<p>"I mean if you have AMAZING stats and great EC's and the whole package, including you are a URM, I'm sure it gives you a little boost."</p>
<p>I think it's the opposite, helping more at the low end. A URM at the extreme high end doesn't need a boost.</p>
<p>vossron- That's true, but I don't think it will count as much. I don't know, I guess I just don't see myself getting into any my dream school (Brown) because of my low SAT's. : (
But I don't think they'll consider my being black a boost in my app...I guess it's just hard for me to believe.</p>
<p>yeah plainsman, you were about to get me extremely upset. Good thing you decided to reread and I agree with superwoman. I don't see the boost helping much unless you were already a very good candidate.</p>
<p>super, it's a boost, but may not be enough of a boost.</p>
<p>"I don't see the boost helping much unless you were already a very good candidate."</p>
<p>^^ Not really. The competition has gotten so keen that theres' a real disconnect b/w students who are fully capable of success at top colleges and those w/ the stats to make admission more likely than not. By that I mean there are plenty of kids with relatively modest academic profiles (3.4 gpa, 1250 SATs) who could be make it through many of the top colleges in 4 years and w/o really struggling. Indeed, many of those successful applicants/graduates from a generation or two ago probably wouldn't have the stats to be admitted today. </p>
<p>Many applicants and their families would be surprised by the comparatively weak profiles some today's successful black applicants present. These students, however, are not neither unqualified nor poorly qualified to do the work; they just present a less competitive academic profile in an increasingly competitive applicant pool. </p>
<p>The colleges understand that one need not have a weighted gpa of 3.9 and SATs of 1570/1600 to do the work, but if you can fill most of your seats w/ candidates presenting that profile, why not. So most of the seats go to students w/ the truly stellar profiles, but some students with more modest profiles are also admitted - - those who are still solid enough to do the work and who bring something extra to the table. One of those extras is urm status.</p>
<p>"if you can fill most of your seats w/ candidates presenting that profile, why not."</p>
<p>Because schools want students who, collectively, bring diverse backgrounds and interests. Having most with the same profile would be quite bland.</p>
<p>Yes, but still most - - not all - -of the seats are fill with students that fit the school's overall profile (that's what makes it the overall provile). The "bottom" 25% of every admitted class doesn't fit the general stats profile, that means that 75% (ie: most admitted students) meet or surpass the general profile. And there is also diversity w/i the 75% of the entering class that meets the stats profile.</p>
<p>To be quite honest I was a little shocked by the abysmal performance of black youth as a whole. Our school publishes a yearly school "report card" and apparently 18% of the black population in the district takes at least 1 AP class, and the bar for national achievement hovers around a score of 190 which is terrible when compared to the national merit semifinalist cut of about 216 in Texas. And national achievement is supposed to be like top 1% of black test takers in america.</p>
<p>It is really sad that black youth as an aggregate are underachievers. The above is the real reason that blacks get some "slack" in admission, and in all honesty I would rather have the same standards for black students as the Asian and whites. Sure that may result in 10 black students out of about 1,700 students in the entire class of Harvard, but at least it would be ten that would be qualified (in the statistical sense) to be there.</p>
<p>Dbate- i understand where youre coming from but when i was taking the PSAT, i was never told it was important, or that i could even get a scholarship if i did well. i was the only AA in my class at the time, and i never received any guidance whatsoever in terms of standardized testing. Compared to my peers whom payed thousands of dollars to have tutors, and take classes that i couldnt afford. in addition to that, i bet you money the people who were finnalists prepared, theres no way you can just walk in and take the exam and magically do well, it takes preparation. preparation involves money. Another problem i noticed with my own family members were that some of them couldnt even afford to pay to register for the PSAT, so they ended up taking the SAT without any taste of what the test would be like. i dont know if its just me but i didnt slack, i am HORRIBLE at taking exams, but i do extremely well in school, im in the top 14% while i struggle on the SAT. i think it just depends on peoples case, not all blacks are "slacking". I always say this to my younger sister who is now a junior, before she took the PSAT i helped her prepare because she also couldnt afford materials to prepare while our mom is unemployed, i told her if i knew how important the PSAT would be i would have been at least National achievement semifinalist because i would have tried to prepare in a cost effective manner. Thats just my $ 0.02!</p>
<p>o & to add to that, since my school payed for our registering for the PSAT, we didnt find out until a couple days before, which they involved handing us the pamphlet about the test, including them telling us it didnt count as anything. : (</p>
<p>I definitely understand the test prep things. I couldn't afford those classes either, but others from my school used it. I studied on my own from a test prep book. I dislike the SAT as a whole bc I think it is somewhat skewed, in contrast the ACT was very straightforward and was very much more like I was accustomed to which is probably why I did better on it.</p>
<p>Yea, I'm taking the ACT this weekend on standby. I signed up in December and I have this extremely severe back problem where the disks in my back slip at randomn, when they do I am unable to walk or make any movements, so I missed the exam. My schools extended the deadline for me so I can take it on Saturday. It stinks though that I paid and couldn't even get out of my room, I hate having back problems : (</p>
<p>p.s. I hope I do better!</p>
<p>Good Luck!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Thankss mucho!</p>
<p>
While money and preparation DO help, and that's a sad and unfair reality of the PSAT and SAT, your generalization is just that. Most of the highest-scoring people I know did so with ZERO preparation, or very little. For example -- and I'm not trying to brag; just to illustrate -- I took the PSAT my sophomore year having only looked at one practice test, the night before, and I only missed three questions, yielding a score of 234. Similarly, I and several friends of mine took the SAT without having practiced or prepared, except for having taken the PSAT once or twice (depending on when we took the SAT), and got the following scores: 2390, 2400, 2360, 2320, 2260, 2290... the list goes on and on. And these are only people from my medium-sized public school. My grade had seven NMSFs, and as far as I know, none of the seven of us prepared any more than taking the PSAT the year before, in addition to one or two practice PSATs (which our school provided for free and which I doubt made any difference whatsoever, considering that we were missing very few questions already on the practices). In fact, the two or three students I knew who DID prepare didn't end up making the NMSF cut.</p>
<p>Now, you can argue about the quality of education and how students who have had a "better" education score higher on the SAT, and I agree with you. Some people have just been exposed to more than others. The extent to which these factors make a difference is debatable, but no standardized test can purely test "intellect" or "intelligence"; we humans aren't smart enough to design a test like that. So please understand that I'm not saying people who score higher are "smarter" or anything.</p>
<p>I just find it necessary to respond because I think it's ridiculous that you assume that everyone who qualified did so because they shelled out money for preparation. Not as a rule, but as a generalization, the vast majority of the people I know who did well did NOT prepare -- and, not to sound rude, but most of those who found it necessary to prepare didn't prove capable of doing exceptionally well, after all.</p>
<p>Poseur- I see where you're coming from but my generalization was made primarily on my surroundings. I certainly agree that some students are exposed to more aspects the test covers then others, but my surroundings have proven that the money is a great factor in doing well on these exams, in addition to preparation. I didn't mean to make a broad generalization in majority but only based my assumption on my experiences not all experiences as a whole. It was just MY opinion of what is going on around me, which I know is not the same for others. My perception of standardized tests are only based on the failure I've had in mastering them, so I definetly could not have understood fully how no preparation would enable someone to score "better scores." Right now it's hard for me to believe that the one thing standing between me and my dream school is a 4 hour exam that doesn't even measure the 4 years of work I've done in high school. I guess I'm just hating bc I suck at taking standardized tests (lol). In addition to the little attention I get bc my teachers expect me to drop out soon anyway...</p>
<p>I love how everyone on CC guilt trips minorities into not checking what ethnicity they are. If being black is who you are, don’t hide it because little Johnny down the street might get mad. You deserved your shine; don’t feel guilty about it.</p>
<p>Little Johnny is also black. ;)</p>
<p>I never would not state my race, it’s part of who I am. If someone gives me an edge, the same way they give an edge to a legacy, that is out of my hands. I can’t pretend I’m nothing on an interview, dealing with racist students, bosses,etc., I’m not pretending to be nothing and not getting a scholarship when I desperately need money.
I don’t know many people that would want to be under my skin if given the chance, the “advantages” aren’t always very obvious. I work hard, study hard and I’m a good person, but part of who I am, is part of my race and my interactions wearing this skin.
I would never deny my race especially because someone thinks I’m getting something they deserve. The idiocy of that speaks for itself.</p>
<p>"I never would not state my race, it’s part of who I am. If someone gives me an edge, the same way they give an edge to a legacy, that is out of my hands. I can’t pretend I’m nothing on an interview, dealing with racist students, bosses,etc., I’m not pretending to be nothing and not getting a scholarship when I desperately need money.
I don’t know many people that would want to be under my skin if given the chance, the “advantages” aren’t always very obvious. I work hard, study hard and I’m a good person, but part of who I am, is part of my race and my interactions wearing this skin.
I would never deny my race especially because someone thinks I’m getting something they deserve. The idiocy of that speaks for itself. "</p>
<p>Exactamente.
I like my skin… and I’m so tired of hearing nonsense like- you’re black so you’ll have an easier time in college admissions than me.
I feel like saying you’re white so you’ll have an easier time in life than me…
because its true.</p>