<p>I agree that lower-income kids are at a disadvantage. I should have made that a point. </p>
<p>But I struggle to see why colleges should care (in the context of admissions; top universities, with all their money, should be doing a little more philanthropy in inner-cities). Affirmative action, in effect for over 40 years now, has done very little to change the achievement gap. As a recent study showed, the gap in passage rate for the bar exam between whites and blacks has actually swelled, in spite of the increased presence of African-Americans at top schools. Taking kids that would do well at a top 25 school like Georgetown and elevating them to a Harvard by virtue of income or race in spite of their demonstrated academic inadequacies helps nobody. As shown in that study (which was posted on CC, I'll try to find it), many low-income or minority students (who we assume would have lower SAT scores) simply can't keep up with the curriculum and end up not learning.</p>
<p>I don't know how the income issue is addressed, because while there is an advantage for more affluent students, it must be questioned whether the best way to address this is to admit less affluent students that are not qualified.</p>
<p>If a student who comes from an inner-city school, can outperform their peers in their school by 600+ and manage to get even a 2000+ or 2100+ that means that that student did not limit himself to his environment and do what the rest did by just saying that the teachers can't teach and calling it a day. In my opinion, that means that student absorbed everything they could get from the environment, plus did more by actually studying on their own and teaching themselves. So, even though that student with the 2000+ or 2100+ didn't get a 2300 like the other students, to me that student will do just as good as the other rich student with a 2300, because the previous student learned how to study by himself, which is needed in college, and they won't have to worry about mediocre professors, if there are any, since they learned that there are always ways they could teach themself the material. </p>
<p>Also, about the study, if you could find it, was it done at schools that gave the student a full-ride when they were enrolled at the school? Because I know Harvard just recently started offering to pay the tuition of low-income students with no loans included in their financial aid package, so if the study was done before that, which I have a feeling it most likely was, then the reason for that could be because the student had to worry about finding a job to help pay for other things, such as textbooks and food, so that they wouldn't take out more loans and be in debt when they graduate.</p>
<p>@milessmiles and sb1492: check out the "Race</a>" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion thread. It's a one stop shop for discussion of AA and related topics. Many of the points you are both bringing up are debated vigorously on the thread.</p>
<p>i have always been naturally bad at taking the sat/act. Sat II's are easy, but sat I has been hard. I know a lot of ppl in my situation where they have a nice gpa but low sat. I have a 4.32 coming from a very competitive school with high rankings on their api (with demographics scaled 10). A 4.32 is not even top 4% of my class. Furthermore, our school is infamous for its difficult ap classes. Over 40% of the school receives 5s on their ap exams. So you cant say that my school is inflated. Personally, i know i'm smart adn talented, and i feel the sat does a poor job of measuring my knowledge. </p>
<p>I just wish the colleges i applied to realized this. I seriously hate all these standardized tests. I fail at the reading comprehension section, and i want to study sciences. Where is the correlation there? 2/3 of the sat measures your ability to communicate... This is clearly favored to native speakers. I myself, a trilingual have great difficulty adapting to it (writing is fine but not reading).</p>