<p>i didn't mean to turn this into another affirmative action debate when i started this. this really escalated quickly. i just wanted to see stats and post #5 gave it to me.</p>
<p>I definitely feel that being an URM helps in admissions a lot.</p>
<p>For example at my school, 9 were accepted into Stanford, including myself. Five of those students were URM's, including myself. Us 5 had around ~2200 sat scores, high gpa's, but no spectacular EC's or awards. Two of us were not even in the top 10% of our class.</p>
<p>My school is heavily populated by Asians, and the top ranked Asians at my school that had higher sat's and higher gpa's, with similar EC's and awards, didn't get into anything top 10. Most of them were so confident to get into something top 10, they didn't apply to anything between 10-20, and most of them are going to Berkeley and UCLA.</p>
<p>I honestly believe that being an URM is what definitely got me into Stanford. I can honestly say that I am not as smart as those kids who were rejected to every top 10 school they applied to. They might not have been special or anything, but they were definitely smarter than the 5 of us URM's who got into Stanford.</p>
<p>There was a thread posted less than a month ago that had an almost identical title. In fact, only the order of the last two words in the titles are different.</p>
<p>In that thread, it was shown that being a so-called "under-represented" minority helps greatly. The following were presented as evidence:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The dramatic changes in the makeups of the student body at UCB and UCLA after Proposition 209.</p></li>
<li><p>The revelation that under Michigan's old system, being a so-called "under-represented" minority was worth twenty automatic points out of the 100 points necessary for admission, no questions asked.</p></li>
<li><p>The papers by Dr. Espenshade and Professor Chung, which showed that "under-represented" minorities enjoy great advantages in today's admissions process.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>3b. The William Kidder paper did not, in any way, refute the E&C study.</p>
<p>Anecdotes such as "but I knew a URM who scored really high and got rejected" are explained by holistic admissions, which I described in the link below</p>
<p>did anyone ever just stop and think that maybe the fact that the average SAT scores for the asian students is higher only shows that test scores tend to be asians greatest strength, and they may not be as strong in other fields?</p>
<p>Being a URM definitely helps a lot. i agree. But not in the groaning, undeserving CC kinda way. It helps as much as it needs to help.</p>
<p>i also think that you cant associate it with an SAT score boost, its more complex than that.</p>
<p>Tyler09 - are you saying that every URM has great EC's to compensate for the much lower SAT scores? Or is being a URM in itself a boost to their credentials similar to an EC?</p>
<p>Yeah, the thing is, people say, "Well, maybe those black kids with lower SAT scores were actually more interesting than the Asian kids." This, of course, assumes that black kids are innately more interesting than Asian kids, when, in truth, the number of passionate Asian kids and the number of passionate black kids are about the same. When you use "holistic" admissions (a deemphasis on test scores), you should see a rise in not only black acceptances, but white and Asian ones as well, if, like me, you believe that there are as many interesting/cool URMs as there are non-URMs.</p>
<p>Well written, aristotle1990.</p>
<p>"Actually, that's not true. On average, even with coaching, your score is likely to vary no more than 30 points on the sum total of math and critical reading."</p>
<p>I disagree aristotle. my scores improved by 200 combined. it all depends on how much prep u did the first time. i didn't prep much the 1st time, but i did more prep the second time. (on my own)</p>
<p>I have a friend who goes to Cornell. He is black. His SAT was 1500/2400. A nice guy. </p>
<p>If you guys could see the atmosphere in which he grew up, many of you who put down AA would not be so quick to complain. </p>
<p>I asked him how we was doing....and he said "all I eat is books".</p>
<p>mmm...books....<em>slobber</em></p>
<p>@contemplation: the SAT is not an IQ test. If you prep over a long period of time, you can improve your mathematical skills as well as your comprehension skills. This doesn't invalidate the test, though. Studying in math classes through precalc could be considered prepping too. Also, people who read literature on their own throughout high school tend to get better scores on the verbal part, but that is because they have actually improved their reading comprehension skills. I know I made a concerted effort to learn and incorporate new vocabulary throughout elementary school and high school years, and it probably helped me on the verbal section. (I wasn't doing it to do better on the verbal. I was passionate about writing and learning new words was a byproduct of this passion. I'm not sure how much it would help today since they got rid of analogies and antonyms on the verbal SAT.) Even though people routinely say how learning new words is an example of how worthless the verbal SAT was, I really feel it helped me develop as a writer and even as a thinker in science/math.</p>
<p>In summary, I don't feel that the ability to improve one's SAT scores through prepping invalidates the test.</p>
<p>what about the kids that don't have time to prep because they are busy working to support their family?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a friend who goes to Cornell. He is black. His SAT was 1500/2400. A nice guy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that 1500 out of 2400? That averages out to 500 per section, which is unbelievably low for Cornell.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what about the kids that don't have time to prep because they are busy working to support their family?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like these students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged families. If preference must be granted, then it should be to these students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree aristotle. my scores improved by 200 combined. it all depends on how much prep u did the first time. i didn't prep much the 1st time, but i did more prep the second time. (on my own)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't simply "disagree" with published fact (unless you refute it, of course). The plain and simple fact is that on average, SAT scores are not particularly variable, and that coaching does not affect one's scores greatly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you guys could see the atmosphere in which he grew up, many of you who put down AA would not be so quick to complain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're confusing race with socioeconomic status, and you're assuming that all black people are socioeconomically disadvantaged. I'd be more amenable to arguments for preference based on socioeconomic status alone (though I'd still oppose them), but there are actually many more poor non-URMs than there are poor URMs. Affirmative action, however, favors all URMs, regardless of their socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>How's your friend doing at Cornell, jg863? I noticed that the disparity between ORM and URM graduation rates among Ivy League schools is greatest at Cornell.</p>
<p>yes.</p>
<p>and AA exists for socioeconomic status too but its not called AA.</p>
<p>Some schools do need-blind admissions because at smaller colleges those who can pay are viewed more favorably than those who cant, need-blind keeps your economic status from being a factor, much like race-blind keeps your race from being a factor.</p>
<p>BUT often the more favorably way by top schools is to have AA which looks favorably on those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Many of the lower middle class families could argue that this puts them at a disadvantage because they experience much of the financial hardship of the poor group, not quite rich enough to afford expensive prep, but just above the line to receive extra consideration. </p>
<p>You don't really control what socioeconomic background you are born into much like you cant control what race you're born into.</p>
<p>Thats why i believe that if you are going to favor socioeconomic AA you ALSO have to logically support racial AA because they have the same justifiable motive.</p>
<p>-people say that their are poor people of every race, well their are also urms of every socioeconomic status, its simply a reversible statement.</p>
<p>If you are against racial AA, then logically you must also be against socioeconomic AA. In which case you believe in pure meritocracy, a system in which college admissions will never operate at top schools so you are simply at a loss. </p>
<p>I think what a lot of people miss is that AA's primary goal is not to "level the playing field" though it does often end up doing that often, mainly at middle tier schools. It's to increase representation of racial and socioeconomic groups because that is what is valuable to a college. </p>
<p>bottom line: You can't logically favor socioeconomic AA and refute racial AA as well.</p>
<p>Yes he scored around a 1500 out of 2400. I last saw him at a school where he gave a discourse on college and how important it is. He inspired me. I could not believe he was at Cornell. He told me he was studying business and economics.
He will be a sophomore this fall. It was because of him that I began doing college research and found CC.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>No, there is affirmative action based on socioeconomic status. Although affirmative action has largely become intertwined with racial preferences, it is still very possible to have race-blind affirmative action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thats why i believe that if you are going to favor socioeconomic AA you ALSO have to logically support racial AA because they have the same justifiable motive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that at birth, one can choose neither one’s skin color nor one’s socioeconomic status. That’s why ideally we should not give preference on any of these bases. But, if preference is to be granted, then it should be granted because of financial disadvantage and not skin color. Such a policy includes students of all skin colors.</p>
<p>There are indeed “under-represented” minorities of every socioeconomic status. Hence, affirmative action based on socioeconomics includes both the “under-represented” and the “over-represented.” By comparison, race-based affirmative action includes only the “under-represented.” Ironically, it is race-based affirmative action that is labeled as the more inclusive of the two.</p>
<p>I don’t support race-based affirmative action because it involves a judgment on skin color. Socioeconomic affirmative action does no such thing.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic AA and racial AA aren't the least bit comparable.</p>
<p>Being poor = Less oppurtunities, less competitive environment
Being black/Hispanic = ???</p>
<p>The logic that you need to support both or reject both because both are out of the hands of the student is absurd. Being socioeconomically disadvantaged has tangible downsides. Being a URM means you have different pigments in your skin.</p>