<p>
</p>
<p>Who is “we”? Is “we” whites or the wealthy? Once again, an article detailing socioeconomic disadvantage is used to justify racial preference. Did you gloss over the following?</p>
<p>Ms. Stewart used a booklet the city provided and reviewed the 16 sample questions with Chase. “I was online trying to find sample tests,” she said. “But everything was $50 or more. I couldn’t afford that.”</p>
<p>We is whites who are “Upper Middle Class & Wealthy”. I admit proudly that I am very well off and my daughter is able to get plenty of advantages as a result. I just came from a few days in Nantucket and I thought how priviledge whites are in America as this beautiful place is 99% white as much of the property was passed down from one generation to the next. Too bad minorities were held at the starting line for 400 years while my family passed down wealth for multiple generations because we were “paid” and not forced to work for “nothing”. </p>
<p>As a white person I will never begrudge Colleges that strive for diversity even if they accept minorities in “some” cases with lower “test” scores as there is more to creating a class than test scores which can be gamed by the affluent. Many of you suggest that “booklets” or a cheap substitute for SAT & SSAT Prep. That’s a bunch of malarky as I was able to get my daughter a “private” tutor to come to our house and prep her for the SSAT Test. I gladly paid the $325.00 per hour for her services which is the going rate in my Town because that is peanuts to 90% of us. She improved a whopping 10% points on the SSAT and got into a Top Boarding School full of wealthy kids like her whose parents also spend whatever it takes for “private” tutors. It is ridiculous to base College Admissions “solely or predominantly” on test scores which admissions officers know that the Upper Middle Class & wealthy can afford to give their kids an “unfair” advantage over monorities. Even when my daughter was over her friends house the private tutor would show up and they both would be tutored compliments of her friends parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the n-th time, I am not for a “numbers only” system. My opposition to racial preferences does NOT preclude my supporting holistic admissions. I repeat that I am not against the consideration of subjective criteria; I am simply against the consideration of racial classification in admissions. I find it cruelly ironic that in the past, refusing to consider racial classification was deemed right whereas now it is deemed “racist.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any evidence that your daughter would not have “improved a whopping 10% points [sic] on the SSAT” had she studied with the “cheap substitute[s]”? Do you have any evidence that your private tutor taught anything that wasn’t covered in the “cheap substitute” books sold by the private company that employs the tutor?</p>
<p>I have asked the question three times now, and still no one has replied. Does anyone have any evidence that Kaplan, PR, and so forth reveal “secrets” in their thousand dollar prep courses that aren’t available in their < $20 books?</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>nbachris2788 never answered my question. He mistakenly believed that I do not believe wealth disparities build up over time and proceeded to attack me even though I agree with him.</p>
<p>(cont.)</p>
<p>Prepveteran, the NYT article you described highlights the effects that socioeconomic background can have on opportunity, not the effects of racial classification. Ms. Stewart flatly stated that she COULD NOT AFFORD the sample tests since they were out of her budget. The racial preference programmes that you support do not guarantee that her children will be helped. If you disagree, then please explain why second-generation black Americans are “overrepresented” by over 300% at the Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>I’m Asian and I couldn’t get in — boo hoo hoo. It’s because 2nd generation blacks are overrepresented at 10 colleges by 300%. Down with 2nd generation blacks! March on Princton, March on Harvard, march on Yale. Unfair! Unfair! We shall overcome someday…</p>
<p>I think a smart, motivated kid can do as well by self studying practice tests as taking a course. My D signed up for a course but wound up only going to 3 or 4 but did a lot of studying on her own and did several practice tests. 2360 - single sitting.</p>
<p>I don’t know what your families financial status is but if you are from an affluent household, then you’re a major hypocrite to harp on “some” minorities getting a break on the test scores as you would know from your status that a lot of things fall our way in this society as the “affluent” majority. If you’re poor or middle class, then you’re a coward as you attack minorities because you know there isn’t a d@mn thing you can do about white wealthy priviledge as College admissions is only one of a hundred things that tilt our way in American life over poor whites, middle class whites, upper middle class whites. Forget about minorities because they are not even considered in the same universe as whites with money. So go ahead “cow@rds” and attack the weak because I know and you know there is nothing you can do about our ability to get most of what we want for our kids through the “power” of our wealth. The difference between me and you guys is I’m honest enough to at least admit it that the system is tilted my way because of my financial status and will be until the last day of this great Republic. </p>
<p>Show a little honesty and heart folks, take on my priviledged class as it will do you no good and you know it which is why you take liberty to castigate beat down minorities as “undeserving” of a top College education because of some disparity in “coached” test scores which are gamed from k-12 for the wealthy and Upper Middle Class whites. The members of our prep school and community know that we have “regular” Americans at a severe disadvantage. However, out of a sense of minimal decency, we will “never” cry crocodile tears when middle class & poor whites, blacks and hispanics, get into to top schools. We will never say that it’s “unfair” to admit whites with the same scores who can not pay “full” tuition and won’t increase the schools endowment. We’re not bullies like other people are that target those with less influence in society than they have.</p>
<p>Prepveteran,</p>
<p>So, do you have any answers to my questions?</p>
<p>I’ve been asking FOUR times now, and I still haven’t gotten a response.</p>
<p>Does anybody have any evidence at all that the thousand-dollar courses from Kaplan, Princeton Review, and so forth teach anything that isn’t covered in the vastly less expensive books?</p>
<p>My D improved her scores tremendously from her private SSAT Prep and we are going to do the same for the SAT which people who have hired rpivate tutors and test prep companies “all” have said it was the best thing they have done regading improving scores. The “empirical” evidence is undeniable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To counter one example of the benefits of prep, here’s one example:</p>
<p>Between my 1st and last takings of the SAT’s, I improved 700+ points. My “prep” was reading the Sparknotes plastic fold-outs @ B&N a few days a week before the SAT’s.</p>
<p>How convinced are you that $325.00/hr lessons are not all that and cheap study plans are sometimes just as effective?</p>
<p>Also, has it ever crossed your mind that Top boarding schools full of wealthy kids are just not available to most minorities and poor whites and Asians (yes they do exist)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So Asians and Whites who don’t have the power of wealth do not deserve breaks?</p>
<p>
lol</p>
<p>The first thing I have to say is if you don’t like AA then go to college in the UK 
Their admissions are strictly merit-based and have many universities that match and even surpass HYPSM.</p>
<p>As a rising black senior, I’ve already received the little jokes about how I’ll get into any college I apply to and although I already know I have good credentials (2nd in class, high SAT scores, good ECs), it’s remarks like that that make me hate AA 
When I walk around my future college or tell people what college I attend, people won’t see my transcript or GPA or EC resume when they see me; they’ll see my skin color and automatically make unwanted and uninformed assumptions. And then out comes the AA arguments when in fact I (and I’m sure many minorities) are completely qualified to be there.</p>
<p>I personally believe I shouldn’t benefit from AA as my parents have a fairly high income ($180,000 combined although my parents are divorced) but I understand there are other minorities and whites from poorer backgrounds who should really have that advantage.</p>
<p>Really it’s hard to come to a compromise on what should be considered appropriate AA because no matter who is advantaged, there will always be misinformed people arguing over it.</p>
<p>But honestly I laud schools striving to have racial diversity. You are going to have to interact with others later in life and what happens when you have never really talked to a black person in your life (just an example - it can be any race) and then suddenly have to work with them on a project? No matter what people say, NO ONE is blind to race. Although I believe race doesn’t really exist (haha a long argument for another day 
) and it is actually a fairly modern social construct, it is just how we in society are programmed. You are going to notice differences and it’s better you are exposed to different types of people from different parts of the world early so we have a more understanding and accepting society rather than one with people who have to rely on stereotypes and assumptions as a source of knowledge.</p>
<p>“Note: here is a nice income map of NYC. The lowest income areas are filled with minorities while the highest income areas feature pale skins. Enjoy.”</p>
<p>I believe in Queens, blacks average higher per capita income than whites.</p>
<p>“The city has several demographically unique characteristics. Queens is the only large county in the United States where the median income among black households, about $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites.[36] It is also the nation’s most ethnically diverse county.[37]”</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City</a></p>
<p>I used to live in Brooklyn, but then we moved to Queens. They let us move in even though there were still “restrictive agreements” attempting to restrict blacks from buying homes in places like Addisleigh Park as late as the 1970’s.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hdc.org/Addisleigh_Park_Report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hdc.org/Addisleigh_Park_Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>I don’t think any of us has a monopoly on virtue, here. Anyone advocating a “purely socio-economic” admissions model will have to make allowances, including a gigantic one for international students. People who advocate AA, including myself, have to acknowledge that one of its ironies is that once lifted up into the upper middle-class, many second-generation “AA babies” will not be able to afford the same colleges their parent’s went to when they were assisted by financial aid (so much for the idea of black and hispanic development legacies.)</p>
<p>Ultimately, I don’t think Americans like the idea of a meritocracy as much as they say they do; we like the transparency of it; but, this is also a country that likes second-chances, could not exist economically without loop-holes and whose idea of aristocracy is basically, one part Hollywood, one part the Kennedy-saga and one part the playing fields of Eton. Somewhere along the way, we would miss the old-fashioned idea of holding our collective breath each year as an admissions committee sat down to cobble together an entering class of freshmen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My Chinese upbringing dictates that when people misunderstand me, I blame myself first. But I do not and cannot always blame myself if others simply do not get what I’m saying after repeated clarifications.</p>
<p>I have always opted for the “cheap substitute[s]”; my family is not wealthy by any means, but due to our high marginal propensity to save and our forgoing numerous luxuries, we can certainly afford the private tutoring that is “peanuts” to you. Thing is, I never asked my parents to do that, and they sure as hell didn’t see any added value to it, either. THEREFORE, I do not know whether these private tutors teach anything that isn’t covered in the “cheap substitute[s]” sold by the parent company, which is why I asked FIVE TIMES whether anyone had any evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>And you, Prepveteran, have not once posted any evidence stating that the private tutors teach above and beyond what is covered in the “cheap substitute[s]” sold by their parent company. For that matter, no one here has posted any evidence, even anecdotal, that a Kaplan private tutoring class reveals “secrets” that are not found in the Kaplan “cheap substiute[s].”</p>
<p>My beef with your position, your unfamiliarity with the concept of control in science notwithstanding, is that you are using a SOCIOECONOMIC ARGUMENT to justify RACIAL PREFERENCES. That has never made any sense to me. One of the parents interviewed in the NYT article you cited, a Ms. Stewart, flatly stated that she could not afford to buy even the “cheap substitute[s]” because they were out of her budget. The policy you prefer, racial preference, does not guarantee that her child will be helped. A socioeconomic preference programme, on the other hand, can be easily crafted such that her children and peers will be helped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many of these “AA babies” are there, really? And before someone takes that out of context, realize that IN CONTEXT, johnwesley is talking about people who used to be in poverty but thanks to the marvelous wonder that is affirmative action, are now in the “upper middle-class.”</p>
<p>Thomas Sowell has found that “black education rose substantially, both absolutely and relative to white education, in the decades preceding the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the affirmative action policies that began in the 1970s. What economic changes accompanied this rise in black education? As of 1940, 87 percent of black families had incomes below the official poverty line. By 1960, this was down to 47 percent of black families” (p. 119).</p>
<p>What about the effect of affirmative action? “While the role of the 1960s ‘equal opportunity’ legislation and policies epitomized by the Civil Right Act can be debated, the effect of the federal affirmative action policies that began in the 1970s are clearly less impressive. During the decade of the 1970s, the poverty rate among black families fell from 30 percent to 29 percent. Even if all of this one-percentage point decline were arbitrarily attributed to affirmative action, it would still not be a significant part of the history of the economic rise of blacks out of poverty, however crucial affirmative action has been made to seem politically. Nor should this be surprising, given that preferences and quotas in India and Malaysia have benefitted primarily the already more fortunate, rather than those in poverty” (p. 119-120).</p>
<p>The source is [Affirmative</a> Action Around the World](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280155174&sr=8-1]Affirmative”>http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280155174&sr=8-1).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you and many other “underrepresented” minorities are completely qualified, then is affirmative action necessary at all?</p>
<p>If Murray and Hernnstein are correct, then discriminating based on socioeconomic status is also unfair. That is, poor people are less likely to have the qualifications for elite schools, not because of lack of preparation and grooming, but because they don’t have the right genes. The point is that if you had a random sample of a large group of poor kids and a large group of kids, there would be more people in the rich group with elite intelligence. </p>
<p>Additionally, discriminating on the basis of socioeconomic status would be a disaster for blacks. Poor whites score better on the SAT than rich blacks. I’ll suppose that poor Asians also score better than rich blacks. This would mean an end to large numbers of rich blacks attending elite universities (and if some of the posters above have posted correctly, then there are a lot of these rich blacks there). And where are WE going to find replacements for these rich blacks that are still black? We need to keep racial balance on campuses to appease all racial groups who are all equal in intelligence (This is due to God creating the Earth in 7 days and making all races equal. It is also in the constitution. You can’t argue with either God or the constitution). If we don’t discriminate on the basis of race and instead discriminate on the basis of socioeconomic status, then we’ll see a surge in the number of poor Asians and poor whites, who again, may not even be qualified intellectually, and who do not bring “vibrant” cultures to campus like blacks and Mexicans do. </p>
<p>I do advocate certain benefits be bestowed onto people of lower socioeconomic standing, but I think the idea that “poor people might be dumber than rich people on average” should not be buried in the sand.</p>
<p>People made a few posts earlier that I’d like to comment on.</p>
<p>One described how Kid A got amazing test prep, went to an elite prep school, and got to teach kids in Africa (which was funded by their parents). Kid B went to a terrible private school, had to work a job all year round to make ends meet, etc. The fact is that sometimes, Kid A happens to be the son of a Kenyan diplomat, and Kid B happens to be the daughter of low income Vietnamese immigrants. Yet Kid A has an intrinsic advantage over Kid B.</p>
<p>Another posts speaks of the necessity of Affirmative Action because of past prejudices against race. Yet, why wasn’t there any sort of necessary benefits and action made for Chinese people who were given absolutely deplorable conditions (considered third world standards) when they were brought over to build American railroads? Or the Japanese who were interned in concentration camps? While these slights were not as bad as slavery that took place for hundreds of years - it matches the treatment given to Hispanics in my opinion (who do receive affirmative action). Yet this was ignored. Why? </p>
<p>Because when a race raises its overall status in society and income level begins to raise significantly, then that race is marginalized into the category of “White” - irregardless of what happened to said race before.</p>
<p>I imagine if African Americans as a whole were more successful than Whites, then there would be absolutely no Affirmative Action despite previous history of slavery. If Asian Americans had high crime rates, low rates of high school graduation, and low overall income, I can almost guarantee that we would have Affirmative Action as well. </p>
<p>Affirmative Action works for the most part because the races it targets are the ones that are the least economically successful as a whole. So then why are such races opposed to socioeconomic affirmative action chance in policy? Are you scared that such benefits that have been yours for years will be extended to other in need as well? Or are you part of the Hispanic/Black elite that will no longer receive such benefits once economic AA is implemented? Just because African Americans endured hundreds of years of slavery does not make them the SOLE entitle-es to AA and rising above poverty. Lets extend to the the Appalachian poor whites, the poor Vietnamese and poor Filipinos. </p>
<p>Why does AA in colleges exist? It does not exist for you, the student. It is simply a way for colleges to recruit under represented minorities for their school. Why is this? Because typically - those who succeed among under represented minorities are actually more successful than their White counterparts. The most elite of the Black or Hispanic races are quite well off and successful in their fields. By recruiting their children - the college poses to make a gain off that sort of intrinsic success present. AA in colleges seldom allows the inner city kid to climb his way scratching up to the top of college - it allows for a recruitment for talent among URMs. Rather than bring kids out of poverty - it is meant to bring the talent out of a under represented race. </p>
<p>People suggest it isn’t a big deal because African Americans only compose 7-10% of the population. That is because - less African Americans apply - and also because no matter what kind of AA - it ends in the classroom. A professor does not give an African American student a higher grade because they are an underrepresented minority. Ivies have near 100% retention rates of their students. This means that there are only 7-10% percent of students in their populations because the college feels that these are the students that CAN succeed in their environment. Yes, they might have lower SAT scores - but SAT is not a pure indicator of college success. One can look at retention rates and see that these students do just fine despite “their huge so called gap in SAT scores”. </p>
<p>The issue is that AA is meant to close the gap of opportunity between people. Opportunity can no longer be measured by race - but by difference is socioeconomic status. The reason for AA is the philosophy that if an inner city AA kid were raised in my position - he could possible achieve more than I have - and that is the reason for his acceptance (an extrapolation of sorts). Yet AA is unable to accurately judge such gaps of “opportunity” any longer because URMs are becoming more successful - and those successful ones are taking advantage of the system. The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s grandson does not require AA. The Vietnamese child who waits tables at nights does. </p>
<p>I also think that bringing in any sort of genetic predisposition of suggesting that one race is more intelligent than another is completely wrong. AA is meant to even out the difference in OPPORTUNITY that different people have. It is not meant to correct intrinsic genetic differences - even if there are any. AA should lift the bright student from the Inner City Slums, not the unmotivated, lazy, indifferent student from the Inner City Slums. I think any discussion of genetic differences in intelligence shouldn’t be considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I pointed out in my post, I am more of an advocate for socioeconomic affirmative action rather than racial affirmative action. My complaint simply stems from the uninformed assumptions people have about AA leading to uninformed assumptions about ALL minorities who go to a prestigious university. It is not fair to have my academic achievements downplayed because some bitter rejectee thinks I “took” his/her spot with the assumption that I have lesser qualifications :/</p>
<p>And although it may seem contradictory to my previous statement, I do however like the idea of having racial diversity within a university. Having an all white school would be bad as would an all black or all asian or all any other race. Being exposed to different people and cultures is an excellent experience that some won’t get to experience until college (for example, I have grown up in predominantly white schools all my life and I want more diversity along with a top education).</p>
<p>I think what most people tend to misunderstand is that prestigious schools that practice AA do not accept horrendously less qualified candidates (i.e. someone with a 2.5 GPA and a 1400 SAT) but maybe someone with a 3.9 and a 2100 SAT. Those numbers still indicate strong academic potential which is what schools look for. </p>
<p>To be blunt, affirmative action is most likely not going anywhere anytime soon so suck it up. Life’s not always fair and you’re going to have to deal with unfairness a lot more often beyond college. College is only 4 years of your life (for undergrad purposes) and a couple years down the road when you have a job and family, it’s not going to matter whether you didn’t get into HYPSM. If you’re really that smart, you can find other ways to success.</p>