<p>Vandyprayer- you have some serious issues kid.</p>
<p>Well I'm going to have issues at Emory because I'm going suckas! :)</p>
<p>Don't apologize! I couldn't care less about ACT scores, honestly (quash any future insinuations right now that I don't care because I scored a 27). If there were such a thing as legitimate worthiness and it's bear on admissions, I'd be more unsettled as the pompous bozo with a 36 than I would be as an ambitious and spirited applicant with a 25 or a 27.</p>
<p>^^...we havent gotten our decisions yet, I'm not sure how meaningful your "call-out" is. Besides, character and intelligence are by far important things for success in life.</p>
<p>I think everyone has the wrong perception of me right now. My earlier post about the ACT was directed towards undecided91. Sorry if it seemed so RANDOM. I understand why everyone is looking at me as bipolar. I should have stated that was who I was talking to.</p>
<p>lol lets cool it in here y'all. It will not be pretty if all of you guys actually end up meeting at Emory O_o
Lets not let the frustration of waiting get to our heads and turn CC into a battlefield...</p>
<p>Wohoooo seniors '09 >_></p>
<p>Not to offend you Vandy, but we all know that URMs get into schools with GENERALLY lower stats...because...well URMs don't score well as opposed to ORM Asians and the average whites. So a 25 probably wouldn't work for anyone outside of your category...and even as URMs, it would be very difficult. You are a lucky indivisual.</p>
<p>tsh- what was your sat score? I'm a urm and scored 2310 and 720/800 on my subject tests. I am sure i am not alone in saying your sweeping generalizations are not appreciated.</p>
<p>cer735, I don't think he said that URMs do not get high scores.</p>
<p>urm of course get high scores... but there are a lot of them very lazy( because i believe they are as smart as white or asian but much more lazy!!!) who because of quotas and AA are accepted to very selectives colleges and take the spots of others who are working very hard but are whites, asians or indians!! and this is unfair!!Latinos and Africans Americans don't have to score as high as other races to pretend a spot at selectives Universities and i cannot stand that!!</p>
<p>As soon as you start to use "they" and "them" you are going to come off racist, especially on the internet. I believe the goal of affirmative action is to offset a lifetime of disadvantage. The idea would be that the URM who scores 100 to 200 points less than another applicant is equally as smart and driven. The score difference reflects not ability
and where with all but life circumstances beyond their control. Colleges are every bit as confident with these students in their classes as they are with non URMs so one would ask why. The facts are they succeed on an equal level. When URMs are on equal footing as adults and wage earners in our society (that means they get comparable educations) affirmative action can go away, end of issue.</p>
<p>uhhh what?</p>
<p>^ Lavienchocolat, I think you need to take a deep breath, relax, and begin to think rationally. Yes, AA may seem unfair to you, but it is illogical to lash out at the beneficiaries of this policy; they have no more a part in its institution than you do. Also, it is a highly contested topic, so maybe you should look up all the evidence and opposing arguments before taking such a strong and vitriolic stance. I am against AA by the way. </p>
<p>Cer- You couldn't resist bragging about your scores haha; I think its pretty clear that your scores do not refute what tsh was trying to say (although I don't neccessarily agree w/ him). And you're not alone, there are others on this thread who do well on standardized tests.</p>
<p>i think many ppl on this thread are forgetting that the decisions are not made based solely on scores, essays are very important. there are loads of not lazy intelligent people who do not do well on standardized test. and also different curricula have different teaching methods. e.g. I got into emory and im a URM, but i go to a school with a british curricula where multiple choice test have been a thing of the past since grade 3 . I got a 1920 on my sats after studying very hard, which is below the average many of you have posted here. but on my Cambridge International Certificate of Secondary Education exam in the 10th grade i got 4A*s and 4As, and ive been predicted to get 3As in my Cambridge Advance level fiinal exam ( which is the highest u can get). and i have outstanding extra-curricular and community service involment.
there is soo much more to college admission than SAT scores, and we shouldn't judge people here because we are neither trained admissions officers nor have we seen other peoples applications. i doubt emory is admitting people just because the are URMS. emory is an excellent school and i hope to see all of you there soon.</p>
<p>based on the things i've heard directly from admissions officers, alot of schools are putting less and less weight on scores on standardized tests. and lets be realistic, how can you judge someone based on a single test? in addition, i think alot of people on here forget that the core of your application is your transcript, not your test scores or rank or essays or extracurriculars. each of those contribute to looking at you as a whole, but if you didn't show that you're willing to take challenging classes and excel in them then you're probably not going to get in. forget race, every person that gets accepted has clearly proven to the admissions committee that they deserve that acceptance letter.</p>
<p>^^gapin, my transcript looks terrible (a 2.7 average first two years, 4.0 last year, 3.8 last semester UW). My GPA right now is a 3.4. However, I feel that I shouldn't be judged by my transcript, especially starting high school as an immature 12-year-old (ya, I'm 15 now). The point is, I poured my heart into everything else I did, such as the essays, exratcurrics, ACT, ect. Right now, I'm really hoping that my GPA doesn't shut out my chances to get into Emory (I was already rejected from UCLA, UCSD, and UNC-Chapel Hill).</p>
<p>One last thing, AA benefits society as a whole. I grew up in south-central L.A. where everyone is basically expected to fail, and the vast majority of kids do. After being subjected to that, I feel that having survived that should be important, especially what it took to turn that around and become the intelligent person I am today. URM's generally face tougher hardships, and so it isn't as easy getting into college. AA helps offset that, and it helps put URMs on equal ground with others.</p>
<p>^^^^ I was just about to say that..... the whole purpose of AA is to help people who were able to suceed in tougher environments.....</p>
<p>I don't think AA on ethnicity is the way to go, but it's going to continue to happen that way.</p>
<p>I think they should do AA on income. It's the poor people who have to overcome the most disadvantages. This can encompass minorities (since minorities on average, tend to make less money) and poor white people.</p>
<p>Whose getting into college is more important? Oprah's kid, or a white kid raised by a single mom?</p>
<p>But of course, this is never going to happen because college admissions is a business.</p>
<p>Who's at more of a disadvantage going for a job, a high school educated white kid or a high school educated black or hispanic? Be honest, all things being equal outside of skin color, who's getting the job? Although I agree with you hilsa, all low income students should be offered a way out through education.</p>
<p>I do agree that socioeconomic a.a. is better, but if schools started looking at the Fincial status of applicants, then some people may complain its not need-blind. The other thing is, whats easier to see, you can't tell if someone is poor just by looking at them, but you can tell differences in skin color easily.......Thats the reasoning I have heard so far on cc for why schools don't practice socioeconomic a.a.</p>