornell could probably get scores similar to MIT, or at least closer, if it gave other items less weight, and yet it does not. No, it has to give more or less the same weights to the same items as MIT, condeming itself to be lower in every aspect, instead of adopting the vastly successful market tactic of specialization (Caltech may be an exception to this rant though). Thinking of universities as brands gives an interesting perspective.</p>

<p>One must distinguish between AA practiced voluntarily by the university, or mandated by the government.</p>

<p>Edit: To those asking that universities stop asking for race: I believe the Department of Education requires that such statistics be kept, as a condition for recieiving federal funding.</p>

62

<p>(Well, I'm sure you can still figure out what race "Sang Woo Park" is, or what race "Bill Jones" might be.)</p>

63

<p>I don't think it's fair to say that AA is unfair at all, because for the most part SATs and GPAs don't mean anything about a student's ability.</p>

<p>Standardized tests are biased against lower socio-economic classes, with African Americans usually falling in that group, and GPAs differ from school to school. Many African Americans, at least in my school district, can afford to go to schools that allow APs and IB, there is no money going into our districts and there's absolutely no way to be prepared for standardized tests, because no one is teaching us how to prepare for them.</p>

<p>Does that make us stupid or less qualified? No. Standardized tests show a little of how much you know and a lot of how much you can give an answer that tests like.</p>

<p>I believe that AA is taking into account that all situations aren't the same, and that getting a 1200 on the SAT without any prep whatsoever is fair.</p>

<p>Also, when put in more competitive situations, people tend to work harder to succeed, and thus makes the outcome more worthwhile than someone who can just breeze through it.</p>

<p>I understand that compared to the people you are being compared with it might not be that amazing, and no it's not fair. But don't blame blacks for our situation. We've been dealt 400 years of ****, and even now our school systems aren't aren't worth anything.</p>

<p>I have a 1950 SAT a 28 ACT and I think that I'm doing well. If I apply to Harvard I gurantee that I won't get in, whether I'm black, white, hispanic, a puppy, it's just too competitive, but you should try to reevaluate everyone's oppurtunities before you get ****y about your situation.</p>

<p>This ****es me off, seriously. People this that I don't deserve recognition as National Achievement, as if I wouldn't make it in a white competition, and yet I still got National Merit Commended while none of them did. Don't look at a group and say that they can't make it because of test scores, that's absolute bs.</p>

64

<p>mandated by the govt = no.</p>

<p>voluntarily = fine with me.</p>

65

<p>No one has anything to say about ED? It provides an unfair advantage to the upper classes who know they can afford it.</p>

<p>AA crosses gender-lines too, and a lot more often than race or class ones, only not at the most selective colleges due to their applicant pool. This is never discussed.</p>

<p>These same students with lower standardized test scores often make up the difference with their GPA. And tend to do well in college, despite the score. Study after study has shown that SAT scores do NOT accurately predict how well someone might do in college. The most glaring exception is obvious. Girls typically score lower on both sections of the SAT. Girls also tend to get higher GPAs than males in high school and college. This is just one of many major discrepancies that make me question the validity of the SAT as a tool to gauge a student's academic strength... but that's not up for discussion in a 2000-2300+ crowd, is it?</p>

<p>Students should be penalized for taking the test 8 times and getting a high aggregate score. How is it fair to take scores from more than one sitting? How is it fair to even allow anyone who isn't applying to college soon to take the test? Some students can't afford that, so they're at a disadvantage. A student that knows he can eliminate an answer and lift his score that way can earn 50 points over a similarly intelligent student. Is that fair?</p>

66

<p>so all those problems URMS have with the educational system should be solved by lawmakers attacking the source of the problem: the educational system itself, and not by providing a quick fix</p>

67

<p>I havent really thought about that aeggie, to be honest with you. I'd be happy to listen to what your solution to the SAT problem is...</p>

68

<p>Well. I guess ED idea is, if these kids REALLY REALLY want to go to these schools, they must have a lot of love for that school, and thus, love = school pride. I guess it's better than an apathetic smarter kid. Dunno quite how to argue this one, sorry.</p>

<p>

;__; I'm an anomaly.</p>

69

<p>But that can't happen until more money is being circulated into the community, and more money in the community requires education and bold moves, the government is the reason there's not enough money in the first place.</p>

<p>I think the point of AA is just to even things out, and hopefully there won't be a need for it in the future.</p>

70

<p>I'm fine with ED, it allows kids like me to have less stress during their senior year, and it allows them to go to their first choice college. As for aid disparity...problemo :)</p>

71

<p>god i wish i was a senator now...oh well.</p>

72

<p>from Aeggie:</p>

<p>"AA crosses gender-lines too, and a lot more often than race or class ones, only not at the most selective colleges due to their applicant pool. This is never discussed."</p>

<p>I myself never understand why people get upset with race but never with gender. </p>

<p>"These same students with lower standardized test scores often make up the difference with their GPA. And tend to do well in college, despite the score. Study after study has shown that SAT scores do NOT accurately predict how well someone might do in college. The most glaring exception is obvious. Girls typically score lower on both sections of the SAT. Girls also tend to get higher GPAs than males in high school and college. This is just one of many major discrepancies that make me question the validity of the SAT as a tool to gauge a student's academic strength... but that's not up for discussion in a 2000-2300+ crowd, is it? "</p>

<p>Again, I think people place too much emphasis on numbers...people here are too number dependent. I wonder why people even bother guessing someone's chances based on GPA/SAT, remember it's the whole package.</p>

73

<p>so whats your solution to the standardized testing + gpa problem?</p>

74

<p>The problem is a lack of integration, which lawmakers cannot effectively target. Housing companies are fined year after year for the same discriminatory practices, and they'll be fined every year for several years to come. Housing determines where you go to school. Housing is, still, largely segregated, and not always by choice. There is no reason to have "Chinatown"'s and "Little Mexico"'s in every major city in 2005.</p>

<p>The SAT, I think, is largely worthless. Judging GPA alone has been proven to be much more accurate, though it does not crack 25% accuracy itself. Of course, that would lead to private school kids keeping their edge since they go to schools that love grade inflation (A private school of 400 graduated 50 valedictorians last year. fifty.) The SAT could be improved if old tests weren't released... if the material tested for wasn't released... if it had any real desire of being "uncoachable"... Unfortunately, it does not. Collegeboard is a corporation and they're loving all the testprep money they reel in.</p>

<p>Testing as it stands is far too broken and skewed towards certain groups to really measure aptitude. I think colleges would do better to form their own tests, but that is too large of an undertaking for all but a few universities to even think of pursuing.</p>

75

<p>Amen. SATs are useless.</p>

<p>Except I shouldn't be saying that, because I'm counting on leveling out my low GPA with my high SATs. o_0 Hee. I'm my own paradox.</p>

<p>And too many factors play into everything. <<em>> I have a high IQ (not bragging or anything; sometimes, I curse it.), but I had highly destructive behaviors (academically and psychologically; I was once depressed and suicidal o</em>0 teenage angst.), and my GPA suffered. SATs save me. But the reverse can be true; I have friends who work so hard, and I'm sure they'll succeed in life, because they work that hard; they have 4.6-4.8 GPA but their SATs are kind of low. :\ So yea. Factors, factors.</p>

76

<p>"Study after study has shown that SAT scores do NOT accurately predict how well someone might do in college. "</p>

<p>Wrong. One study Ramist et al. (1994) found a 0.76 correlation. That is very high. It's cited here: <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rdreport200_3919.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rdreport200_3919.pdf&lt;/a> . Search: .76</p>

<p>The commonly cited University of California study, that cited a 0.2 correlation, was severely flawed, as it suffered from a restriction of range - it included in the study only those who had gotten in, not all the applicants. This is a huge statistical mistake, formally known as a 'restriction of range.'</p>

<p>"The problem is a lack of integration, which lawmakers cannot effectively target. Housing companies are fined year after year for the same discriminatory practices, and they'll be fined every year for several years to come. Housing determines where you go to school. Housing is, still, largely segregated, and not always by choice. There is no reason to have "Chinatown"'s and "Little Mexico"'s in every major city in 2005."</p>

<p>Yes, let's all burn the constitution, which protects the freedom of assembly and association. I'm sorry if I don't want bureaucrats telling me how to live to achieve some racially integrated utopia. Let the chips fall as they may.</p>

77

<p>Ummm... refusing to let someone buy a home that they can afford is illegal. THAT'S what I'm talking about. Many housing practices DO NOT grant people the freedom of assmembly by... not letting gays move into certain apartments... not showing blacks houses in certain neighborhoods, price gouging for certain groups...etc, .etc...</p>

<p>And, God, what is that constitution nonsense? You'd be amazed if you knew how many laws skirt that document, or how many presidents choose to simply ignore it. Unfortunately, It doesn't mean half as much as most people think it does.</p>

78

<p>Yes, I know that practically no one in government actually holds to the constitution. It's quite unfortunate. Flagrant violation of the constitution is inevitable; its role is to restrict government while many in the political spectrum seek the opposite, so willful violation is almost bound to happen at some point. I see you hate the constitution because it poses an obstacle to your aims. What passes for American history these days must be quite sad (unless you're a foreigner of course).</p>

<p>The freedom of assembly includes the freedom not to assemble. Your land, your assembly. The government forcing you to associate with someone is not freedom of association, because it is forced.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
No one has anything to say about ED? It provides an unfair advantage to the upper classes who know they can afford it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aeggie has a point because ED basically says that if admitted early you will commit to attend _____ college/university regardless of the amount of aid you will be given (or not given). </p>

<p>At a cost of over $40,000 for an ivy league education, there are many ED applicants who can with confidence in the fact that their parents can afford to write the check. There are also students at the other end of the spectrum whose parents have incomes that are low enough at schools that are need blind and will meet 100% of your demonstrated need with either a cap on loans or a no loans that can walk away with the lion's share of their tuition paid for by the school. Some students get ED packages that are heavy with loans.</p>

<p>It is those families caught in the middle that can't afford to go blindly in the process (I know that my D, even though she is attending her first choice school had to apply RD because we could not afford to go into the process with our eyes closed so ED was not an option) or end up like the young man who got into brown ED only to find out that his family's EFC (parent + student) is $34,000 and they have no where near that amount of money and is looking at having to give up his admit to go to state U.</p>

<p>Money does bring a whole different dimension to admissions process when on the first page of the application is the question; Will you need financial aid?</p>

<p>If you are a developmental admit, child of a celebrity, public official it is a different process. For athletes (and I'm not mad at them and I have met some very smart scholar athletes) also have a different process more so based on talent first and academics second.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Students should be penalized for taking the test 8 times and getting a high aggregate score. How is it fair to take scores from more than one sitting?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you are a kid getting fee waivers the CB is only going to extend you so many. I know students from my daughter's high school that had the princeton review package where the tutor comes to the house (they did not even go to the prep center) and students whose parents paid $30,000 for a college consultant to guide their kids through the academic process.</p>

<p>What about elite prep schools where the GC is on a first name basis with the admissions rep so they have a "relationship" with HYPMS (name your college )?</p>

<p>Riddle me this:</p>

<p>If you read the common data sets year over year (especially at the ivies), you will notice that over half the admitted class have parents writing the check. </p>

<p>48.0% of the class needed some financial aid/ 52 % are full payers (because there is no merit or athletic scholarships only need based aid)</p>

<p>Why is there is not much deviation from this number?</p>

<p>I know at the school my D attends the enrollment by race/ethnic category certainly hasn't changed from one year to the next and is as follows:</p>

<p>5%- non-resident aliens (less than 60)
8% -black (less than 80 students)
4%- native americans (less than 40)
13%-aisans
6%-hispanics (less than 70)
60%-white non-hispanic
5% race/ ethnicity unknown</p>

<p>No big change from the year my D was admitted. Why?</p>

80

<p>Okay, I didn't read many of the posts here, but I think AA, in reality, is not truly in effect.</p>

<p>It's all agreed once there's a certain line of achievement that students can reach to be considered for the Ivies or top tier colleges.</p>

<p>My point is, a black/Hispanic person who accepted to a top school probably doesn't have a 1500 SAT (out of 2400) and a 3.0 GPA. They have top grades/scores and are the cream of the crop in general. So, okay, their SAT scores are 200 points lower. So, obviously, they were too lazy to get those extra 200 points. Pssh.</p>

<p>I think Asians, in general (and I'm Asian) are too obsessed with letters and numbers to define a person. That doesn't indicate hard work--it just indicates a certain amount of anal behavior. They are so quick to say "that black kid took my spot!" when they don't get admitted. Blacks aren't the greatest test-takers in general. So what? It doesn't mean they don't deserve their placement in college.</p>