NEVER say blacks will do worse at elite colleges...

Applying to College
221

<p>"as have many voters in notably blue states"</p>

<p>-Wouldn't overturning AA be the more liberal position..... </p>

<p>"However, we're just advocating socioeconomic preferences as a FAR MORE suitable method."</p>

<p>-Ah, so what you think is more suitable reigns supreme. I see.</p>

<p>"Of course it's not fair. But it's a heck of a lot better than what we have now with affirmative action."</p>

<p>-No It's not..... This is just more circular arguments. You say something is better, I say the other is better. We will never reach a midpoint.</p>

222

<p>"As is judging people without regards to racial AND socioeconomic preferences."</p>

<p>-Tell me. What is, to you, the most 'fair' way to admit students?</p>

223

<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying that anyone is stronger....Even though I could.... The main point is that I can't even make that distinction. The very fact that the school chose to admit the student instead of reject him is enough proof for me that the person was qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what you said though. If you want, I can dig through your old posts and throw them right back at you. You said that admitted URMs were are as good or even better than those students who were rejected. I am simply putting your facetiously strong statements in a proper context. There are way too many variables in college admissions such that a very qualified candidate could and very well get rejected. To say that EVERY admitted student is "better" or "more qualified" than any that was rejected is very ludicrous, and you know it. What about those extremely exceptional international students that don't get in over say, the development admit that would've been rejected?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The same goes for the person who had a perfect SAT score and is rejected- if he wasn't accepted it's because the adcom decided he wasn't 'qualified' enough for admission.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
-Colleges decide what is 'qualified' or not. Arguments that one applicant is less-qualified is to be left up to the school. If a person is not accepted, he is not qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then what's with all this talk among adcoms about 3/4 or something of the applicants to elite colleges being qualified for acceptance? Are you saying they're wrong? Let's face it, you went too far when you stated that ALL colleges were a meritocracy and ALL rejected applicants were NOT qualified. Tell that to the academically insane international students that didn't get in. Tell that to Marilee Jones of MIT.</p>

<p>College admissions can get very arbitrary unless you enforce a strict examination standard like the ones in Japan or South Korea. You can't just say that the rejected folks are unequivocally "not qualified."</p>

<p>
[quote]
"that still does not detract from the focus that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are still in a worse position."</p>

<p>-Why? Because you say so?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know what you're thinking, but socioeconomically disadvantaged students ARE worse off than wealthy families. We have gone through this before, and I don't understand why you bother to fudge terms and intentionally try to not see the problems of our society. You are basically being stubborn with the word play.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think it's pretty well-known that (private) colleges admit pretty much whoever they want.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's also pretty well-known that private colleges must change with the times when previously ludicrous policies became outdated amongst the American people. It wasn't too long ago when top private schools began admitting women to their elite academic programs. You could imagine the 'threat' to men that was felt due to cognitive biases. Alas, it's only a matter of time.</p>

224

<p>
[quote]
"as have many voters in notably blue states"</p>

<p>-Wouldn't overturning AA be the more liberal position.....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't ask me. Ask the voters of Michigan, Washington, and California.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"However, we're just advocating socioeconomic preferences as a FAR MORE suitable method."</p>

<p>-Ah, so what you think is more suitable reigns supreme. I see.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm going to throw your own argument right back at you. And what you think counter to what I've said is the more suitable method? It's simple logic. Both of us can't be right if we're arguing for things counter to each other. So who's right kk19131? I've outlined my case. And it's not filled with fudging of definitions or hollow relativity statements. You don't know how many times I had a particular friend say, "It's all relative" just to end an argument. Perhaps you just want to get your views over with?</p>

<p>
[quote]
-No It's not..... This is just more circular arguments. You say something is better, I say the other is better. We will never reach a midpoint.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So by simple reasoning, one of us HAS to be wrong. Either that, or BOTH of us is wrong. That's logic for you. So which one is it kk?</p>

<p>
[quote]

-Tell me. What is, to you, the most 'fair' way to admit students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I will actually regard your post, though I really wish you could do the same for me.</p>

<p>THE fair way to admit students is to take them in without ANY preferences set towards any group of applicants. Note that I never fudged a 'fairest' way, there's only a single, unequivocally fair way. It's the method that schools like Oxbridge practice, so I don't see how it can't be successful here in America.</p>

225

<p>"So then what's with all this talk among adcoms about 3/4 or something of the applicants to elite colleges being qualified for acceptance?"</p>

<p>-Yet again I ask. What is 'qualified'. If it is not being accepted to a school, then what is it. It makes no sense to say that someone who is admitted to a school is NOT qualified to be there. That lacks logic. It's like saying X,Y,Z are my friends, but only X, and Y are qualified for my friendship.</p>

<p>"You can't just say that the rejected folks are unequivocally "not qualified."</p>

<p>-Why would a school reject people who it believes ARE qualified? The very foundation of being qualified would call for the school to ACCEPT those people. Rejecting people with higher SAT scores is not necessarily rejecting 'more qualified' people. </p>

<p>'It's also pretty well-known that private colleges must change with the times"</p>

<p>-And I say let them- but let them be the judge of that. When the times 'call' for a complete end to AA, it will happen, but only the colleges can, and should, decide when that time has come.</p>

226

<p>Why is this thread still active? Like every AA discussion thread, it becomes less and less of a debate and more and more of a useless argument as certain players get into it.</p>

<p>kk19131 - Learn to debate ON TOPIC without resorting to silly word-play. It degrades your entire argument and really jacked the point of the thread. Nobody cares that you can lay written tripwires for the unsophisticated debater. The fact is that you never respond to points made directly against you that you think make too much sense (and don't bother replying with "oh yeah? point one instance out"). You make every discussion you enter unproductive.</p>

<p>You can win using tricks of wordplay against a lot of people I'm sure, but just because you browbeat them into defeat with fancy semantics neither means you're right or that you won. It simply means that you're trolling the forum for an argument to throw yourself in. For example: This is a thread about AA and in one of your earlier posts you stated the ONLY point you make is that you think colleges should have the freedom to choose who they want. Well, nobody has said otherwise, yet you stay very active in this thread.</p>

227

<p>"Don't ask me. Ask the voters of Michigan, Washington, and California."</p>

<p>-I'm not asking. I'm saying. Overturning the policy is the more liberal of the two positions. </p>

<p>"Both of us can't be right if we're arguing for things counter to each other. So who's right kk19131?"</p>

<p>"So by simple reasoning, one of us HAS to be wrong. Either that, or BOTH of us is wrong. That's logic for you. So which one is it kk?"</p>

<p>-Neither is right nor wrong. These are opinions- personal beliefs- not laws of nature. There is neither now, nor will there ever be, a time when we are 'right'. </p>

<p>"THE fair way to admit students is to take them in without ANY preferences set towards any group of applicants."</p>

<p>-You do realize that is goes for people with higher test scores too right? according to this logic, higher test scorers should not initially be 'preferred' to lower scorers.</p>

228

<p>"This is a thread about AA and in one of your earlier posts you stated the ONLY point you make is that you think colleges should have the freedom to choose who they want. Well, nobody has said otherwise, yet you stay very active in this thread."</p>

<p>-Nobody has said otherwise?!??!?! What?! People are saying that colleges SHOULDN'T pick people in a particular manner (racial- AA) The very nature of that argument puts a limit on how colleges CAN choose their students. So, people have indeed said otherwise. </p>

<p>Maybe you were too busy trying to insult me that you didn't actually think about what you were writing.</p>

229

<p>
[quote]
-Yet again I ask. What is 'qualified'.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From the perspective of the adcoms, it's being able to do the work and succeed at the institution. screwthepc has made the distinction, but you seemingly chose to ignore it. I think there's little doubt that a good chunk of the Ivy applicants can succeed at the top-tier colleges. The question is though, who to accept?</p>

<p>
[quote]
-Why would a school reject people who it believes ARE qualified?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Easy. Because "it has more qualified applicants than it has spots for." This statement has been made at least a hundred times here on CC. Either you chose to ignore those statements, or you're really ignorant about what's going on in college admissions.</p>

<p>See? I can word play too. Except my word play is consistent with what the adcoms have been saying.</p>

230

<p>
[quote]
"THE fair way to admit students is to take them in without ANY preferences set towards any group of applicants."</p>

<p>-You do realize that is goes for people with higher test scores too right? according to this logic, higher test scorers should not initially be 'preferred' to lower scorers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but now you're just trying to jack up the word playing all over again. I won't even comment on this one, as I'll leave it to the other posters to see very clearly the flaw in that statement. Sometimes it's just THAT clear-cut, you know?</p>

<p>
[quote]
-Nobody has said otherwise?!??!?! What?! People are saying that colleges SHOULDN'T pick people in a particular manner (racial- AA) The very nature of that argument puts a limit on how colleges CAN choose their students. So, people have indeed said otherwise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hooray! More word play! So who's first amendment rights rise above all the others? The colleges', or the dissenters'? Oh those scary, scary posters!</p>

231

<p>"From the perspective of the adcoms, it's being able to do the work and succeed at the institution."</p>

<p>-And we go back to the graduation rates..... If the students are indeed graduating at the same rates (succeeding) as their White counterparts, then what's the problem?</p>

<p>"This statement has been made at least a hundred times here on CC. Either you chose to ignore those statements, or you're really ignorant about what's going on in college admissions."</p>

<p>-Clearly my statement was assuming that a school HAS spots to accept a person. That is, why would a college reject a person who it thinks is qualified if it has the space to accept him- for a person who is less qualified? It is being argued that URMs are getting in over 'more qualified' people. If that's true, then why would a college do this? Why would a college accept people whom it deems LESS qualified over people it deems MORE qualified?</p>

232

<p>"So who's first amendment rights rise above all the others? The colleges', or the dissenters'?"</p>

<p>-Umm... What... Yeah.. I'm going to dinner.</p>

233

<p>
[quote]
-And we go back to the graduation rates..... If the students are indeed graduating at the same rates (succeeding) as their White counterparts, then what's the problem?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Come on. This debate was never about who was 'qualified', which is what you seem to be focusing on. I have little doubt that almost everyone accepted to any Ivy League can handle the work. That I will admit. However, this is about who and what groups of students should benefit under set policies, and what and what isn't 'just' or 'fair'. You can say that we have no right to debate on these points (which is what you've repeatedly said many times), but most of us here will choose to exercise our rights.</p>

<p>
[quote]
-Clearly my statement was assuming that a school HAS spots to accept a person.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It was not clear, and nowhere in your posts did you make that exception.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is, why would a college reject a person who it thinks is qualified if it has the space to accept him- for a person who is less qualified?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We've already told you. Infact, you already told yourself that. It's because of a college's desire for 'diversity'. However, don't you go word playing on me like you did last time claiming that a person's skin color can serve as a merit point. Everyone disagreed with you on that the last time, EVEN Tyler09 who is pro-AA. I respect his position, and yours. But don't be making up ludicrous statements now.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is being argued that URMs are getting in over 'more qualified' people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I applaud you for recognizing part of the situation here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If that's true, then why would a college do this? Why would a college accept people whom it deems LESS qualified over people it deems MORE qualified?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you are confused kk. 3/4 of the applicants are 'qualified' to attend a said top-tier institution. At that point, the adcoms can select based on their set preferences. Stronger applicants do not necessarily get an auto-accept over other students, and I think it's about time you realized that. The disadvantaged international students have.</p>

<p>kk, what you're basically arguing is that people who get into a certain college MUST be more qualified than those who did not make it through the door. What I'm saying is that college admissions is MORE than just who's 'more qualified' and whatnot. Sometimes, subjective factors come into play that have NOTHING to do with pure merit. I will accept those factors as legit means of adcom selections. What I won't accept are your inane statements and fudging of the definitions.</p>

234

<p>graduation rates are bs. very few people flunk out of top colleges b/c most of them practice grade inflation (Harvard for example). what you want to look at are avg gpa of graduating students along with the % in each major and their respective gpas. urms do not tackle the hardest majors such as engineering and pre-med b/c they usually cannot get through with ideal results. most urms choose easier majors such as sociology or american history. that is b/c engineering and pre-med weed out the fluff early on and are much more objective.</p>

235

<p>agree with big brother. when I visited amherst, the counselor told the group that many of the applicants can do the work and are academically indistinguishable. she said that the president of the college tells the admissions officers what the school's needs are such as more track runners, tuba players, lower class etc. basically she acknowledged the fact that college admissions is ultimately a blackbox and just b/c someone gets into a certain college over someone else, it does not necessarily indicate superiority in any fashion. I also apologize for my previous post. My little brother got on while I was easting dinner, so sorry.</p>

236

<p>" If a person is not accepted, he is not qualified. "</p>

<p>i'm sorry you're completely WRONG kk,</p>

<p>MIT admiddions officer Matt and Ben both said over 70% MIT applicants are "qualified"</p>

237

<p>"I think it's pretty well-known that (private) colleges admit pretty much whoever they want."
again you're WRONG
only ppl on CC and ppl who invest time knows it.
they never admit it.
they should admit that they accept whoever is wrong.
DUHHHHHHHHH
"understand" some English and stop dodging the main points like politicians</p>

238

<p>"-I don't think anything's wrong with it. I think a college should pick people how it chooses. I just want it to be known that 'socio' ecnonomics is not the same thing as just economic status. In the former, a wealthy person could benefit from AA, in the latter, not."</p>

<p>social-econmic status takes in account of social and economics.
no one ever said we should only care about economic status LOL
if you made a bit more money than another family, but you have 3 members attending college, of course you can be given more financial aid (in the case of financial aid)</p>

<p>another example is Bruce Wayne (batman), if you're incredibly rich but your parents died when you were little,colleges should take that into account if he does well in school and SAT and ECs. he overcame this difficulty</p>

<p>no one is arguing that we should just look at economics status, plz understand some ENGLISH.
we think"socio-economic status" is the correct term for AA taking into account both sides. </p>

<p>stop manipulating words and guiding arguments into the wrong direction</p>

239

<p>I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but SAT no longer stand for scholastic aptitude test (it stands for SAT...)</p>

240

<p>" Why would a college accept people whom it deems LESS qualified over people it deems MORE qualified?"</p>

<p>that is exactly why we are against racial AA.
kudos, you finally understood</p>