<p>Fabrizio,</p>
<p>URMs face an easier time in the admissions process. For the same stats and similar ECs a URM will probably get the nod. They are “underrepresented”. Like it or not that’s the way it is. Universities even admit this. I don’t know why you are confused.</p>
<p>You tend to lose your clarity on this issue when you try to combine the issues of Asian discrimination with URM admissions. I thought the issue was whether Asians face discrimination (with respect to whites).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because there’s likely a thinner “pool” for URM’s at higher-stat levels than for whites and Asians. I’ve said this before, and I’m sure you know it. </p>
<p>What’s the point, though? If Elite School says that they believe everyone above 2100 can do the work, what difference does it make if the admitted URM average SAT is 2200, the white 2250, the Asian 2300? (Numbers made up for illustrative purposes - feel free to shrink or widen the differences, it’s irrelevant)</p>
<p>I just want to butt in here and say that I don’t think that you can look at UCLA/Cal admission policies and extrapolate conclusions from that analysis to the admission policies of top 20 privates. One thing that is clearly different is the holistic review process. The holistic review employed by UCLA/Cal is NOT the same as the holistic review employed by the top 20 private colleges.</p>
<p>The UCLA/Cal holistic review does NOT include the following (which ARE part of the review by top 20 colleges):</p>
<ol>
<li> Teacher recommendations</li>
<li> Counselor Recommendation</li>
<li> Interviews</li>
<li> More extensive essay requirements. There are only two essays required for UC (maximum of 1,000 words total).</li>
</ol>
<p>OK? Carry on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there’s a benefit but it’s complicated. Several elite schools have already published their acceptance rates for various SAT (and ACT) levels. It’s clear that both a) there is a higher rate of acceptance the higher the SAT, AND b) the relationship is positive but not highly predictive - that is, even the highest SAT’s still have relatively low acceptance rates in the scheme of things because there are just so many applicants. This isn’t controversial, this is factual.</p>
<p>If you want to go ahead and believe that someone with the 2400 is more qualified than someone with a 2200, go ahead and believe it. Just know that if Elite School accepts 10% of the 2400’s and 5% of the 2200’s, acceptance rates are still incredibly low overall and that’s not enough to conclude that they value the 2400 THAT much more over the 2200.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How the heck would I know? I live in one of the other 49 states where people don’t particularly care what the UC’s do. For all I know, the UC’s admit based on eye color, ability to carry a tune and ability to stand on one’s head. Why would a discussion of a public university system in a state that is heavily Asian be relevant to a discussion of what nationally-based elite privates do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not confused with this. Pizzagirl and Co. have repeatedly stated that there’s a “you can do the work” cutoff for the SAT, and past that, it’s pretty much all the same (though there is some nebulous benefit to having a higher score past the cutoff).</p>
<p>So I’m asking why we don’t see more whites/Asians with the same stats as these "URM"s at elites? This is actually a harder question for Pizzagirl and Co. to answer because by casting the question this way (whites/Asians’ SAT scores should not be higher than those for "URM"s given the “you can do the work” cutoff), I am not allowing them to use their “SAT isn’t everything” line. </p>
<p>Again, I believe you do understand where I’m getting at with this, because you wrote, “Are you [Pizzagirl] saying that the 2400s are all just more interesting candidates so that’s why they have a higher acceptance rate? That doesn’t make sense to me. I really don’t think that colleges see them as equal. It’s just that they both meet some minimum standard and can do the work.”</p>
<p>^^I thought I DID answer that (even though I resent being referred to as “and Co”.) The SAT has always had a strong correlation with class. No private university in the country can populate the entire school with people on Pell grants and expect to pay the bills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is not relevant given the “you can the do the work” cutoff. You are trying to answer the question as if it were asked in the way you are most familiar and comfortable with, but I am not asking why “URM”'s scores are not as high as those of whites/Asians. I am asking why the white/Asian scores are not the same as those of "URM"s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“[E]veryone above 2100 can do the work” does not mean that the averages by “group” should all be 2100. It does mean that if adcoms are indifferent above 2100, we shouldn’t expect to see any significant differences in averages by “group.”</p>
<p>“[E]veryone above 2100 can do the work” applies to EVERYONE of all racial classifications. For your example to make sense would suggest that students with higher scores tended to be more “interesting/compelling” than students with lower scores. Do you have any reason to believe that’s true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The UCs also calculate GPA differently, do not factor freshman or senior gpas into the equation (I think this is true), and the SAT II requirements may be different from HYPS et al. as well as superscoring. The UCs also offer fewer sports, do not give legacies any special consideration and to my knowledge do not reward development admits or limit the number of lower-income admits, as may be done by private universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html]13%[/url”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html]13%[/url</a>] is “heavily Asian”? OK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry johnwesley, I guess I don’t understand how your reply really answers the question. Could you elaborate on it?</p>
<p>Another thing the UCs do differently is that they do not consider any non-citizen applicant “international” or OOS so long as they have attended high school in CA for 3 years. So any CA resident will get the nod over OOS/internationals at the UCs (until this year if they are full-pay), while elite privates may limit the number of international students and prefer applicants from all over the U.S.</p>
<p>Racist? Are you Kidding me, Try U of I, I think it’s in Asia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say adcoms were indifferent above 2100. Again, several of the elite privates have posted either on line or in common data sets the acceptance rates for those at various SAT levels, which indicates that the higher the SAT, the more likely the acceptance … But it is not a predictive correlation for any one person because overall acceptance rates are still low even at the highest levels. </p>
<p>Because we know URM’s score (on average) lower than whites and Asians, then it stands to reason that their “pool” at higher ends is thinner. So, therefore, it’s no surprise that their average SAT scores are lower, because you’re picking from a thinner pool. This isn’t that hard, fabrizio. This is only problematic, however, if there is evidence that the school feels compelled to dip into SAT ranges that aren’t consistent with what they believe is necessary to handle the work.I</p>
<p>So again, if elite school says that everyone above 2100 can do the work, and we know that in the pool being picked from, the URM SAT’s are lower, on average, than white SAT’s and Asian SAT’s, and we know that while it’s not dispositive or predictive for any one individual, the trend is "the higher the SAT the better,"why wouldn’t you anticipate a pattern such as: Admitted URM average 2200, white 2250, Asian 2300? (Again, ignore the absolute numbers - it’s the concept here)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to just a quick google, outside of Hawaii, the most heavily Asian metropolitan areas outside Honolulu are SF, LA, Sacramento and SD. Half of all Asian-Americans live in either Hawaii or the West Coast (predominantly CA). So, yes, CA is “heavily Asian” in comparison to basically every other state except Hawaii. Perhaps “has a higher concentration of Asians than most other states” would be better terminology, but nonetheless my point remains. You don’t need to raise eyebrows and take insult where none is intended.</p>
<p>I appreciate Bay’s explanation of the negative/positive discrimination question awhile back. </p>
<p>I will have to say, though, that I really don’t care that much about what is the current law. The law can evolve. I’m more concerned with the system evolving. I just don’t think it fits our society at this point. The NY Times piece about the ridiculous hair-splitting over multi-cultural applicants is, to my mind, illustrative of how absurd the situation is becoming. I have a forebear who is Native American and also a forebear who was African American (slave descendent, no less) and I suppose I could try to research all this and come up with an advantage of sorts for my kids.</p>
<p>Ridiculous.</p>
<p>We are ALL mongrels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am disputing any of this. I am asking why the average SAT scores at elites for whites/Asians are not the same as those of "URM"s. Remember, the elites are admitting “interesting/compelling” "URM"s with average SAT scores of X. But they are admitting “interesting/compelling” whites/Asians with average SAT scores of Y,Z > X.</p>
<p>If they’re admitting "URM"s who are “interesting/compelling” with average scores of X, why aren’t they admitting more whites/Asians who are also “interesting/compelling” with average scores of X? Are those admitted whites/Asians really all that more “interesting/compelling” than whites/Asians with average SAT scores of X? If you say yes, what reason have you to believe that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the problem is that you and likeminded individuals have consistently stated that a higher SAT score does not mean better qualified. For example, epiphany, with whom you are almost always in agreement on this issue, stated “A 2200, I will repeat, is not in itself, less qualified than a 2300.” </p>
<p>But now you’re saying, “the higher the SAT the better.” The two statements are not necessarily in conflict, but given how often you reflexively use the line “The SAT isn’t everything,” as I’ve said, it was not obvious to me that I would be reading those words from you. I think in the future, the next time you decide to chew someone out for overemphasizing the SAT, you should include both of the following statements:</p>
<ol>
<li>Admission rates increase with the SAT.</li>
<li>But having a higher SAT doesn’t mean you’re more qualified than someone with a lower one.</li>
</ol>
<p>fabrizio asked:
</p>
<p>johnwesley wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fabrizio wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have an idea: why don’t you tell us what you’re working hypothesis is? What possible set of circumstances would explain why a majority of the people attending some of the most expensive educational institutions in the world, would have higher SAT scores than blacks, Hispanics and native Americans? It will save everyone a lot of time trying to guess which answer you are looking for.</p>
<p>Good grief, fabrizio. Here is a logic problem for you.
Suppose Yarvton, a fancy schmancy elite, decides (unbeknownst to its applicants) that it is just going to toss out anyone with an SAT under 2100 and use a computer program to pick every 20th person on the list.</p>
<p>Yarvton receives umpteen thousand applicants. They toss away any with SAT under 2100. They’ve still got thousands. Some hyper organized person decides to stack the remaining apps into buckets. One bucket is black. One bucket is white. One bucket is Asian. The average SAT in the black bucket is 2200, 2250 for white, 2300 for Asian.
They were going to select every 20th person in the whole pile but decided they might as well do it bucket by bucket. What do you suppose will be the pattern of the average SAT scores of the accepted students? Do you think they will be a) equal or b) follow the general pattern of the buckets?</p>
<p>When you KNOW that the ingoing SAT averages are different, why are you pretending to act so surprised that the resulting admitted averages will be different too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So your answer is that average SAT scores for whites/Asians at “some of the most expensive educational institutions in the world” aren’t the same as those for "URM"s because on average, whites/Asians earn higher incomes than "URM"s and SAT scores are positively correlated with household income.</p>
<p>OK.</p>
<p>Are you saying that the whites/Asians whose SAT scores on average are the same as those of admitted "URM"s are all or even mostly low-income? They still don’t have to take the whites/Asians whose SAT scores are on average higher than those for "URM"s if past a certain point, everyone’s as qualified as everyone else.</p>
<p>Your example, Pizzagirl, explains how it’s possible that average scores vary by “group.” But it doesn’t answer my questions:</p>
<p>If they’re admitting "URM"s who are “interesting/compelling” with average scores of X, why aren’t they admitting more whites/Asians who are also “interesting/compelling” with average scores of X? Are those admitted whites/Asians really all that more “interesting/compelling” than whites/Asians with average SAT scores of X? If you say yes, what reason have you to believe that?</p>
<p>Recall that it was you who said “interesting/compelling” way back when. You were not talking about a random process.</p>