<p>midatl, which college did you look at... becuase i am pretty sure i did EA thread as it is the only one at each college that is tagged at the top, and pearfire, I said that likely these scores are a bit high, but please don't be insulting here. I really don't think the average minority score is 2000, and I know everyone says they know someone with a low score, I am still yet to meet SO MANY of them like everyone says.</p>
<p>Yeah, I am positive i did the right thread, and for those of you who think it is a lot of work, it does not take more than 20 minutes per thread... try it yourself. Most of the pages don't have more than 3 or 4 people posting their acceptances. Some have none.</p>
<p>For Harvard, there were 5 minority males, and 1 minority female. The minority female had the 2230. I will look for the post for you to see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is more of a chance of Asians posting low scores because there is not a stigma of a "low-scoring" Asian. There are enough high scoring Asians so that someone would not get the impression that Asians are a lower-scoring race (whereas, with minorities, that impression is already ingrained with AA). Also, if, as your stats indicate (and as pretty much all other objective stats indicate) average Asians have higher scores than average blacks, the chance of a black applicant having a score significantly below the median is higher...and therefore, I would argue that the chance of his hiding his score is higher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have different definitions of qualified. If qualified is merely qualified enough to get through HYP without failing, then there are many who are qualified...but the term "qualified" always comes up when we compare blacks with whites. The nature of the argument is generally that blacks are qualified, and if there is a discrepancy, it is tiny. If the argument of "qualified" will be made in such discussions, it must be pertinent to the question raised...are blacks AS qualified as other applicants who are rejected? This definition of qualified would be "to be within a certain range of the average." As I recall from another study (part of which I will link below, the rest which I will try to find), the scores of blacks are more than one standard deviation below those of Asians in certain departments (I think this was pertaining to law school specifically). In either case, I believe that your definition of "qualified" is incorrect. Would the standards of quality for human food merely be that it is "edible"?</p>
<p>Also, as I will describe later, much of the SAT can be taught, and that too, taught without special classes (ie in a cheap manner).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't use 32,000 as the number of applicants who apply to the school, so the part about state universities is unnecessary. I use it as a unit. The average black applicant should have EC's that are, among the people who took the SATs, ranked 32,000 people higher than the average white applicant. The 32,000 don't have to be those who applied to HYP. They just have to be those who took the SAT. On the part of blame, I find it unnecessary. I am not arguing whether AA is right or wrong, merely that Black applicants, on average, are unqualified compared to white applicants. I am trying not only to look at SAT scores, but they play a part. If we ignore the "32000 statistic," then potentially, one applicant could get an SAT score significantly higher than another applicant, but be rejected because his EC's were "less" than the other applicant's, even if the "less" is quantitatively less than the difference in SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know how the system works friedfun2001. I'm not arguing that the system works one way or another. I am just evaluating the results of the system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And for the college, we can't really say whether they are taking the most qualified applicant or not because who they take s technically to them the most qualified applicant. I just think there is a lot more to the process than we all know. While in a perfect world colleges should just look for the best applicants, in this world, they won't. They are going to look for a group of people to make their college class the way they want it. Nobody but the college can choose this. Harvard, if it wanted to become a party school, would change there application to an application where they saw how much you could party. Harvard, if it wanted to become an Asian school, could choose only Asians. Harvard could choose any criteria it wanted to make whatever college it decided, and as applicants we could do nothing because we do not make the college. So whether we want to say if this is fair or not, it does not matter because none of us knows exactly how they do accept people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but at one time, colleges put quotas on how many Jews should have been admitted. At another time, they only admitted white people. At another time, they only admitted the children of gentry. Sure, colleges have objectives in mind when they admit a class. Sometimes those objectives don't only concern the college, but society as a whole. I am just arguing that the applicants admitted at HYP who are blacks are less qualified than applicants admitted who are from other races. And, should we stop arguing just because we don't know the "ins and outs" of the process? Well, when there were protests about only white applicants being admitted to colleges, the non-whites did not know what the process was. Moreover, those who do know exactly how the process works would be biased. I think it is healthy for us amateurs to argue. Maybe this will compel colleges to give us more information. And yes, collegiate systems of admissions can change. Refer to the older system of admitting only whites, or only the wealthy. Colleges stopped, not because of some standard of fairness, but simply because they were creating more qualified classes by opening equal competition to larger groups.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nothing on the SAT is directly taught to us. There is not a fully exhaustive list of ideas we should know for the test. The SAT measures something, I don't think I can pinpoint it yet, but I am pretty sure it does not measure how well you will do at Harvard or Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is not an exhaustive list, but the SAT can be taught cheaply. My friend, an Afr. Am. checked out an SAT book from his library at our school. It cost him $0.00. His mom is a secretary earning under $20 K to support him, herself, and his brother (younger). He got a 1560, and went to Stanford. </p>
<p>This is anecdotal, but I think an anecdote is sufficient here. Much of the SAT can be taught, and that too, with a low budget. Anecdotes work because they disprove the idea that "you MUST have high incomes to get a good score on the SAT." I just studied from a Barron's book...and I did ridiculously well on the SATs.</p>
<p>And yes, studies conducted currently at Princeton are showing that there IS a correlation between SAT and college GPAs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And one more thing (sorry about the ramble). If only the top applicants did get in, even without looking at race, legacy, blah blah, Harvard would be academic hell, especially noting that MANY of the classes are graded on a curve. The last reason is likely the weakest, but Harvard likely still chooses it to be that way. That is just my piece. I would love to continue this conversation when the next post comes!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Less competition does not make a better college, just as socialism does not make a better economy.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nber.org/digest/dec04/w10366.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nber.org/digest/dec04/w10366.html</a> is one link, let me search for more.</p>
<p>wut do mean insulting??? u think 2000 is too low??? its probably pretty acurate... of course nodoby can tell for sure, but thats the impression u get from being on CC</p>
<p>Well, I accept what pro.gatsby has said. I don't think anyone will win this fight until official statistics are given, until people are given official reasons why they were not accepted, or until the something in America changes. Without any more information from the colleges, I don't think we ever will get past this stage in the debate. Nothing can ever prove that minorities are not less qualified than whites in getting in, and frankly, since I really don't have to worry about this issue since I did get in, I won't. It's sad that those of you who would have got in, that extra 2 or 3 percent of the applicant pool that was taken my minority applicants who were underqualified. When you guys get older, change the system. Hire simply the most qualified candidate. I mean of course we, us little 16 to maybe 22 year olds have the world more figured out than these colleges and other institutions that follow affirmative action willingly. I'm going to go make some fried chicken to eat with my watermelon now. Talk to yawll later!</p>
<p>"It's sad that those of you who would have got in, that extra 2 or 3 percent of the applicant pool that was taken my minority applicants who were underqualified. "</p>
<p>Where exactly is the evidence that underqualified URMs are getting into Harvard? Frankly, I haven't seen any. Just because some people on CC claim that under or unqualified URMs from their h.s. are getting in doesn't mean jack. The people posting here weren't on the admissions committee, didn't see the applications and have no clue how the committee actually made its decision. As has been repeatedly said here, about 85% of all Harvard applicants qualify for admission, so the factors that end up making the difference between selection and rejection are the factors that are involved in creating a well rounded class in all meanings of the word, not just in terms of ethnic and racial diversity.</p>
<p>Just because someone gets in with lower SAT scores or a lower class rank than someone who was rejected doesn't mean that an underqualified person got in. Just because a person is a valedictorian or has a 2400 SAT doesn't mean that they are more qualified for admission than someone with lower stats.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, when it comes to college admissions in general and affirmative action issues, the group most given preference is female athletes of all races. </p>
<p>I also imagine that when affirmative action is not considered, the group most given preference overall would be billionaire donors' offspring, who as long as they have the minimum stats for admission would probably go to the head of the admission line at virtually all colleges, though I doubt that any college would publicly admit this.</p>
<p>I completely agree Northstarmom. My comment about the 2 or 3 percent was meant to be EXTREMELY sarcastic as seen from previous posts!</p>
<p>Friedfun,
Thanks for the clarification. :)</p>
<p>lol... if URM didnt matter, y is there such as thing as the AA?? its there to create diversity... without AA, there would be even fewer URMs at top schools... of course there is no prove for all this, but some ppl have eyes, and something like a brain... u can use these two things so assume things, and although it might not always be 100% right, u can get a pretty good picture of might be likely... and if u keep ur eyes open, u'll see that the average URM that gets into HYP is less qualified than an asian or white student... and friedfun, plz dont be insulting... if u claim that URMs r just as qualified as anyone else, UR insulting all those well-qualified asians that should've gotten in instead of a less qualified URM... UR the insulting one, not I... UR insulting their achievements and performances... so stop making pretentious claims about other ppl being insulting, cos ur that one thats insulting...</p>
<p>Oh, for God's sake, can we stop this argument some time in the next millennium? All the arguments for and against affirmative action have been beaten to bloody death already and there's more than enough scholarly proof for both sides. The truth is that it's the school's choice to institute it or to do away with it and no amount of bellyaching is going to change that. The debate's gone through, both sides have come to a stalemate, and frankly, pearfire, I think Northstarmom, while I may not agree with her, has been posting more insightful, rational comments on the subject than your belligerent insistence that Asians are being irrevocably wronged by this policy. Asians are not the first, nor will they be the last minority group to be considered too prevalent at HYPS. And what's so bad about that? It just ensures a survival of the fittest and an even more strict meritocracy which, in turn, will lead to the very best Asian applicants still being allowed in and the comparatively less-than-spectacular Asians being forced to step their actions up a notch. As a certain New York Article on the subject of Harvard Admissions said, and this is a paraphrase, Harvard wouldn't be Harvard if it were all Jews, or Asians, or people with short bodies and big heads. In other words, most of the Asian applicants who get rejected by top schools for diversity reasons would have done well anywhere and probably will have an easier time being top of their class at whatever school they get into, and there are plenty of top-notch schools besides HYPS for them to do that at. Besides, there's always grad school.</p>
<p>I may not approve of affirmative action, but you won't catch me making unsubstantiated, paranoid claims about unqualified minorities pushing qualified asians out of the pool. Sure, asians would benefit if AA were removed, but at schools like HYPS, the difference in qualifications (as we see on this board) is so minimal that it really does come down to the situation wherein the Supreme Court approved affirmative action:</p>
<p>"In practice, this new definition of diversity has meant that race has been a factor in some admission decisions. When the Committee on Admissions reviews the large middle group of applicants who are `admissible' and deemed capable of doing good work in their courses, the race of an applicant may tip the balance in his favor just as geographic origin or a life spent on a farm may tip the balance in other candidates' cases."</p>
<p>That is both a direct quote, I must add, from the Bakke case AND from the Harvard University Admissions policy in 1977. In other words, only when faced with a choice between an Asian and a Black applicant of (roughly) equal standing does the committee employ affirmative action. This is as it should be, for this makes race just one of many factors. Your insistence that Asians get excluded from Harvard due to the acceptance of unqualified minorities also begs the question whether Harvard should seek out people from poor economic backgrounds if it shuts out qualified asians. For that matter, should the committee give any advantage to people who come from underrepresented or rural areas if it shuts out qualified asians? Your assertion that using affirmative action as Harvard does (and as I have just quoted) is an injustice leads to a slippery slope wherein no attempt to gain diversity is acceptable and Harvard should only be a nest of academically-obsessed, test-prepped, urban, prep-school-educated Asians, Jews, Whites and Minority valedictorians. Would that give you and your fellow Asians and me and my fellow Jews an up in admissions? Certainly. Would it turn Harvard into a boring place and be detrimental to the image of the school? You bet.</p>
<p>So don't presume to speak for all the "qualified asians" who you assume got rejected because of injustice in the admissions office. There was a time when I would have speculated that I could have gotten in instead of being waitlisted were it not for affirmative action, but what good do sour grapes like that do me? And what good does moaning about affirmative action being an insult to qualified asians do to you? If you want to attack affirmative action, more power to you, but attack it where it actually IS illogical and not at HYPS, because those schools know what they're doing.</p>
<p>Sorry for this rant, but I'm really starting to get sick of the belligerence of this argument.</p>
<p>oh man... get a life... u should've used the time it took u to write this for something a little more important than a discussion on CC... anyway, if u talk about "unwarranted" claims, u should probably read a little more carefully, and btw I'm sry to dissapoint u, but i didnt get rejected... so... U should probably stop making unwarranted claims... i dont feel like writing anything lenthy on this... the argument is gettting ridiculous... i have something called a life...</p>
<p>I didn't think you got rejected. I was telling you not to assume you does and doesn't get rejected.</p>
<p>There, that's all I'll say because, like you, I have a life and I don't want to waste it responding to opinions which really mean very little to me.</p>
<p>"I was telling you not to assume you does and doesn't get rejected." wut do u mean? maybe u wanna refresh ur english skillz... lol</p>
<p>That was a typo. I meant "who does and doesn't get rejected." Sorry for the misunderstanding.</p>
<p>pearfire - i think that was an inappropriate comment to make. you could have asked nicely. just saying.</p>
<p>Thanks yubi, but I'm starting to think he's a troll. Better not to feed the fire.</p>
<p>On a side note, I finally got that rejection letter today. (sighs) Oh well, there's always transfer admissions and besides, Wesleyan is not a bad school at all. It's been nice being your token deluded optimist, people. This is Canaday signing out.</p>
<p>(Until next year, Harvard transfer admissions! MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)</p>
<p>good luck canaday madman =) and have a good time at wesleyan! i know you always see the cup half full ^^</p>
<p>pro.gatsby, maybe YOU should learn to READ before YOU post. </p>
<p>you said: "a) You emphasize "AGAIN" as if it is something that has been clearly explained many times. It hasn't. That is why this argument keeps coming up."
yes, i DO emphasize AGAIN because it HAS been explained many times on this forum, which you would KNOW if you could READ previous discussions. this is literally how it goes: people insult black people every once in a while with comments such as "oh gosh, i wish i was black right now because its so much easier for black people to get into harvard because so many black people are too dumb to apply and harvard needs to fill its quota of black people blah blah blah" and then everyone puts in their opinion and black people end up having to post a whole bunch of times trying to persuade people to believe that the black people who get in at harvard are qualified and aren't just pity projects, which people on this board tend to think. the argument is just one of those arguments that has been explained many times but people still talk about anyway.</p>
<p>then you said "b) You act like this argument is exclusive to "Blacks," as if we are targeting "Blacks" again. We are only targeting blacks because they are the prime benificiaries of this system. So, your implication is misguided."</p>
<p>for your false information, the people who benefit most from affirmative action are white women. and that is a real statistical fact. people just want to target black people all the time because they think that black people are inferior and i dare you to say that isn't true. </p>
<p>and then you came up with this lame ass comment "c) You gave me one anecdotal story (which I don't even know is true), and you expect me to think that Blacks, even in terms of EC's, are on par with Asians and whites? unbelievable, honestly. You say that "not ALL" Blacks have EC's that are worse than those of Asians and whites. I never argued that. But MOST Blacks are LESS QUALIFIED than Asians and whites, as the statistics from the Princeton study showed." </p>
<p>this discussion is not about "MOST" blacks! this discussion is about blacks that are applying to harvard! qualified students who are applying to harvard, regardless of race, have worked pretty hard. so damn straight, i AM saying that when it comes to applying to harvard there ARE URMs with extracurriculars more impressive than the whites and asians, and those URMs include black people. you're grouping the stereotypical "thugs" in with students with 4.0 gpas just because they are black, and for that you are wrong. do people group you with mobsters? do people group you with serial killers and terrorists? (assuming you are of european descent) do you think the person selling drugs on the street is going to be applying to harvard? chances are NOT! you're argument is completely irrelevant to our discussion which was originally about ONE qualified black girl applying to harvard and now its turned into a friggin war of the races!!!
and as far as my example goes, how do you know that anything ANYONE says on this board is true?! if you want to practice major skepticism, maybe you should go back and live in the age of absolutism.</p>