<p>HarrietH, you told me to look at the results thread, so I did. Given that this thread is discussing a white student with a 33 ACT, I decided to list the scores and races for each applicant admitted with a significantly lower score. I drew my line at 30 for the ACT and 2000 for the SAT. This is not a scientifically rigorous analysis (I would need much more information, and rejections would have to be reported at the same rate as acceptances). Regardless, here are my results. Remember, the 25th-75th percentile for ACT is 26-30, for SAT (CR) it is 570-670, and for SAT (M) it is 600-690 (writing not reported officially). Calling that SAT score 1170-1360 is flawed, but it will have to do. That roughly (ROUGHLY) translates to 1760-2040 (all three). If SAT and ACT were both given, I chose the comparably higher, or the ACT (for best comparison with UVAorBust) if they aligned as equivalent.</p>
<p>Accepted Students in the 25th-75th range</p>
<p>Asians (South, East, and Southeast)
28
29</p>
<p>Whites (European, North African, Middle Eastern)
26
27 (x3)
1850
28 (x4)
1890
29 (x6)
1950
1960
30 (x2)</p>
<p>Under Represented Minorities
1760 (African American)
27 (Hispanic)
28 (Hispanic)
30 (x3 – one African American, two Hispanics)
2000 (Hispanic)</p>
<p>Accepted Students below the 25th-75th range</p>
<p>Asians
25</p>
<p>Whites
23 (x2)
25
1720</p>
<p>Under Represented Minorities
23 (unnamed “URM”)</p>
<p>So, as you can see, from the sample you indicated as “proof” of your point, there are six people who were accepted with scores below the 25th percentile. Of those, ~16.6% were Asian (harmed by AA), ~66.6% were White (harmed, but less), and ~16.6% were under-represented minorities (helped). Given the US population (not to mention Florida’s larger Hispanic population), this would put Whites where they should be, minorities other than Asians as under-represented in the lower scorers, and Asians over-represented. </p>
<p>Of those that were either regular scorers or low scorers, ~33.3% of Asians were low scorers, ~14.3% of under-represented minorities were low scorers, and ~16.6% of Whites were low scorers. (This does not include high-scorers. Remember, that would change the numbers.)</p>
<p>Was this statistically sound? No. I would have needed much more data and a much larger, random sample
Note: I am not calling these results accurate or representative of the whole. Nor were my methods ideal, as I was severely limited in data.
What this the data you called “proof”? Yes, yes it was. Either it is too little to draw a conclusion from, or it is on my side. I’d go with the former, but the latter is open for you to believe.</p>
<p>Oh, and before you say test scores aren’t everything… I already said it several times. True holistic review looks at the whole application.</p>