<p>The guy is graduating with HONORS. If he wasn't a good admit who is? If anything, Amherst should be commended for recognizing potential.</p>
<p>Malishka, I do not disagree much with you, overall. The only objection I would raise regards your belief that "most college graduates" supposedly don't have to make it on their own, but are supported or significantly helped by parents. Perhaps at the private Elites, the majority have such connections & such financial support. But even many solidly middle-class families, with students at public & at private collgees, are either not in a position to offer much of a boost, or strongly do not believe in that. </p>
<p>My birth family was middle-class. We lived in suburbia. Yet my parents, with several children and one parent working, did not have a lot of disposable income. More importantly, they did not believe in helping us beyond college. All of us children at one point or another struggled with living expenses after college, yet had to pull ourselves out of those situations, even when our parents could have helped us.</p>
<p>I still know plenty of parents with that viewpoint. Many of them have made sacrifices prior to these college years, with the assumption that the sacrifices cannot continue beyond age 18.</p>
<p>Even some very wealthy parents refuse to liquidate funds for their grown children, because they believe it will cut short their children's self-actualization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The guy is graduating with HONORS. If he wasn't a good admit who is?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said he wasn't smart. </p>
<p>Listen. Any white, middle-class Amherst applicant would have had to have written one hell of an essay, had fantastic recs, and done some pretty unbelievable things outside of school in order to make up for being 222 points behind the curve. Jack didn't have to do any of those things. How can you call that fair?</p>
<p>I'm not discounting Mr. Jack's collegiate achievements; I am saying that it's wrong to give him such a significant leg-up (on par with, say, "converting" a C-student's grades into As) just on the basis of his socioeconomic status or ethnicity. If Jack had to negotiate with gang-bangers just for safe passage home, I think he might have had a case, but he didn't exactly come from a broken home -- his mother encouraged him to perform well in school, for example, which is more than many underpriviliged children can boast. The SAT more closely measures natural intelligence than it does ability to study. To put things bluntly: Jack was, on paper, markedly less intelligent than the average Amherst freshman, but he was accepted anyways. Call it an "emphasis on diversity," if you want; I call it "having statistics in mind."</p>
<p>Maybe Amherst felt that there were other measures that were more indicative of his future college performance than his SAT score</p>
<p>222 point gap, so what, i didnt even take the SAT score. I dont see your point focusing on this SAT score.</p>
<p>You can not see his full application.</p>
<p>He graduated with HONORS, that means they made the best choice not only for whatever quota they may need to meet but also for their own benefit. They want the best, he is just as good as any kid with a 1600 and he proved it.</p>
<p>You do not know what your talking about. His mom made 26000 for like the 4 of them, it is fair, he is underprivalged in his whole life, and he would continue being so. </p>
<p>What Amherst does in the grand scheme of the world is bridge the poverty gap in the long run and lower inequality. </p>
<p>Look at the big picture not at the fact that boohooo some rich white kid might get rejected from his first choice, plenty of other colleges will take his mommy and daddys money and he will still have the exact same outcome at the end of the day, where as JACK will not.</p>
<p>Its not a SIGNIFICANT leg up, they are leveling the playing field... thats all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe Amherst felt that there were other measures that were more indicative of his future college performance than his SAT score...You can not see his full application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. If he had written some compelling, beautiful essay, for example -- especially one accounting for the gap between his stats and Amherst's -- I would have applauded his acceptance. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't; either way, it's irrelevant to the larger issue at hand. The UCs used to literally add points onto black applicants' SAT scores simply because they were black; this has since been officially disallowed, but it is still a de facto reality. You can't deny that URMs receive special treatment -- heck, in the "what are my chances?" threads on this site, people say things like "nice, URM" or "well, you're a URM, so you're probably in."</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do not know what your talking about. His mom made 26000 for like the 4 of them, it is fair, he is underprivalged in his whole life, and he would continue being so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He would continue being underprivileged on a full scholarship to the University of Florida...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What Amherst does in the grand scheme of the world is bridge the poverty gap in the long run and lower inequality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What did you do, copy and paste their mission statement? To suggest that this is Amherst's only goal in giving URMs preference is totally naive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at the big picture not at the fact that boohooo some rich white kid might get rejected from his first choice
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't know you had to be rich and white to be intelligent. </p>
<p>
[quote]
plenty of other colleges will take his mommy and daddys money and he will still have the exact same outcome at the end of the day, where as JACK will not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why wouldn't Jack? Why should the 1500 kid yield his spot at the elite college to the 1200 kid because the 1200 kid is black and poor? It's not like Jack would be damned to a life of poverty if he attended UF instead of Amherst (which is what it sounds like you're suggesting); he had viable options without receiving his arbitrary (and sadly obligatory) leg-up at Amherst.</p>
<p>The SAT hardly measures natural intelligence. My proof: Jack is an A student. Moreover, he is noted as being highly intelligent in the article. In 30 years only 10 students got an A+ in Calculus at Amherst. The last one was the poor black man with the 1200 SAT score. If that isn't intelligence, then you'll simply have to define it for me. Furthermore the SAT doesn't measure anything close to intelligence--it measures the ability to take the SAT. </p>
<p>Also, who is to say that Jack didn't have an amazing essay, recommendations, and extracurricular activities? Besides, he's poor. More importantly he's African-American. A mother's encouragement does little in the face the rampant anti-intellectualism that permeates an entire culture like a pimply preteen. It's an intellectual Berlin Wall. I know that wall well. I scaled it three years ago. I've been dodging insults and innuendos like bullets from a gun turret since last Thursday--my last day of school. </p>
<p>The non-black/non-Hispanic kid can boast neutral social expectations. No one considers Jim Hong weird for doing well in school--even if he is poor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, you have the SAT backwards--it measures the ability to take the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wung it and managed a 2130 -- 720 / 620 / 800. My PSAT breakdown was 78 / 64 / 78. I'm good at writing and I suck at math; I'd say the test pretty well reflected my natural talents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, who is to say that Jack didn't have an amazing essay, recommendations, and extracurricular activities?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not me. Go back and read what I wrote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, he poor and African-American. A mother's encouragement does little in the face the rampant anti-intellectualism that permeates an entire culture like a pimply preteen. It's an intellectual Berlin Wall. I know that wall well. I dealt with it on a daily basis for four years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>White kids in Jack's neighborhood have to scale that same wall, but they can't be 222 points behind the curve. Why can Jack? </p>
<p>
[quote]
No one considers Jim Hong weird for doing well in school--even if he is poor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jim Hong might be malnourished, but he can't be 222 points behind the curve. Why can Jack?</p>
<p>Why would white kids in Jack's neighborhood scale a wall made for blacks? Is there a social stigma for white kids that excel academically? I might have missed it. Trying to excel academically as a young black man is fighting a really strong tide. You're expected to do the opposite. It gets hard. It gets lonely. But it is worth it. At the worst, you can be labeled an oreo or "white" and ostracized. At the best, you can be treated a like a hero. </p>
<p>And that is exactly why Jim Hong can't be 222 behind the curve. He didn't surpass that obstacle. He didn't go against an entire culture. Better yet, he didn't go against HIS culture.</p>
<p>Finally affirmative action based on differences more important than skin color.</p>
<p>juxtaposn,</p>
<p>Unless you've experienced what it's like for someone in Jack's situation, don't counter. Amherst judges on not only grades, SATs, and ECs (which I'm sure Jack did accumulate), but also on potential (obviously it worked? Graduating with Honors...) and background. I can't relate to his experience but I live in an area populated with many African-Americans and believe me when I tell you this: their lives are gutted with obstacles. Don't be an idiot (re-read your barrages -- anyone can tell your many flawed and idiotic arguments) and claim the process is unfair. Come back 20 years later as an adult when you grow more mature and then reflect on what you just said.</p>
<p>^ i second that.</p>
<p>I am quite tired of attempting to argue with someone who just doesnt see the point.</p>
<p>juxtaposn, who for some reason feels it appropriate to critique the typos of others, is just one more in a never -ending line of kids who just don't understand that super-selective college admissions is really quite simple. The colleges pick who they want for whatever reason they want. </p>
<p>Some colleges choose to have institutional goals that give this kid or that kid a leg up. This year at Amherst it is economic diversity. Next year at Pomona it may be a harpist. Or scuba divers. Or football players. Or a legacy or three. Who knows? If you don't like it vote with your applications. Don't apply to any school that doesn't see it the same way you do. I certainly wouldn't. </p>
<p>This is not now and has never been an attempt at a merit based admissions system, if merit is to be defined as academic statistics only. The historical preferences shown to rich christian caucasians gives way at some schools in some cases to some "not so rich" or even "not so white" or "not so christian" students. Big whoop. It's still firmly entrenched in others. ORM's with a cultural perogative to do well in academics and on standardized testing are viewed within that context. And why wouldn't they be? Are we supposed to ignore the factors that exists in favor of one group over some other groups? Or should consideration be given to the community values that helped create those high scores? While ignoring the community values that may create lower scoring students? Why would they do that? Why shouldn't context be considered? Some schools think it should. If you don't want it to be, don't attend that school. </p>
<p>In my opinion the best of the schools do these things as part of their mission to achieve a vital and vibrant campus life brimming with energy and debate and maybe even a little "tension" (if tension can ever have a positive connotation, and I think it can). </p>
<p>If all the people on cc who want to go to , or want their kids to go to, SATAPGPA University (SAT+AP+GPA, Satapgpa. Satapgpa Falls. It's up by Saratoga ;)) then by all means - GO!!</p>
<p>juxtaposn wants it to be just the numbers without the context. Some colleges don't. The super-selectives want to look at the numbers in the context of your life. What brings you to this point. They have more power in this area than juxtaposn does. juxtaposn and his ilk lose. No surprise there. The Satapgpa bunch just need to stop with the incessant whining.</p>
<p>In the article, the dean of admissions explained quite succinctly exactly how fair it was to admit Mr. Jack who's now a Rhodes scholar nominee and one of only 10 kids in 30 years to earn an A+ in one of Amherst's Calc courses:</p>
<p>
[quote]
“Tony Jack with his pure intelligence — had he been raised in Greenwich, he would have been a 1500 kid,” said Tom Parker, the dean of admission. “He would have been tutored by Kaplan or Princeton Review. He would have had The New Yorker magazine on the coffee table.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny they should mention Greenwich. My H was raised in Greenwich (other side of the tracks). Father was a deliveryman. Mom incapacitated and could not work. Much extended family dysfunction. First of his family to go to college (big whoop--we all were back then). Pieced together small scholarships, took out loans, and did work study to put himself through. No one guided him through the process; he was not even aware of what "elite" colleges were. Of course, no one ever even heard of SAT tutoring in the late '60's. You took the PSAT and the SAT once. 700's on his SATs (prior to recentering).</p>
<p>It's just not as simple as Mr. Tom Parker would make it seem.</p>
<p>I don't see this as affirmative action. I see this as an admissions committee who cut through the superficial crap and saw the diamond in the rough beneath. As evidenced by his college record, they got this one right. (I'm white, upper middle class, BTW).</p>
<p>Many cheers for Tony Jack, who clearly is gifted and whose mother worked very hard to make sure he had access to the best programs available to him starting in elementary school. </p>
<p>But I am very tired of Tom Parker and his cohorts dumping on the archetypal "1500 kids from Greenwich." Not to mention the 1500 kids who are neither rich nor poor but plain-vanilla upper-middle-income and whose parents work very hard to make sure they have access to the best programs available to them starting in elementary school. Ooops; they can afford to pay for those programs? Cancel the praise. Striving is only acceptable when it really hurts and no one in your family ever succeeded before. (Though obviously in the less tangible sense Tony Jack's mother is a resounding success in the sense that she clearly did a great job raising her son AND found ways to maximize his potential without the financial resources that apparently are not considered okay to use anymore if you do have them.)</p>
<p>I hardly think that "1500 kids from Greenwich" have been discriminated against at Amherst over the last 200 years.</p>
<p>Ive used this analogy before but I like it because it is visual.
Two students- one has a Caucasian/Asian, upper middle class background, good schools, stable home life, lots of encouragment and support from family and friends to pursue academics.
He gets a Gary Fisher, brand new mountain bike.
Next student, Black, low income background, struggling family, taunts from peers to continue academics.
He gets a Huffy bike with a bent frame and a flat tire.
They have a race- which will determine the course of their life.
First student gets a clear path- hilly but smooth- next student hits potholes, and has to dodge bystanders throwing things at him.
They finally get to the bottom.
The one with the Gary Fisher bike wins the race- however, the next student is only one second behind him, despite greater odds.
Which one worked harder? Which student was more determined?
If you gave * each of the students* a brand new top of the line bike ( or an Amherst education) which one would stand out?</p>
<p>I thought the most interesting statistic in the article was that in a study of 28 selective universities, 86% of blacks who enrolled were middle or upper-middle class.</p>
<p>That sort of sums up the spirit of affirmative action for the past 30 years. </p>
<p>I think the economic diversity appoach is much better, but when I actually see elite college representatives visiting poor rural areas and areas of high unemployment where there are students from all ethnic groups, including whites, then I will believe the "economic diversity" approach exists.</p>
<p>Here where I live, there was actually a feature article about how the major university actually recruited a working-class white boy from a rural region. The reason they did that is that they have become so famous for violating laws governing preferences based on race.</p>
<p>I am totally for giving all people opportunities, but I hate to see some groups getting more opportunities than others, based solely on ethnic origins.</p>