<p>Anyone can, kono. I don't think the college can really <em>do</em> anything about it, but it's not particularly ethical if you're <em>not</em> a URM. But whatever, if you feel like gaming the system, go for it.</p>
<p>"H.S. gpa is a better predictor of college success than are SAT scores."</p>
<p>Well, kinda! GPA and SAT scores need to be supported by OTHER elements. Just analyze the above statements but reverse the order. Does a URM with a 4.00 GPA but a 1000 SAT stand a better chance to be admitted at Harvard? Heck, no! The studies that decreed that the SAT are better predictor than GPA are flawed ... and bear no validation outside the geographical market from which they originated. By now, we all know that GPA have ZERO standards because of vastly divergent systems and misleading scales. How could we speak of any standards when some schools have UW GPA and all public schools in North Carolina have a 6.00/4.00 scale for all IB and AP classes. Grade inflation and cynicial games are rampant in high schools. At least, the SAT does have identical standards ... well I guess you can expect that from a standardized test. :) </p>
<p>FWIW, the combination of both GPA and SAT is a much better predictor, but that should not surprise anyone. Maybe, we should revisit the definition of "predictor" altogether.</p>
<p>I think it probably works best when you compare students from the same school or schools of the same calibre.</p>
<p>xiggi: I agree that the combination of both GPA and SAT is a much better predictor of college success; however, I don't quite understand why you think that weighting AP and IB courses (in NC or elsewhere) is misleading and evidence of "grade inflation and cynical games" as you suggest. Most public schools (with which I am familiar) reflect both the unweighted GPA, as well as the weighted GPA, on the transcript. Those transcripts also obviously reflect whether a person is taking AP or IB, honors, etc., and an explanation of how the school weights courses accompanies the transcript. And I don't know of any public school anywhere that gives the same weight to an AP or IB course as they would for a "regular" course. Do you? If so, I'd love to hear about it. I also don't know how you equate that with grade inflation. To claim grade inflation, you would need to know the kinds of grades typically made in those schools/courses (and, perhaps, how they equate with standardized test scores, like the SAT or AP/IB exams?) An AP/IB higher level double-blocked physics course is, in fact, a tougher course than a non-AP "regular" science course. Regardless, I certainly don't believe that college/university admissions committees simply look at GPA's. They are, hopefully, looking at the courses students chose to take and how well they did in them. Even if a school in NC, or elsewhere, chose to give the exact same weight to AP/IB courses as to "regular" courses, I doubt it would make much difference (except, perhaps, in calculating class ranks), as admissions committees would still be able to see the course load and how rigorous (or not) it was. I remain--confused. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I'm not seeing it.</p>
<p>"H.S. gpa is a better predictor of college success than are SAT scores."</p>
<p>Well, kinda! GPA and SAT scores need to be supported by OTHER elements. Just analyze the above statements but reverse the order. Does a URM with a 4.00 GPA but a 1000 SAT stand a better chance to be admitted at Harvard? Heck, no! "</p>
<p>But the URM with a 4.0 gpa and a 1000 SAT is likely to attain higher grades at whatever college s/he goes to than would the URM with a 1410 SAT with a 2.9 average at whatever college s/he goes to.</p>
<p>This comes from the mom of a URM S with exactly the latter stats, who went to a second tier college (turned down 2 top 25 first tier ones) and flunked out -- for lack of bothering to do any classwork.</p>
<p>I also taught URMs who had had 4.0 gpas and SATs that were about 1000 who graduated magna and summa cum laude from the 2nd/3rd tier (depending on what year one checks the US News stats) college. Some of these students went on to grad school at second tier universities and are doing fine.</p>
<p>Their low SAT scores had reflected the fact that they were in secondary schools with major problems including having many uncertified teachers, a transient student population, and many students with major nonacademic problems that tied up the faculty's time. Their gpas reflected their work ethic, which was strong, so helped them do well in academic environments that allowed them the opportunity to learn as much as they were capable of.</p>
<p>In selecting URMs, the elite colleges select students with excellent grades (not necessarily 3.9-4.0 unweighted, but usually at least a 3.5 unweighted) and excellent SAT scores. Typically the URMs have at least a 1350 (and I have seen plenty of URMs with scores of 1400 and above and gpas of at least 3.5 rejected by top colleges), though exceptions may be made for extraordinarily high achieving URMs who are first generation college or have spectacular ECs or have overcome enormous challenges while keeping a high gpa. The lowest SAT, however, typically acceptable at a place like Harvard is a 1200 (old SAT as are all of the other figures I site), and that's rare and seems to be used only for people who are truly extraordinary in some aspect -- plus have excellent gpas.</p>
<p>" I never understood why it is important to establish differences among the various sub-groups of Black students. The need to establish direct links to a Caribbean or African origin is especially puzzling. While it is undeniable that a number of wealthy and well educated blacks have emigrated from thero countries, I fail to see the relevance of breaking down the racial mix further." - Xiggi Post #16</p>
<p>Amen. Sometimes it seems to be little more than a form of triumphalism among some blacks eager to separate themselves from the stigma and negative stereotypes that are often associated with African Americans in this society. This is yet another reason why Ogbu's analysis resonates with me.</p>
<p>Drawing a distinction among the descendants of slaves and recent African immigrants and their children becomes important if the rationale behind affirmative action is to make up for past injustice. (Carribean-Americans would fall somewhere between the two groups, since most are the descendants of slaves, albeit not American slaves.) </p>
<p>Affirmative action is, as we all know, a controversial topic. One reason which has been used to support its existence is a need to make up for a history of slavery in the US. It's also needed, advocates say, because African-Americans historically have suffered from the effects of Jim Crow laws and later, de facto segregation. In other words,as I understand it, the argument is in essence that we need to discriminate a bit in favor of people who in the past have been discriminated against. </p>
<p>When affirmative action is used to benefit kids who come from families that did not experience those hardships, three things happen. First, the critics of affirmative action use these examples to criticize the existence of the policy. Second, the kids who are supposed to benefit from affirmative action are shut out from some programs. Third, the continuing existence of real problems is masked--it can look as if the status of the people who are descended from those who suffered from discrimination in the past and who CONTINUE to suffer from it has improved when it hasn't. It can look as if the gap in the average achievement of different groups is narrowing when it really isn't--we are looking at a much bigger group which includes many people who were not subject to past discrimination, let alone slavery. So, if we look at the academic achievements of African-Americans in 1965 or so (before immigration laws were radically changed and more people of color were permitted to enter the US) and compare them with those of African-Americans in 2006, when there are many in the group who are immigrants or the children of immigrants, we are looking at two different groups of people and, IMO, the comparison is wholly invalid. </p>
<p>When a kid who is the child of one parent who is African-born and one who is white gets into a top college and gets scholarship $$ as an Achievement Scholar well, people think it's unfair. When a classmate who is much, much poorer, has parents who are less educated, gets rejected from the same colleges and doesn't get as much $$ because he's Asian, it causes animousity. Why should A-- a lovely girl I like a lot--get an Achievement Scholarship? Her dad is a Ghanian immigrant who came here as an adult and her mom is a regular old middle-class college educated white American. It may be that a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow laws and de facto segregation continues to hurt African-American kids and justifies affirmative action, but A's father, who grew up in Africa, certainly didn't suffer from any such legacy. Shouldn't the Achievement Scholarships, which are limited in #, go to kids who come from families that were affected by such injustice? </p>
<p>My kids are a bit older now. Back when they were in high school, a conservative estimate would be that one-third of the scholarships for Hispanic kids received by kids at their high school went to Jewish-American kids whose grandparents had survived concentration camps and emigrated to Cuba. The families left for the US when Baptista was overthrown. The parents, however, were born in Cuba during the less than 10 year period their families resided there. This qualified the kids as Hispanic. These kids not only took the $$$, they checked the box saying that they were Hispanic. (I think the rules have since changed, so that Cubans aren't eligible for URM status at some colleges.) </p>
<p>Seeing this happen year after year, a Chinese-American family figured out that their son was eligible because one of his parents was born in South America, while his grandfather worked on the construction of a railroad there. Thus, I assure you there is at least one Hispanic Scholar who is 100% ethnic Chinese. </p>
<p>Colleges track the progress of URM kids and want to be able to say they succeed. If including the grandchildren of Polish and German Jews and a Chinese laborer on a South -American railroad boosts the median GPA of Hispanic kids,the stats look better. The stats for Native-Americans are particularly suspect, IMO. We've got kids who grew up in dire poverty in reservations being lumped in with kids who have one ancestor pretty far back who is listed on Daws Rolls and who have had no exposure whatsoever to Native-American life. (Again, hope I've got the right name.) People who advocate affirmative action look at these stats and see, I suspect, less of an achievement gap than they would if the "ringers" were excluded. </p>
<p>We play the same game by focusing so much on race or language. Cuban Americans and Mexican-Americans are very different groups. The US has started to divide Hispanic groups up and to differentiate among Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto-Ricans and other groups in trying to measure achievement. Fillipino-American and Hmong-American educational levels lag far behind those of other Asian-American groups. Yet, too often, they are lumped in with those groups as Asian-Americans and seen as "overrepresented," when in fact they are UNDERrepresented. </p>
<pre><code> I think these are issues that need to be discussed and I hope that this thread doesn't deteriorate. Also, please understand that I am not saying we should distinguish among different groups of African-Americans. I'm just explaining why I think there is a valid basis for arguing that we should.
</code></pre>
<p>Affirmative Action does not make differences among sub-groups and is NOT based solely on the issue of reparations for slavery. Affirmative Action is broader than college admissions, and in other applications support women. I do not think that all women were or are former slaves! </p>
<p>FWIW, your examples of Chinese-Americans claiming a hispanic heritage and of Native Americans without any affiliations are extremely worrisome, but such cases would not have survived a modicum of scrutiny by the schools. Regardless of their veracity, such accounts do not represent the overwhelming majority of the URM pool.</p>
<p>"But the URM with a 4.0 gpa and a 1000 SAT is likely to attain higher grades at whatever college s/he goes to than would the URM with a 1410 SAT with a 2.9 average at whatever college s/he goes to."</p>
<p>Humm! This would be ABSOLUTELY untrue if the student with 1410 graduated from Andover, Stuy, or a number of highly competitive schools and the student with the 1000 GPA garduated from any of the thousans highly mediocre public schools in the country. Despite being one the most falwed survey, the College Board seems to indicate that 41% of the US high schoolers grraduate with a A average. What is the percentage of students who earned a 1410 SAT? </p>
<p>The GPA, without a number of controlling elements, is statistically invalid.</p>
<p>Kono,</p>
<p>At one time the rule was "3/5 of all other persons." That's my bit of friendly sarcarm for you.</p>
<p>Lake Washington, if you are referring to the 3/5 rule in early American government for counting slaves, you are incorrect in your phrasing. American officials never referred to slaves as 3/5 of a person. They only agreed that 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted as part of a states population. There is a large difference here, if you care to look it up.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I think jonri's post, if analyzed closely, reveals numerous reasons why Affirmative Action should be abolished. Also, Northstarmom's posts reveal several flaws:</p>
<p>
[quote]
One last category of black students who tend to do very well on tests are black students who were adopted into white families.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems as if their scores are greater affected by their environment rather than their race. This statement greatly contradicts the principles Affirmative Action is based on.</p>
<p>Even though I personally am against Affirmative Action, I can at least understand the reasoning and coherence of most pro-AA arguments. However, one argument that is absolutely ridiculous and completely disgusting is that AA is some sort of reparations for slavery. As a white person, am I supposed to punished for something that occurred before I was born? before I existed? that was done by people that were not even remotely connected to me or my family (Irish immigrants)? Perhaps I should punch a German-American in the face for WWII. Or a Japanese-American. Or a Chinese-American. Or a Korea-American. Or a Vietnamese-American. Or an Italian-American. Or an English-American. Or a Spanish-American. Or a Mexican-American.</p>
<p>Anyway, the reparations argument does not even apply to Hispanics and the sort. If the argument is that African Americans were some how irreversibly economically burdened by slavery and cannot recover, I got news for you- everyone got screwed by the wealthy, land owning elite. The majority of whites included. Thats how a capitalist society works. The rich get richer. Anyhow, I don't know if AA will get abolished in my lifteime but to me AA is comparable to the Jim Crow laws, only put in softer, more politically-correct terms.</p>
<br>
<p>to me AA is comparable to the Jim Crow laws, only put in softer, more politically-correct terms.</p>
<br>
<p>Please let us know the next time you're arrested for assault because you failed to get off the sidewalk when a black person was walking by, and then you're convicted and sent to prison by an all-black jury for your crime. At that point, I'll agree that AA is comparable to Jim Crow laws.</p>
<p>I know this is a detour from the current conversation, but someone asked a question and I want to answer it.</p>
<p>Jack asked: "And I don't know of any public school anywhere that gives the same weight to an AP or IB course as they would for a "regular" course. Do you? If so, I'd love to hear about it."</p>
<p>Off the top of my head I can tell you the name of three public high schools in Vermont that give no extra weight to AP, honors or advanced classes. All three of these schools rank students based on unweighted GPA. </p>
<p>Perhaps more relevant: While there are certainly schools that do admissions based on numbers, many more are holistic and look at the whole kid. Arguing about whether a 1000 SAT/4 GPA is better/worse than a 1400 SAT/2.9 GPA is meaningless if we know nothing about the circumstances of the student. Is the GPA low because the kid refuses to do any work and loves to party? Or because he is homeless and moves around a lot? Or goes to a competiive magnet school? Is the SAT low because he was really sick that day, and because of a crappy HS didn't even know he had to take the SAT for colleges until senior year?</p>
<p>"One last category of black students who tend to do very well on tests are black students who were adopted into white families. </p>
<p>Seems as if their scores are greater affected by their environment rather than their race. This statement greatly contradicts the principles Affirmative Action is based on."</p>
<p>From what i have seen (and I know 3 black males raised by white families), what affects their scores, grades is having white parents regardless of what their home environment is like. I can not tell you how much people (white and black teachers, counselors) told me that everything was OK when I worried about my high scoring, relatively low grade black sons. This is even though I am Ivy educated with a doctorate, and my husband is a college prof and we do all of the typical things (taking kids to museums, reading a lot, doing educational trips, expecting our kids to do well in school, restricting TV, etc.) that highly educated academics do with their kids.</p>
<p>I don't think that black kids with white mothers get the same kind of response. </p>
<p>I also would bet that people in general expect more of black kids who have white moms. This includes expecting them to do better on things like standardized testing.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, there is no research on this. I am simply going by what I've seen. It would be interesting, however, to see what kind of results would occur if someone did do research on this.</p>
<p>Hanna- well if you consider community college a prison of sorts,well then, many whites get sent there because of AA then.</p>
<p>NSM, Thank you for posting</p>