<p>^ It would be interesting to run a blind test on CC.</p>
<p>The problem with putting so much stake in SAT scores, is that no study has ever shown that scoring a perfect 2400 means that you will achieve anything in particular.</p>
<p>^ Of course not, and I don’t think anyone could rationally argue that the SAT is a direct indicator of future success. What the SAT does do though is that it establishes a quantitative standard on which adcoms can judge applicants. It is the normalizer, the one aspect that you really can’t work around and I think that’s why many people are hostile to it. And yes, not all SAT scores are equal; obviously the availability of tutors/prep courses can make a difference. But even so, it generally won’t make hundreds of points of a difference, and so the SAT still remains by far the most objective factor in college admissions. </p>
<p>That is why, despite incorporating holistic processes, the 25-75 SAT scores at most top colleges continue to reach new highs. Try to make a class of students for Harvard that is selected out of a pool of 2000+ SAT scorers, and ignore any further test score thresholds in order to select solely based upon subjective factors. I guarantee that Harvard’s student body would pale in comparison to what it is today.</p>
<p>Even if the Duke mismatch study that essentially dispels the argument that Asians are “subjectively weak” didn’t exist, one would still have to remember that SAT scores and grades remain the two most important criteria, and that the standalone fact that Asians are at the top in both of these categories makes substantial implications by itself.</p>
<p>I think you just made the case that SAT scores are not completely objective, and in what sense are they a “normalizer” if they have never been proven to indicate anything about an applicant other than a slight advantage in freshman year performance? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and those “substantial implications” are… what?</p>
<p>
Obviously they are not a perfect science, but imagine if you were to judge applicants using ECs as the largest factor; adcoms would have to take several months, maybe even a year, to make adequate admissions decisions for a pool of twenty thousand applicants, and even then, the overall quality of accepted applicants would fluctuate wildly.</p>
<p>And regarding college performance: the reality is that the greatest predictor of college grades is a combination of course difficulty and grades. And this has led me to believe that colleges are not looking for the students that will earn the highest GPAs but are rather going after the most intelligent students that have still demonstrated strong grades and intellectual curiosity. And another important thing regarding grades: as much as you think wealth manipulates SAT score, you would be foolish to think that wealth doesn’t affect grades and overall preparation for college even more. I come from one of these wealthy communities where half the kids get tutors to help them with homework and explain concepts to them after school twice, maybe three times a week. And like other “elite” schools, my HS provides courses designed to go way beyond the scope of the AP curriculum; courses that 1) are far more challenging and demanding than AP, 2) increase ability to handle a college workload, and 3) are often only found at these elite sort of high schools. If Harvard really wanted to maximize their overall GPA, they would take half the kids at Exeter, TJ, Stuy, etc. and call it a day.</p>
<p>
Essentially that they are facing, to a degree, a higher admissions standard.</p>
<p>The thing about it is that this thread is meant for “Discrimination against Asian Students” or basically “Affirmative Action with regards to ethnicity.” So to bring economic class into the discussion is a little bit different, and in fact, I believe that wealth does play a role in increasing SAT scores and high school transcripts. I would even go so far as to say, that it would be ethical to discriminate students by their financial situation. Although arguable, I would say that a poor kid from a city who goes to an underfunded school should be considered more leniently for admissions because he doesn’t have the resources for outside tutoring and such for standarized testing. And the mistake I see most in this thread is that people are associating “poor, disadvantaged student” to “African American.” And even though there are many African Americans in the low-class family of America, there are also many whites, Hispanics, and Asians as well. Because quite honestly, there are many African Americans in my school who have absolutely the same oppurtunities as I do, but they simply do not study as hard. Yet, I know that they will have a much easier time applying to colleges, which I clearly do not see as fair.</p>
<p>Now regarding the objectivity of SAT’s, Collegeboard claims that it is an objective test. And in my opinion, the test makers do make a pretty fair test. Obviously, you need to know math to complete the mathematics section and you need to know certain vocab to complete the critical reading, but essentially no “outside” knowledge is needed to do well on the test. For example, it’s not necessary to have read “Macbeth” or various Shakespeare plays, or different Faulkner novels to complete any section. There is no necessary knowledge of outside literature or obscure facts that only one particular “group” (whether ethnic or social) would know. Therefore, in theory, anyone can do well on the test provided he/she has the basic background knowledge. </p>
<p>And so so take this “objective” test and weigh it the same as EC, in my opinion, is ridiculous. For sake of argument, let’s say many Asians play violin. People here on CC say “Oh, that’s so stereotypical. Boring.” But, don’t many African American’s play basketball? Don’t many white people play baseball? I mean there are a few EC’s out there that, yes, pertain to a certain ethnic group. But who’s really to decide whether violin or piano is “worth more” than playing basketball or baseball.</p>
<p>Because ultimately, the impression I’m getting from this thread is that if an Asian American had good grades, high SAT scores, but instead of playing a musical instrument, participated in sports or student council, that would suddenly boost his EC resume and get him automatically in. But is that really fair? Is it really fair that the hard work put into the violin is considered “worthless” when compared to the long hours of practice to play basketball?</p>
<p>Nobody’s saying playing the violin is worthless. The point is that colleges want to have violin players, baseball players, ballet dancers, basketball players, and what have you. So, once the college has all the top violin players it needs, the next violin player is out of luck. The next slot goes to an oboe player. (This is a gross simplification, obviously.) White kids play all the sports and all the instruments–I can’t think of any EC (other than specifically ethnic ones) that only Asians do. The reverse is just not the case–there are quite a few ECs and sports that Asians hardly ever do.
And one more thing, about mindsets: this mindset that selective colleges ought to take the most accomplished students, in order, no matter what form their interests and activities take, is a stereotypical mindset itself.</p>
<p>Looking at the entire process from the elite u’s perspective, what exactly are these colleges trying to achieve? Providing the best classroom education to the country’s smartest students? Or something else?</p>
<p>I think it is something else, and that is why, even if you could get all of the smartest Asians (or any one race) in the world to apply to Harvard, Harvard will never fill every seat with those applicants.</p>
<p>Re 327, 328</p>
<p>In our country, almost all of the elite universities employ the best graduates approach. That is, they are usually not interested in “providing the best classroom education to the country’s smartest students.” That would be the best students approach, which is used by just about every other country in the world, including Western ones like the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>I have nothing against a best graduates approach; it is well within the rights of the elite universities to use that approach. I simply believe that race is not relevant in producing the best graduates. Personal qualities, on the other hand, are highly relevant. Interviews, extracurriculars, essays, and recommendations are all fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like which ones?</p>
<p>If Asians remain “underrepresented” from what scores predict in RACE-BLIND (and holistic) admissions, I will be perfectly content. Until then, I remain unconvinced that self-selection without subconscious stereotyping can cause such a gap. --Self-selecting ECs PLUS unconscious bias on the part of admissions officers, I can plausibly see. </p>
<p>I do favor building a class over simply selecting the most accomplished students–but I do not favor building a class based on discrimination-protected attributes such as race, gender, disability, sexual orientation(?).</p>
<p>
One wonders how the percentages of Asian and white students would change at Harvard if applicants had to apply to a specific major, and each major only had a specified number of slots. Even if the consideration was race-blind, I think you might find that Asians wouldn’t benefit in the aggregate from this approach.</p>
<p>^ Well, the UK has Asians too. And no affirmative action, last I heard. How does it work out there?</p>
<p>
Baseball. Brass and percussion. Literary magazines. Lacrosse. Softball. I’m sure there are Asians doing all these things–this is based on my observations at a couple of schools with a lot of high-achieving Asians, and on reading profiles here.</p>
<p>"The new figures on how few members of class of 2009 got perfect SAT scores are posted now, by the way. "</p>
<p>tokenadult: very interesting set of numbers. It seems that with new SAT the number of perfect scorers has dropped significantly. I seem to remember that with old SAT there were about 700-800 perfect scorers (1600 in single sitting).</p>
<p>“The problem with putting so much stake in SAT scores, is that no study has ever shown that scoring a perfect 2400 means that you will achieve anything in particular.”</p>
<p>Sounds like sour grapes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? As the law stands, it is legal for colleges to use all of those attributes as factors in making admissions decisions. If colleges think that having all of these types of students present on campus will benefit everyone, including their own mission, who are you to tell them they are wrong?</p>
<p>Just an observation. I am amazed and elated by the fact that 18 year old Asian kids are debating adults who may be 2.5 - 3 times their age with very logical reasoning, very clear writing style, supporting data and name calling. Way to go kids. I am counting on you to become very productive and very rich. You will end up paying more taxes, but hey my SS depends on you guys.</p>
<p>simba - Why thank you, although I’d prefer that you point out where I (personally) did any name calling. That’s one of my pet peeves in debate.</p>
<p>Bay - I said, “I do not favor.” I have every right to tell anyone, or any institution, that “they are wrong”–it remains my opinion, of course, and I can’t enforce it. In this case, my opinion is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment and every institution’s voluntary statement of nondiscrimination. I’m aware that current legal rulings allow such attributes; I disagree with the law, just as I disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act and many other instances of current law.</p>
<p>Ok, I didn’t mean literally, I was in a hurry when I posted. I was hoping to elicit some sort of basis for your opinion, other than that it is your right to feel that way.</p>