<p>lol stop twisting my words. </p>
<p>yao ming is taller than steve nash.</p>
<p>you're confusing the word "tall" with "skin color"
you can't comprehend, your wrong. the correct statement is...</p>
<p>Yao Ming is darker than steve nash</p>
<p>First, you didn't tell me what 'socio' economics is- you just linked to wikipedia. Do you know that 'socio' economics deals with the COMBINATION of sociology and economics. That is, such things as coming from a single-parent family affect one's 'socio' economic status. Thus, a RICH person from a single-person family could benefit from 'socio' economic status. Now, if we're talking about just 'economic' status, so be it. But people should at least know what 'socio' economics is before they start singing its praises. </p>
<p>"and i'm just saying that colleges picking student bodies based on race isn't fair"</p>
<p>Fairness is relative. There is no universal idea of fairness. I think it unfair to put barriers on how a college can pick its student body. Does that make my idea of 'fairness' better than yours? Certainly not, so we can drop that word right now.</p>
<p>^ then why is it that someone who (theroretically) scored a 1900 in june can then STUDY and score a 2200 in october.....because they increased their ability?...HA....don't be stupid, kollegkid.</p>
<p>kk, again i ask u to read my post.
colleges should be truthful about that, just like what every 3-year-old kid is told by his momma</p>
<p>How can you possibly make the generalization that all URM are disadvantaged!?!</p>
<p>and you'll see, i hope u understand how ridiculous your post was after reading my example of yao ming and steve nash
it's just unfortunate it's on 2 separate pages so ppl cant compare</p>
<p>"well, in that case, i think they should stop the political-correctness and ADMIT they accept whoever they want, and not make a false illusion of meritocracy."</p>
<p>-I've said it before. ALL colleges are meritocracies. How? They all decide what is 'meritorious' of admission to their school, thus, all students in their school should be seen as 'meritorious' of being there. There is no one standard of 'merit', so such an argument is inherently flawed. </p>
<p>"btw, can't u look it up in a dictionary or wiki or NWU's lib?
you're a elite college student, i'm sure you have more resources regarding that than most ppl"</p>
<p>-I understand socioeconomics. I'm trying to show you that YOU do not.</p>
<p>first of all "we" aren't going to do anything, i still believe the process is unfair to the students applying</p>
<p>and i do understand what socioeconomics is... and what is a "single-person" family?</p>
<p>"colleges should be truthful about that"</p>
<p>-Truthful how? If colleges had some basic 'standard' for gaining admission, then they would put out said standard, and after they got enough people to fill the classes, they would stop taking applications. If fact, all colleges would need are SAT scores. I mean, that's the only thing that comes close to being a standard- all other information would be irrelevant to what you seem to believe 'merit' actually is.</p>
<p>Of course they increased their scores with studying. They learned something. They reviewed the material. They made an effort, unlike those who do not make the effort to master core high school content. Not all persons CAN increase their score. Ceilings are reached.</p>
<p>Since you believe so strongly that all people CAN increase scores with studying, why do you have so little confidence in URMs to apply themselves? You are not consistent!</p>
<p>"First of all "we" aren't going to do anything, i still believe the process is unfair to the students applying"</p>
<p>-And I believe it to be fair. See, this will never end. So, either we drop the word 'fair' or we continue to go back and forth with what we BELIEVE to be fairness...</p>
<p>"and i do understand what socioeconomics is... and what is a "single-person" family?"</p>
<p>-I meant "single-parent"....</p>
<p>Clearly you do not understand socioeconomics, or you would not confuse it with plain economic status. That is, unless you do want rich people to benefit from socioeconomic AA...</p>
<p>QUOTE
"Of course they increased their scores with studying. They learned something. They reviewed the material. They made an effort, unlike those who do not make the effort to master core high school content. Not all persons CAN increase their score. Ceilings are reached.</p>
<p>Since you believe so strongly that all people CAN increase scores with studying, why do you have so little confidence in URMs to apply themselves? You are not consistent!"</p>
<p>because not everyone can go buy prep books to study with ("they reviewed the materials"), kollegkid. i'm consistent, you can't comprehend.</p>
<p>There are plenty of free materials available. Libraries, high school guidance offices, online sites, . . .</p>
<p>"The point of race-based AA is NOT to provide an admissions boost for those of lower economic statuses. It is to raise the percentage of a certain <em>gasp</em> RACIAL group at a college. This is why middle-class minorities also tend to benefit from AA programs at various schools."</p>
<p>Exactly. Pro-AAers need to stop pretending like its mission is to reward these poor black kids for overcoming a disadvantaged background. It's mission is to fulfill an unofficial quota. In other words, colleges are striving so that their population demographics resemble the population demographics of America at large. The problem is that certain racial groups have such subpar GPA's and SAT scores (the two primary admissions criteria) that it takes a lot of artificial action (ie affirmative action) to make this a reality.</p>
<p>Talking about SAT scores is a horrible way to justify AA. Why? Because it assumes that higher scores = better applicant. It assumes that colleges have a set base score for admitting their students, when, in actuality, they do not.</p>
<p>Yet again I ask. If SAT scores are all-important, why do colleges ask for ANY other information at all? Why ask applicants to write essays? Why ask for ECs?</p>
<p>What's lacking is initiative and the conscious choice of challenging courses for 13 years of preparation.</p>
<p>"Clearly you do not understand socioeconomics, or you would not confuse it with plain economic status. That is, unless you do want rich people to benefit from socioeconomic AA..."</p>
<p>social conditions DO affect how people perform in high school. money is not everything which is why i think "socioeconomic" AA is valid, not only economic AA</p>
<p>If colleges only cared only about SAT scores I wouldn't need AA lol.</p>
<p>Face it, SATs are just part of the qualifications. There are MANY hoops to jump through. The standards for SATs for URMs are lowered. URMs should have to meet the same criterion as all other applicants.</p>
<p>"social conditions DO affect how people perform in high school. money is not everything which is why i think "socioeconomic" AA is valid, not only economic AA"</p>
<p>-Ah... so you're saying that a rich person should benefit from AA?</p>