are colleges racist?

[Shrinkrap]

<p>“most asians are very smart with high scores”</p>

<p>Of course, I will not assume that that is true, but if it is… </p>

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>What black person would not trade that “stereotype” for a boost at twenty schools of higher learning? Not the point? Maybe not on CC.</p>

<p>I do not feel strongly one way or the other regarding affirmative action. And no, that does not mean I will devote my life/bandwidth to doing away with it. </p>

<p>I AM uncertain about an SAT arms race. True, I am biased, but I like the idea of a “good enough” SAT, and not a “more is better” SAT. </p>

<p>I am also intrigued by the role of “anthropology” on this (SAT) tool. I am a Child Psychiatrist, and looking at a child’s ability, is part of what I do. Because I do not doubt that there is a significant piece of luck or blessing involved in both nature and nurture, I am not sure why there is a heu and cry about being favored for the color of your skin because it is out of a students control.</p>

<p>Yes, school is partly about academics.</p>

<p>Perhaps many students contend that their SAT’s are the result of hours of effort, rather than inborn ability, but who gets to decide the weight of inborn ability vs effort, and when? Lot’s of parents suggest “giftedness” was noted early on, and LOT’s of students post their scores were with “no prep”. I absolutely believe “we” should reinforce hard work. I can see why the highest innate ability should be rewarded in some circumstances, but I am not sure I have the expertise to say when.</p>

<p>What if you figure out the effort part at age 8, or 14 or 26? What if effort is intimately related to reinforcement in your environment?</p>

<p>With regard to “reparations”, is it science fiction to consider that there might be an element of environmental pressure effecting SAT scores over two hundred years? </p>

<p>I have been thinking about writing a novel with this theme for years, but I had to get a job…</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

You know, there’s a kid, Silverturtle I think is his alias, with perfect everything numerically - 2400, 36, 800 everything, #1 rank. He’s also a URM, although I’m not sure he put it down on his aps. He got accepted to a couple Ivy League schools (not the Holy Trinity if that matters), but rejected to many more, including what I think were his top choices. He sure seems to be taking it a lot better than many kids. He’s not complaining about all the white and Asian kids with lower stats who got in. He seems to me to be grateful for his admissions to these wonderful schools and looking forward to attending.

</p>

<p>Well, of course. It speaks to graciousness and class. You can absolutely bet that the kid who shows humility and gratitude for the opportunity to attend a top school is going to go so very much farther in life than the kid who pouts that he wuz robbed because he didn’t get the opportunity to collect all the scalps he wanted to. And the shame of it all is that the second kid won’t even realize that his bad attitude drags him down, because he’s been conditioned from birth to believe that merit = GPA and SAT scores.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

But while SOME students sometimes claim their SAT’s are based on effort, lot’s of parents suggest “giftedness” was noted early on, and LOT’s of students post their scores were with “no prep”.

</p>

<p>I think this phenomenon is based partially on personality and partially on peer pressure.</p>

<p>I remember in high school most of my friends claimed to be in the “no prep” camp. But when I applied to grad schools and spoke with other friends (from high school) who did the same, ALL of us openly stated that we prepped for the GMAT. </p>

<p>Staying in touch with my undergrad friends revealed that two claimed to be in the “no prep” camp for the GMAT. They both scored full marks on the quant section but performed abysmally on the verbal section, which is made worse by their both being American. Maybe they should’ve been in the other camp instead…</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>^ In psychiatry we think of personality as a function of inborn temperament and environment. And of course, peer pressure is largely about environment. </p>

<p>So how do we factor environment, into the validity of an SAT “arms race”? </p>

<p>To me, it is the SAT, not GPA, not EC’s, that is the variable in the “black box” formula.</p>

<p>My husband is who makes me think hard about this thing. In my immediate family, he probably had the lowest SAT scores. Lower than me, a descendant of African Americans and Native Americans that go back before “we” got birth certificates.</p>

<p>BUT he is the hardest working, most respected man, I have ever met. NOBODY questions his work ethic, his integrity. He has been the chair of his department, the vice president of his (medical) group. As a patient, I have had other doctors, spontaneously wonder could he be as good (for lack of a better word) a guy as he seems.</p>

<p>He was born in Jamaica. Sure, there is the immigrant thing, but what else does being “one of” the majority bring? </p>

<p>I don’t claim to know.</p>

[notanengineer]

<p>The problem with racial variations in median SAT scores is that AA does nothing to fix it because it does not help the environment for a majority of minorities.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>

Well, of course. It speaks to graciousness and class.

</p>

<p>Ugh. Every time you talk about “class” or “person of quality” my proletariat alarm bell goes off. Just ugh. Do you know how bigoted it sounds? These bad kids aren’t behaving like “good Asians” ?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Colleges know that they can’t fix poor K-12 situations, but if they think they’ve identified a “diamond in the rough” and they want to make a difference, and that they think that doing so brings more diversity and interest to the campus than a pool of solely upper-middle-class suburbanites from New Trier and Greenwich, then why shouldn’t they?</p>

<p>Personally, if I were an adcom, I think I <em>would</em> be rather sympathetic to the “diamonds in the rough” because I’d know that Rich Suburban Kid will do just fine at any number of schools if I don’t admit him, but my school might indeed be trajectory-of-life-changing for Kid From The 'Hood.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Ugh. Every time you talk about “class” or “person of quality” my proletariat alarm bell goes off. Just ugh. Do you know how bigoted it sounds? These bad kids aren’t behaving like “good Asians” ?

</p>

<p>Huh? Graciousness and class have nothing to do with race, ethnic background or socioeconomic class. I don’t care who are you and where you come from, there’s a certain humility and gratefulness that I think ought to accompany the fabulous opportunity of studying at one of the country’s elite schools – not a complaining “I only snagged one, I was owed and I was robbed” attitude. That has nothing to do with being a “good Asian.” That has to do with being a good PERSON. I would say the same of any student whose response to getting into a top school was to focus on the schools-not-gotten-into.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Personally, if I were an adcom, I think I <em>would</em> be rather sympathetic to the “diamonds in the rough” because I’d know that Rich Suburban Kid will do just fine at any number of schools if I don’t admit him, but my school might indeed be trajectory-of-life-changing for Kid From The 'Hood.

</p>

<p>There’s just one teeny tiny problem with this: a “URM” at an elite university is FAR MORE likely to be a “Rich Suburban Kid” than “From The 'Hood.”</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Sorry, Pizzagirl, your comments make me think of the term once used for well-behaving black people — Uncle Toms.

What in the world does this mean? You are comparing a situation where one does not get into an elite university to the plight suffered by black people in this country? </p>

<p>Aside from that, I don’t even understand your point. People were criticized as Uncle Tom’s by their own race for remaining quiet in the face of real injustice. How does that even apply here?</p>

<p>Now it is impermissible to compliment a person for not complaining like a baby because he doesn’t get his way? Feeling upset is one thing, fighting to correct an unfair policy may actually be admirable. But whining interminably about something which is a distinct privilege for anyone and blaming it on the “cruel world” is quite another.</p>

<p>Edit: I don’t know what happened to the post I commented on.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>^ I posted that before reading for tone. Sorry.</p>

<p>I maintain that it is highly “inappropriate” (will NOT say “lacking in class”) to scold disappointed hard-working high-achieving kids for not behaving more cheerfully in the face of their disappointment, especially in a discussion about kids of a particular race being disappointed.</p>

<p>And, in general, I really get annoyed when someone talks about “classy” v “un-classy” behavior. I consider that the epitome of the latter. Just who gets to be the arbiter of “class”?</p>

[Bay]

<p>

So how do we factor environment, into the validity of an SAT “arms race”?

</p>

<p>To me, the obvious solution is to get rid of the SAT altogether, since it does not predict future success anyway, and replace it with some type of test or measurement of academic ability that both transcends all racial and socio-economic limitations and is relevant to achievement in college. I don’t know how hard this would be to come up with, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to test for accuracy.</p>

[soomoo]

<p>Sewhappy</p>

<p>Character counts in college admissions at the highest level. Do you think it should not?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

To me, the obvious solution is to get rid of the SAT altogether, since it does not predict future success anyway, and replace it with some type of test or measurement of academic ability that both transcends all racial and socio-economic limitations and is relevant to achievement in college. I don’t know how hard this would be to come up with, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to test for accuracy.

</p>

<p>The SAT is not perfect, nor should it be everything. But your posts consistently reflect a belief that the SAT is worthless. Granted that the College Board isn’t likely to be neutral when it comes to their own product, but their finding that the SAT does reasonably well in predicting first-year performance does not strike me as surprising.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Just who gets to be the arbiter of “class”?

Everyone gets to be the arbiter of class. If you never judge the class of another person, you are truly a unique individual, although I would doubt it if you told me you never do. Especially since in an earlier post you referred to someone as “bigoted” where I see absolutely no justification for that term.</p>

<p>I feel absolutely no guilt admiring the class of a young man who is grateful for admission to one of our nations elite schools and does not consider it an injustice akin to slavery or Jim Crow not to be accepted everywhere he applies. It is no reflecton on your child, I don’t see why you take it as one.</p>

[Bay]

<p>I admit I am a SAT-hater, for a number of reasons, but my personal dislike for it is not my motivation for suggesting something else.</p>

[cbreeze]

<p>I just started reading this thread today.

I maintain that it is highly “inappropriate” (will NOT say “lacking in class”) to scold disappointed hard-working high-achieving kids for not behaving more cheerfully in the face of their disappointment, especially in a discussion about kids of a particular race being disappointed.</p>

<p>And, in general, I really get annoyed when someone talks about “classy” v “un-classy” behavior. I consider that the epitome of the latter. Just who gets to be the arbiter of “class”?

</p>

<p>Fully agreed. After I read Pizzagirl’s post, I was going to respond to something similar to sewhappy’s response. That post is smacked of “holier than thou” attitude which is just as bad if not worse than the OP’s complaint. . It conjures up images of someone guarding the pearly gates…“Have you been a classy person besides being a hard-working person?”</p>

[soomoo]

<p>^Ok. I’ll ask again more broadly. Does anyone on this thread think that character should not be a factor in college admissions? It would seem that many would answer yes. I would love to hear their reasoning.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@fabrizio

The SAT is not perfect, nor should it be everything. But your posts consistently reflect a belief that the SAT is worthless. Granted that the College Board isn’t likely to be neutral when it comes to their own product, but their finding that the SAT does reasonably well in predicting first-year performance does not strike me as surprising.

</p>

<p>UC found that the SAT I / Reasoning test alone was a poorer predictor of GPA at UC than high school GPA or SAT II / Subject tests, and that it added very minimal predictive value when added to high school GPA and SAT II / Subject tests.</p>

<p>See [UC</a> and the SAT](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/pdf/sat_study.pdf]UC”>http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/pdf/sat_study.pdf) and [Validity</a> Of High-School Grades In Predicting Student Success Beyond The Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes](<a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education).</p>

<p>(And that is presumably why Berkeley considers standardized test scores to be less important than other academic factors like high school GPA in its admissions process.)</p>

[cbreeze]

<p>

Does anyone on this thread think that character should not be a factor in college admissions?

</p>

<p>Define character. Remember, the OP is not dishonest or cheated, just venting and complaining and who hasn’t done some venting and complaining here?</p>