<p>True, even H/EOP students must have a 3.5 GPA.</p>
<p>Espadaleader, URM stands for underrepresented minority...that rules out caucasians and asians. What you are referring to is socioeconomic background (which colleges ignore), and I agree that it should be taken into account, but giving URM's a boost is very flawed. </p>
<p>A friend of mine is black comes from a very wealthy family, and he was pushed by his parents to perform and went to an IB program. People like that don't deserve an admissions boost because he had no disadvantages. He even agrees with this, although in his case, he probably would have gotten in regardless (his stats were very strong). Rich minorities with lower stats should not be given a boost in admissions in my opinion.</p>
<p>I doubt colleges really even care about helping out poorer students gain admission (although many top schools, cornell included, are certainly making it more affordable, but increased financial aid is likely primarily intended to lure poorer URM's and recruited athletes, even if they don't admit it). Accepting URM's gives colleges a statistic to report and a claim of diversity; admitting disadvantaged whites or asians does not.</p>
<p>I do agree hermanns. </p>
<p>The way I see it- is it fair? No way. Does that mean I won't take advantage of it? Of course not, I sure as heck will.</p>
<p>Yeah, I have no problem with people taking advantage of it because that is the way the system currently is. I just believe the system itself is flawed. And I believe disadvantaged URM's do deserve some boost in there application, but I also believe disadvantaged applicants who are not URM's also deserve this same boost.</p>
<p>I agree once again. Haha.</p>
<p>As for myself, I'm certainly underrepresented as a Native American, but I don't feel as though I've been entirely disadvantaged, if much at all. I do feel that I bring some Native American culture with me, which is a plus though, IMHO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just find it a little unnerving that you think the vast majority of URMs are really that underqualified to the point of failing all their classes when they made C's in high school. I don't know anyone who got into a school anywhere near as good as Cornell with a 2.5 GPA. It's just absurd to make those sweeping generalizations, especially in such a condescending manner.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry about dontno if I were you. He likes to make his points, and he likes to do so with very little social grace or tact.</p>
<p>He's a Cornell troll, who is also a Cornellian.</p>
<p>Contradictory, I thought, but I was proven wrong.</p>
<p>Espladaleader - </p>
<p>I don't mean this in an insulting way, but rather to help you while there's still time. </p>
<p>Work on your spelling and grammar. I know this is just a silly forum and no one's perfect on here, but you won't have a prayer of getting accepted (note the spelling) to a school like Cornell if you don't know how to structure a basic sentence or know which word to use in a circumstance.</p>
<p>Your inner city school, as you say, has probably failed you in this regard. But having a URM background and "keepin' it real" can only get you so far with admissions. I had a very smart friend begging Cornell admissions to reconsider, but they kept telling him they didn't think he could handle the work load.</p>
<p>I'd just hate to see that happen to you. Seems like you have a lot of passion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have confidence. Go to Cornell University, they would not except you if they felt you could not succeed, the name alone signifies greatness. In terms of being prepared thats up to you, just make sure you have the material needed to accomplish your goals, and find a major that suits you, for example I have a genius friend at University of Toronto that dropped out because she took an engineering major, instead of a life science major, just don't take a million courses, don't be a superhero, your at Cornell, you have nothing to prove. Like maybe the super Asian might take 20 credits and advanced courses, so? just chill with your 15 and keep it moving.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i feel like dontno brings up some interesting points...although he is quick to judge the OP for being an URM...</p>
<p>but are standardized test scores a true indicator of performance in college, especially at cornell? we all know that tests like these can be prepared for (although maybe not crammed for). did the op and many others receive adequate preparation from their schools? (my school paid for a crash course only for some based on their psat score (i was excluded b/c i wasnt expected to benefit from it (i.e. my psat was too low to benefit from this crash course and only a certain # of seats available)</p>
<p>dontno.
I wouldn't go under the false assumption that ACT/sat2s/Sat scores= level of intelligence. There are so many factors that make up intelligence which is also the argument for why current IQ tests aren't that accurate. Even so, if you were to compare the current IQ tests to the standardized tests you would see a huge difference.
As testament, I know of plenty of mensa members who didn't do that well on the ACT simply because they slacked off in highschool; thus, there clearly wasn't a correlation between the two
Additionally, where one goes to highschool can have an effect on the scores as many have classes designed for these tests or simply better teachers. Finally, these tests reflect a person's performance for one saturday morning, it doesn't take into account extenuating circumstances which might compromise performance.
Besides, most people study a lot for these tests: so is that a reflection of innate ability to reason on a test?
I would focus on improving your intelligence rather improving your test-taking skills on retarded tests like the sats. Read more, if needed, do puzzles, play chess, listen to different music and try new things. There is a highly regarded theory of neuroplasticity which should be considered before telling some kid off.</p>
<p>--sorry about the above lack of smooth transitions; wrote in a quick and careless manner.</p>
<p>There are some people out there that don't believe in studying for standardized tests. I am one of them. My logic was that I didn't want to be accepted to a school with a workload that I couldn't handle. I really didn't know how smart I was because my high school sucked, and I mean sucked. Getting a 31 ACT with no prep. actually made me decide to follow my GT and I haven't regretted doing this yet. It definitely gave me confidence , and helped me to rock my first semester in college</p>
<p>Even if you get into a medical school, it doesn't mean you're going to do well. I don't think residency programs practice affirmative action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if you get into a medical school, it doesn't mean you're going to do well. I don't think residency programs practice affirmative action.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you get into med school, in all likelyhood you will become a physician. The graduation rate of URM's in med school is approx. 94%. URM's may be more likely to end up doing primary care instead of plastics or derm but that's one of the reasons for med schools practicing affirmative action in the first place: to increase the proportion of minority primary care physicians in underserved areas.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if that is a justification for practicing affirmative action (i.e., to increase the proportion of minority primary care physicians). There is a dearth of minority physicians in general (they make up 10% of the physician population but 25% of the general population), but I don't think admissions is targeting minorities to go into primary care. I thought the basis behind affirmative action in medicine was that minorities would receive better care from healthcare professionals of the same race.</p>
<p>My comment before was basically suggesting that it doesn't really matter what college you go to. You're going to have to face the reality of medical school and residency at some point, whether or not you decide to go to a state school to artificially inflate your grades.</p>
<p>physics 102 final now only has 3 hours time limit. </p>
<p>and for those of you who are URM, dont get over sensitive just because someone doesn't like affirmative action. just cause you dont think your life style is good doesn't mean other URMs are teh same as you. there are rich and poors in every race. I believe it shouldn't be based on race and ethnicity. It just isn't fair to many who are poor and are white/asian. A better way would be based on income level in my opinion, though too many people do off the books stuff and lie on their incomes so it's hard that way too. </p>
<p>i read an article not long ago about a study on affirmative. African Americans/Native americans get about a 180 boost onto their SAT score due to affirmative action. Hispanics get about 150 boost. Whites get nothing. Asians get -50. </p>
<p>I'm not going to talk too much about affirmative action since what I say can't change anything so its pointless. But in 2008, 5% of US population were Asian, 15% hispanic, and 12% Blacks. And I live in NYC which is one of the most asian populated cities in the US so i know. If you go to chinatown in Manhattan, Queens or Brooklyn, it's covered with asian street venders who sell super cheap stuff. I highly doubt they can get rich from that due to the low profit and high competition. </p>
<p>And Asians do well on tests and school related stuff not because they are RICH or their family is well off, its because their parents "beat them to death" if they do bad so they are FORCED to work hard. I came from China, I know how the education system was like there and how kids where trained to have high test scores. There were elementary schools that allow teachers to have whips in class and whip kids if they dont behave. The elementary school i went to didn't have that but i still remember that in 1st grade, i got slapped in the face by my math teacher cause i couldn't get this math question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure if that is a justification for practicing affirmative action (i.e., to increase the proportion of minority primary care physicians). There is a dearth of minority physicians in general (they make up 10% of the physician population but 25% of the general population), but I don't think admissions is targeting minorities to go into primary care. I thought the basis behind affirmative action in medicine was that minorities would receive better care from healthcare professionals of the same race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You and I are saying the same thing. Underserved populations tend to be hispanic and black. Surveys of patients show that patients are more likely to trust and see doctors who are of the same race. Hence, affirmative action is used to increase the proportion of minorities in the physician workforce. Obviously, you'll want these minorities to go into primary care since I doubt many of these underserved communities are dying for plastic surgeons and dermatologists. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My comment before was basically suggesting that it doesn't really matter what college you go to. You're going to have to face the reality of medical school and residency at some point, whether or not you decide to go to a state school to artificially inflate your grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are assuming that it actually takes a 3.7 college GPA student to get through med school. It does not. The only reason the average college GPA of med school matriculants is 3.7 is because there are so many applicants. In reality, many of those 3.3-3.5 applicants who are rejected would do just fine in med school (in fact, they end up going to DO schools and perform well). So, just because the URM's admitted to allopathic med schools have an average GPA of 3.45 instead of 3.7, it does not mean they won't get through the "realities" of med school. There is a ton of support and tutoring in med school and the graduation rates of URM's are quite high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
physics 102 final now only has 3 hours time limit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha "only" 3 hours. Is it still 18 multiple choice questions? My last med school test was almost entirely physics (mechanics, fluid flow, electricity) and we had to do over 100 problems in 4 hours.</p>
<p>yes haha, for physics 101 i spent 2 hours and 20 minutes. my brain does not work well after climbing a hill. hopefully 102 final will be better</p>
<p>Ahh yet another post that gets everyone's heart pumping.</p>
<p>I'll try to respond to most.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your argument for choosing the state university and Cornell ignores the social/culture shock impact of college. Is Cornell so different from what the student is comfortable with that it begins to affect performance(homesickness, depression, self-consciousness)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes I think Cornell (and other schools) is being irresponsible when accepting below average URM's. Now one could argue these individuals are less intelligent or that they've been not adequately prepared for rigorous academic work. It doesn't matter. The point is they're not ready to compete at the appropriate intellectual level. And it has nothing to do with culture shock or homesickness. Rather, it has to do with the relative level of their peers. Give an exam at Cornell and the average will be x. The underqualified URM will get let's say one stan dev below average at y. Give that same exam at NC State and the average will be 2 stand dev below x, so the URM's y score will be one stan dev above average at NC State and thus he'll get A's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would anyone choose to go to Harvard or Cornell when they can just go to their state school and get high GPA's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The OP wanted to get a 3.5. This would obviously be easier to accomplish at a state U. (I should know I went to one freshmen year.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Listen, have you ever seen the wire? imagine living in a neighborhood where people are running crack...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(NOT SARCASTIC!) I truly admire you for getting through this unbelievably difficult situation. It's incredible that you've achieved so much. But this is absurd:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For instance, some of you majorities have experienced research, gone to summer programs at various Ivies, maybe even visited most of the ancient eight. Some have been able to afford the best education possible, enriched with tutoring and advanced classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never had even ONE of these things and I'm the "majority". As others have stated, you're discussing socio-economics and substituting race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it slightly insulting you assume I have below par test scores just because I am a Native American.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I tried to be very cautious in making that assumption. I was clearly wrong and I apologize. But in general I would have been right. At elite schools, blacks average 170 points lower than whites and Asians. I believe Native Americans might even have a lower average. Clearly, you're not indicative of the average of your group. Thus, all my advice was naught for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't worry about dontno if I were you. He likes to make his points, and he likes to do so with very little social grace or tact.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You may be right in most instances, but in this instance I tried to be very tactful. Look at my original post with an open-mind (i.e. stating: "now I could be false", "kick ass at UNM", "you can do wonderfully at a state U").</p>
<p>
[quote]
He's a Cornell troll, who is also a Cornellian.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You troll my "trolling".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know of plenty of mensa members who didn't do that well on the ACT
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ACT is an acheivement exam, not an aptitude test like the SAT. SAT II's are somewhat sketchy b/c they too are an acheivement exam. But while they don't necessarily explicitly measure innate intelligence, they surely measure academic readiness. And Cornell courses cares both about innate intelligence and readiness. Once you're here, you better be "ready"!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, most people study a lot for these tests: so is that a reflection of innate ability to reason on a test?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't help much. That's the garbage these test prep companies sell you (I worked for Kaplan I should know). CollegeBoard knows what these people teach and they conjure up questions to ensure real ability is being tested. Anyone can memorize the area of a triangle, but noting geometric relations comes from ability, not studying. Look I'm not going to argue this over and over again. There's a reason why Cornell/Ivy League just so happens to have a lot of smart people (hint: The admissions office screens by SAT.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are some people out there that don't believe in studying for standardized tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While you're an exception, usually those that "dont believe" also, almost invariably, happen to be those that don't perform well. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Surveys of patients show that patients are more likely to trust and see doctors who are of the same race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is actually the best argument I've ever heard for affirmative action in med school. Kudos. But even this is to un-PC for any mainstream people to start propagating. Rather, we've all have to bow down to the religion of "diversity" as the support for AA.</p>
<p>I never studied for the ACT, and got a 32 composite. My eng and rdg aren't so hot, but math and science is my forte. Everyone has strengths/weaknesses. On the SAT I got a 2070 (superscored, but all the scores were pretty close to that), and on my SAT 2 I got a 740 in Math2, and a 700 in chem. Never studied for any of these tests more than glancing through a prep book once, like in sophomore year.</p>
<p>And I certainly do not believe "one could argue these individuals are less intelligent or that they've been not adequately prepared for rigorous academic work" simply because of their race. That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. There's no way that you can say one person is less intelligent than some other person just because they've got colored skin. That's racism at its best right there.</p>
<p>zfanatic, stop being an oversensitive idiot. dontno was never racist. even in his first "insulting post" he admitted that your being under the average was not neccessarily the case, just the norm for your group, which is a pure fact whether you want to accept it or not. nd he didnt make the claim u just quoted "simply because of . . . race" but because of standardized test scores. u reeeeeeeely proved ur intelligence. i suppose u weren't lying when u said u were not great at reading comprehension; ur skills are atrocious</p>