<p>Scenario 1 happens all the time. It occurred every time people applied SCEA to Stanford from my HS. 2 years ago, a Hawaiian got in. 1 year ago, 2 URM Asians got in. This year, a Hispanic got in. Those are the only people who got accepted. Funny how those with higher scores, grades, and more awards just got outright rejected. Sure, admissions is not all about stats, but hey, it sure seemed like stats were completely ignored in the cases of those who got in for the past few years.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, there really needs to be an AA forum.</p>
<p>socioeconomic AA and AA don't seek to solve the same problem. </p>
<p>AA stems from the belief that in order for black, hispanic, and native american communities to achieve the economic and social success denied to them by our system, they need to have access to the same education as everyone else. This really needs to happen at the K-12 level, but since that would require people to pay more in taxes, which isn't going to happen, the effect is magnified at the college level. Today, it additionally represents the belief of universities and the majority of those in education that racial diversity in an educational environment has positive implications for society. </p>
<p>Socioeconomic AA does nothing to solve the disparity in racial achievement and opportunity (because the complicated gap is the same in every economic bracket) so it can't be used as a proxy for AA.</p>
<p>not debating an opinion either way, just saying that they CAN NOT be a substitute for one another. And to say so would simply be stating that the problem of the racial achievement gap simply isn't important.</p>
<p>In reference to the article "AA for the Poor" (see above) the problem lies in giving AA and socio-economic help. This is the wrong idea in my opinion. A poor white kid and a poor Hispanic kid should be viewed as equals in the college admissions process. The fact that they are poor is what should help them, not their race. The race issue needs to be done away with because it separates us more than it unites us. I know this socio-economic idea may never be used by the college admissions process, but it is still good to keep ideas going because that is how change occurs. </p>
<p>In response to Tyler09, I think socio-economic admissions would be equal to all in the sense that there are equal educational opportunities within the local context of the high school. I don't think that nationwide comparison would be effective in this manner. I think colleges need to look more locally when multiple students apply from one school. Then they should look at income brackets. This is all in the event where two or more applicants show educational promise, but there is only one spot. </p>
<p>I don't think that Caucasians in the lower income bracket would outperform minorities in the same income bracket as a whole. If this is true, (I don't know), then the problem is bigger than just income itself. If opportunities are equal, then results should parallel closly to that. However, since there are more minorities in lower income brackets this should give them equal shot in college admissions. A system like this (once the errors are worked out) could effectively stop AA while still allowing for a diverse population. Locality is the solution. If colleges were to put more applicants in context, they might be able to see who is more right or wrong for their college.</p>
<p>I just marked asian on mine. I don't care--they would have figured it out just by glancing at my last name lol. A big ORM spotlight on my app already. :(</p>
<p>"• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.</p>
<p>• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.</p>
<p>• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000. "</p>
<p>-so yes, the problem is greater than income, and the hypothesis that socioeconomic AA could replace current AA falls to pieces.</p>
<p>Ogbu, Williams, Thurnstrom, Steele and Sowell come to mind. Wise on the other side of the spectrum. Token Adult (lol!) no pun intended, Do you happen to have other reources./studies. It is one that absolutely fascinates me.</p>
<p>Well if all that information above is true, then yeah, I give up, my argument fails. I think AA should be cut back. Diversity is nice, but I think that the diversity should be closer to America's population than some fantasy land. Ex: America is about 80% Caucasian, the last time I checked (don't feel like looking it up), therefore most colleges should be about 70% Caucasian (besides historically black colleges and womens' colleges, etc.) because this would more accurately reflect the makeup of America. Stanford having 46% Caucasian students is a gross understatement to those who have truly worked hard. Not to say that those who get in don't belong there, far from it. If they got in, they obviously have something. I just think now and then, there are more passionate students who get ripped off because of their ORM status. 46% should be more like 55%. </p>
<p>By the way, I don't define better students by better test scores, but by their grades and passion in education. I look at test scores this way "How does 4 hours on a test play a more important role than 3 years of hard work and dedication for grades?" I just don't think it compares even though it puts us all on a "level" playing field which is helpful. I look at scores in ranges, so a 2100 and a 2300 would be held very similar in my beliefs, but many others would disagree. Just ranting now, need to stop. ok.</p>
<p>"Does it benefit the applicant to perpetuate the (mis)notion of 'minority' -- worse yet, the (mis)notion of an 'Under Represented Minority' -- by self-identifying as such?"</p>
<p>Well, yes. It helps the applicant get into a school that he or she would not otherwise have been able to attend, with all the real-life benefits that can bring. What you are arguing, really, is that the applicant should forego those benefits in favor of broader benefits to members of the minority as a whole and to broader society.</p>
<p>challenge a lot of assumptions about the causation of score gaps. This is definitely an issue that needs further study from a variety of perspectives. </p>
<p>After edit: yesterday, after seeing some post in a CC thread, I looked up a new article by Roland Fryer </p>
<p>The post immediately above this one by AmandaisaGator was moved to this thread. A search through earlier posts here should provide an answer to the question about the definition of the term "Hispanic." </p>
<p>i have a question for you. I don't have a tribal card, but i know that i am native american because my grandmother was full cherokee, and i have very much identified with this part of my culture (my family supports native american causes, i held a fundraiser for the cherokee nation). On my college application, what should i mark. If i mark NA and don't have a card number, will it be held against me? thank you very much</p>