<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea what you are talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You pretend to “think and care about” the plight of poor blacks, but at the first chance you got, you hightailed out of your “segregated” neighborhood and ran away from an “underperforming school” to rush to a “mainstream competitive high school.” Again, I would’ve done the same thing were I in your position. But I wouldn’t do that while ostentatiously giving off an illusion about caring deeply about the people I just ran away from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t ever talk about Asians and Hispanics when you bring up examples of how racist your fictional America is. You claim that the “low” prevalence of interracial marriage is evidence of racism. But the only pairing you ever mention is white husband / black wife. You never talk about the inverse, black husband / white wife, and you certainly never talk about Asian / white or Hispanic / (non-Hispanic) white couples.</p>
<p>Your examples of college campuses have always been about how there are whites and blacks. In your fictional American college campus, whites refuse to interact with blacks, and blacks should have the means to self-segregate. You never mention any Asians or Hispanics, ever.</p>
<p>Are you saying that one cannot both hate poor school conditions and take an that opportunity to avoid poor school conditions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I’m saying that it’s hypocritical and self-righteous to make a big, ostentatious show about “caring deeply about the plight of poor blacks” when you ran away as fast as you could from a school that was “underperforming” and mostly “URM.” Again, I would certainly have done what perazziman did were I in his position. But I wouldn’t feign an image of caring deeply about the people I just ran away from.</p>
<p>And here’s the thing. When people talk about how we “need” racial preferences, they invoke the students at the school perazziman ran away from. But those students aren’t the ones who can reap the benefits of racial preferences, as the vast majority of them do not apply to selective universities. Who gets the benefits? People such as yourself. Racial preferences is a middle class entitlement.</p>
<p>favrisio, you’re suggesting a student should take advantage of the opportunity to attend a top university, but should forgo the opportunity to attend a top high school? If we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, someone who cares about poor URM students should keep their kid in such a school for high school, and then attend the same type of university the rest of their class attends.</p>
<p>And you lament the fact that those who benefit from racial preferences are middle class. But do you consider that those very same middle class URM students may be the first generation that grew up in the middle class? Their parents did what was necessary (often making sacrifices) to become middle class, and are role models for their children, given them the tools to succeed in college. Are you suggesting that if their parents were able to drag themselves up out the sewers of the socio-economic system, that they no longer deserve help? Shouldn’t the idea be to help those who help themselves? We talk about colleges looking for students to take advantage of the opportunities available to them - isn’t a better school such an opportunity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve repeatedly said that were I in perazziman’s shoes, I would have done what he did. I just wouldn’t have made a big, hollow, ostentatious show about how I “care deeply about the plight” of the very people I’m running away from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone who makes as big a show as perazziman did about “caring deeply about the plight of poor blacks” should definitely have kept his child in such a school for high school. As for attending the same type of university the rest of the class attends, not necessarily. The child should attend the school he thinks he has the best fit at, subject to costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s suppose that a good portion of the beneficiaries were the first in their families to grow up in the middle class. Under your reasoning, Asians should receive racial preferences. Is this really what you want to argue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an argument for socioeconomic preferences, not for racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude, I’ve gotten free school lunch throughout my entire public school career. I’ve spent about half of my life on welfare. I don’t know where you drew the assumption that I’m part of the middle class, but it’s not true.</p>
<p>But your complaint about racial preferences seems to be that they aren’t socioeconomic preferences. The whole point is that race is an entirely different problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Would staying and screwing up his own kid’s future have fixed their plight?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My apologies, then. I didn’t associate your description of yourself - child of an interracial couple, attended high school with whites and blacks, actually caring about racial preferences - with growing up poor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I criticize the usage of socioeconomic arguments to justify racial preferences. Anytime someone uses words like “plight” or phrases like “helping those who help themselves,” they are invoking socioeconomics. Why, then, do they use these arguments to justify racial preferences instead of socioeconomic preferences?</p>
<p>Even what you say, “race is an entirely different problem,” hardly justifies the granting of preferences to students who are mostly middle class. Again, data on students’ family characteristics at elites is rare, but the little we have ([from</a> Duke](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2010/03/31/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors]from”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2010/03/31/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors)) suggests that the "URM"s the elites admit are mostly not like you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not clear that his son’s future would have been screwed up. Even though I disagree with his fictional version of America, that has nothing to do with how obvious it is that perazziman is formally well-educated and cares about his son’s future. Had he not moved, I’m sure perazziman would still have made sure that his son didn’t fall through the cracks; it just would have been harder. But staying at that school would have reflected a true “we’re in this together” mentality consistent with “caring deeply about the plight of poor blacks.”</p>
<p>non sequitor</p>
<p>What doesn’t follow what?</p>
<p>First, you have to look at admissions, not attendance - the elites are all chasing after the same group of top students of all types. Second, when you’re looking at socioeconomic factors, you have to consider affordability. What percentage of low SES students are even applying to the elites? If they get in, how many of the low SES students can afford to attend, even with significant scholarships. Even with zero EFC, can their families afford for them to go away? </p>
<p>Then also look at the data provided by Duke. The average household income among whites was over $230,000. It was lower among various minority groups - under $120,000 for black students. How low do you want it to go? </p>
<p>Then of course there’s the issue of “need blind.” If the admissions process is need blind, then they presumably have no idea of the studen’t socio-economic status. And yet, the average income of black students is still just over half that of white students. That average doesn’t mean all the black students are middle-class any more than the white average means they’re all rich. It’s an average. It is a reflection of the fact that on average black families (and latino families, and possibly also asian families) earn less. The numbers would suggest that not only are they not serving low income URM students, but with an average income of $230,000 for white students, they’re not serving low income white students either. </p>
<p>If that is in fact the case at all the elites, then where is all the financial aid going? The average grant for members of the class of 2016 at Yale was $41,320. There were 790 families who had $0 parental contribution, based on family income of less than $65,000.<br>
That 790 represents more than HALF of the incoming freshman class. That’s pretty significant, and I suspect some of that half are URM students.</p>
<p>Wow, 4 pages in two days! I need more time to read. But before that, here goes:</p>
<p>“Since 70% of men are white, it should be 70%”</p>
<p>It is not possible to have 51,594 (in thousands) White men all marry 4267 Black women.</p>
<p>“My point is that there would be a lot more like you, if there was full-integration (70% of Black women married to White men).”</p>
<p>And what is the rational that 70% men are white (51,594) so that 70% of Black women marry White men would be full-integration racially?</p>
<p>"For all those who think that a given race is proven smarter because it does well on the SAT, consider the following. "</p>
<p>I didn’t hear anyone said one given race is proven smarter because it does well on the SAT. I did say White/Black/Asian/… all races are about equal intelligence-wise, but the Asian emigrant who came to America as graduate students about 30-40 years ago are those who proved to be top 10% to pass college entrance exams of their countries, and then proven to be top 10% of their college graduates to get scholarships to come to The States for graduate study. These are the top 1% of Asia. Most of them came under poverty. And most of them didn’t go to top schools but stay in state schools due to financial reasons. Their offspring are about college age in the past 15 years and may continue for another 15 years. And that may be it, just 30 years of booming. If U.S. top schools don’t value them, it is their loss.</p>
<p>"1)Many do well on the SAT because they begin studying in the 8th grade spending hundreds if not thousands of hours on a test that was designed for very little study. "</p>
<p>The top Asian students don’t need SAT tutoring, (Silverturtle’s guide is one of the kinds that help them to self study) they prepared on their own. Because of their intelligence plus their hard-work they not only excel on tests (still spend less time than average students) but also have time for lots of ECs, though not all of them are of leader-type personality. Most of the ones who were tutored are either not on par or their parents are extremely nervous with unknown factors that would affect their children’s performance. Average students might still be average even with thousands of hours of study - in fact, for some students of this kind, the more they study the less-concentrated they would be.</p>
<p>“2)Many spend hundreds if not thousands of hours not studying but instead, memorizing old questions with the matching answer, hoping to get lucky and run into a test with a lot of recycled questions.”</p>
<p>Memorizing is for History, Literature,… and the kind. Analytical subjects need understanding and practice. You are not going to blame them for diligence, are you? Even genius Edison said “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration”. Those who don’t work hard don’t deserve to go to top college, or will be killed academically once get in.</p>
<p>“3)Many although they already have a sold score retake the test over and over, believing the higher the better. Nothing wrong there, but it does inflate the overall top scores of the race in question.”</p>
<p>Colleges look at how many times students took the tests, it is not to anyone’s advantage to take tests many times. Besides, if a student’s ability is at certain level, there won’t be advancement on scores. One of my friends’ son took ACT two times at 32. When his mom asked him to retake, he refused.</p>
<p>“4)Many of the top scores are won by International candidates (by questionable means) thereby also inflating the top scores of by race.”</p>
<p>Top scores won by international candidates are actually in the Black category for those from Nigeria or other African countries if you read top college decision threads. As for Asians, many recent Asian international undergraduate students (not graduate students) in colleges are those who didn’t pass college entrance exams in their countries but family have money to send them here. (And some schools like those who can pay full tuition.)</p>
<p>“The SAT has essentially been hijacked and is no longer reliable so if you’re harboring resentment because your SAT score is better then consider that it is likely are over inflated and just might not as good as you think they are. BTW The college Bd, knows this, which is why they’re changing the test.”</p>
<p>The SAT has not been hijacked. It is still the best indicator of student achievement and readiness for college as of now.</p>
<p>Sorry, rushed to write this.</p>
<p>I encourage you to read the whole article and continue to think about this. (I will be out during the weekend and will read this article again myself.)</p>
<p>New York Times:
Confessions of an Application Reader
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/ed...er=rss&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/ed...er=rss&emc=rss</a></p>
<p>Last paragraphs: (and conclusion)</p>
<p>"The assistant director’s words — look for “evidence a student can succeed at Berkeley” — echoed in my ears when I wanted to give a disadvantaged applicant a leg up in the world. I wanted to help. Surely, if these students got to Berkeley they would be exposed to all sorts of test-taking and studying techniques. </p>
<p>But would they be able to compete with the engineering applicant with the 3.95 G.P.A. and 2300 SATs? Does Berkeley have sufficient support services to bridge gaps and ensure success? Could this student with a story full of stressors and remedial-level writing skills survive in a college writing course? </p>
<p>I wanted every freshman walking through Sather Gate to succeed. </p>
<p>Underrepresented minorities still lag behind: about 92 percent of whites and Asians at Berkeley graduate within six years, compared with 81 percent of Hispanics and 71 percent of blacks. A study of the University of California system shows that 17 percent of underrepresented minority students who express interest in the sciences graduate with a science degree within five years, compared with 31 percent of white students. </p>
<p>When the invitation came to sign up for the next application cycle, I wavered. My job as an application reader — evaluating the potential success of so many hopeful students — had been one of the most serious endeavors of my academic career. But the opaque and secretive nature of the process had made me queasy. Wouldn’t better disclosure of how decisions are made help families better position their children? Does Proposition 209 serve merely to push race underground? Can the playing field of admissions ever be level? </p>
<p>For me, the process presented simply too many moral dilemmas. In the end, I chose not to participate again. </p>
<p>"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, part of the problem is that the elites by and large are not chasing after low SES / high achieving students. If a student is low SES but high achieving, setting aside issues of fit (which are important), the elites tend to be more affordable than the flagship public of the state in which the student resides. This doesn’t mean that it’s easier for poor students to attend elites than wealthy students, just that for poor but high achieving students, it may be less expensive to attend elites than publics.</p>
<p>Granted, transportation may be a nontrivial expense. But if we’re really about “helping those who help themselves,” transportation difficulties can be addressed, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No question that whites had the highest average family income and blacks had the lowest; those were the numbers. (I note for sosomenza that Hispanics actually had higher average family incomes than Asians.) But it remains that the average black freshman at Duke for those two years (2001-2002) came from a household that under no circumstances could be considered poor.</p>
<p>Duke basically recruited rich kids of all racial classifications. I’ve no reason to expect significant differences at Duke’s peers. Sure, the average family incomes of Hispanics and Asians were also lower than whites, but both were over $150,000. Again, on average, those students were not poor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Yale’s policies are similar to [url=<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/diversity-lack-figures-evidence-harvard/]Harvard’s[/url">http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/diversity-lack-figures-evidence-harvard/]Harvard’s[/url</a>], you can come from a fairly high income household (up to $180,000 as of early 2012) and still receive substantial financial aid. Given a (then) sticker price of roughly $53,000, on average, parents who earned $180K would pay roughly $20K and thus receive financial aid of over $30K. And that’s for families earning $180K!</p>
<p>That same article states that, with some assumptions, for the 2010-2011 academic year at Harvard, almost 46% of Harvard’s undergraduates came from households that earned more than $200K. Sure, that means a majority come from households that earn less, but when you dig deeper, you see that over 80% of the undergraduates came from households that ranked in the top 40% of U.S. incomes, and only 4% came from the bottom 20%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Memorizing SAT questions with matching answers is pretending to be smart. How many pretenders have taken the top spots away from real students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt anyone spends longer studying than Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong & ludicrous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what good is memorizing answers to questions you won’t be asked?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK. Your point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if his son had not moved we would not have an example of a kid who scored, as expected, below 1200 on the SAT in 7th grade (age 13), at a low income / high URM neighborhood school and transferred to a competitive mainstream high school where, ** quite unexpectedly**, he became a National Merit Semifinalist (in the top 2% at that competitive school). </p>
<p>So, his moving provides us an example of how school environments influences SAT performance. It also provides us a good example of how defacto segregation works to keep minorities out of competitive schools. Finally it shows us how the idea that academic ability does not improve much after 13 years of age and therefore these students cannot benefit from admission to competitive schools under affirmative action, is flawed.</p>