"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 10

[sosomenza]

<p>^You wanted proof and I’ve given it to you. You’re failure to learn will only result in more future embarrassment. I suspected that such information would not be considered and I was right. The bottom line is that all your proof was wrong. Your assertions were wrong and now out of new desperation you’re venturing into a new assertions which will also be proven to be wrong. </p>

<p>We started with AA, Elite Schools V. T2&T3. But since you did not factor in large numbers of State schools. You lost.</p>

<p>Then you went on a rampage determined to prove that not all state schools practiced AA. But since you were ignorant as to the political & economic forces involved, you again lost.</p>

<p>Now you’re stating some vague things about Asians discounting the State of Maryland report. What you wrote makes no sense, but I encourage you to explain it further. The outcome, however, will likely be the same.</p>

[Findmoreinfo]

<p>"^^^obviously another 1200 SAT score pretending to be a 2400. BTW, a 100 cases on Asians, seems awful heavy and painful? "</p>

<p>Don’t shy away. Just give me five examples! 100 cases is just a small sample that people can easily find as to counter your hard to find 5 examples. LOL</p>

<p>And I am waiting for you to give supporting evidences of all your hate statements.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

^You wanted proof and I’ve given it to you. You’re failure to learn will only result in more future embarrassment. I suspected that such information would not be considered and I was right. The bottom line is that all your proof was wrong. Your assertions were wrong and now out of new desperation you’re venturing into a new assertions which will also be proven to be wrong.

</p>

<p>You proved nothing. Asians are included as “minorities,” 3.1 was actually about “economically disadvantaged” students, and the goals were for the university system as a whole. Nothing in that section confirmed your assertion that racial preferences are more prevalent at T2/T3 schools relative to elites.</p>

<p>

We started with AA, Elite Schools V. T2&T3. But since you did not factor in large numbers of State schools. You lost.

</p>

<p>There are indeed many more T2 and T3 state schools than elites, public or otherwise. That does not mean that racial preferences are more prevalent at those schools relative to elites. Those schools freely admit that they DO NOT CONSIDER racial/ethnic status. Your claim that “political pressures” lead T2 and T3 state schools to heavily employ racial preferences is belied by your own rhetorical question: “Is anyone really complaining about not being able to get into a T3 school?” If you think the answer is no, and it is, then where does the pressure come from? Who’s pressuring the T2 and T3 schools to ensure that they have “enough” “underrepresented” minorities? No answer, of course.</p>

<p>

Then you went on a rampage determined to prove that not all state schools practiced AA. But since you were ignorant as to the economic forces involved, you again lost.

</p>

<p>I never set out to prove “not all state schools practiced [racial preferences].” I showed you over and over again that it was the flagships, the elites, that considered racial/ethnic status; it was the T2 and T3 schools that did not consider racial/ethnic status.</p>

<p>What did you show? Nothing. You used systemwide goals to claim that you found evidence for your claims based on tiers.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

According to you, racial preferences are not pervasive at elites. If so, we should have seen little to no reduction in the percentage of blacks and Hispanics at Berkeley and UCLA. Instead, we should have seen a huge reduction at the “less selective” campuses such as Irvine and Riverside.

</p>

<p>I defined an elite school as one which has a 5-10% selection rate. Because you do not understand this. It made all your research worthless just as the above is nonsense since neither UC school fits in the parameter. Also it makes no sense in general.</p>

<p>BTW the UC still has plenty of AA, but by law it is not supposed to be based on race. But it is based on economic factors. Actually regarding the UC system since many Asians attend its schools, one can successfully argue that Asians at the UC system receive plenty of AA. Maybe more than any other race?</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

And I am waiting for you to give supporting evidences of all your hate statements.

</p>

<p>I challenge you to post one hate statement from me.</p>

<p>Also you have nothing but stories. You do not have a 100 case files including, application, transcript, SAT Report, Essays and Recommendations. Do not brag about something which you clearly cannot do.</p>

[Findmoreinfo]

<p>^ Summarized in post 1008! Good night.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

There are indeed many more T2 and T3 state schools than elites, public or otherwise. That does not mean that racial preferences are more prevalent at those schools relative to elites. Those schools freely admit that they DO NOT CONSIDER racial/ethnic status. Your claim that “political pressures” lead T2 and T3 state schools to heavily employ racial preferences is belied by your own rhetorical question: “Is anyone really complaining about not being able to get into a T3 school?” If you think the answer is no, and it is, then where does the pressure come from? Who’s pressuring the T2 and T3 schools to ensure that they have “enough” “underrepresented” minorities? No answer, of course.

</p>

<p>Just to show how little sense that you’re making. You answered your own question. See line four above “political pressure.” If you don’t know, and apparently you do not, it comes from the Federal, State & Local levels. I’ll add civics to the list of your educational needs. Currently we’re at:</p>

<p>1)U.S. History
2)Educational Sociology
3) Economics/educational Subsidies
4)Federal & State general civics.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

I never set out to prove “not all state schools practiced [racial preferences].” I showed you over and over again that it was the flagships, the elites, that considered racial/ethnic status; it was the T2 and T3 schools that did not consider racial/ethnic status.

</p>

<p>For this reason all your research is wrong because you did not factor in economic AA and all the schools within a particular state. BTW WHY ARE YOU COMPARING STATE SCHOOLS WITH EACH OTHER. THEY DO NOT MEET MY SELECTIVITY INDEX?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I defined an elite school as one which has a 5-10% selection rate. Because you do not understand this. It made all your research worthless just as the above is nonsense since neither UC school fits in the parameter. Also it makes no sense in general.

</p>

<p>Did you now? In post 950, you said, quote, “The elite colleges at the top of the pyramid likely employ very little AA. It’s much more prevalent at T2 &T3 state schools. Is anyone really complaining about not being able to get into a T3 school?” No mention anywhere of “5-10% selection rate.”</p>

<p>It remains that Berkeley and UCLA are not just California’s flagships but are elite institutions in their own rights. It remains further that when supporters of racial preferences fought against Proposition 209, they were fighting for black and Hispanic representation at those schools, not at Cal State Fullerton, not even at UC Riverside. And lastly, you simply cannot explain why black and Hispanic enrollment dropped at Berkeley and UCLA after Proposition 209 but increased at Irvine, Santa Cruz, and Riverside.</p>

<p>All you can do is claim, “Berkeley and UCLA aren’t elite.” Thank you for continuing to voluntarily destroy your credibility.</p>

<p>I’ve had enough of beating around the bush. You will ignore every fact that doesn’t get at your fundamental assumption, so it is time for me to get at the root. Fundamentally, your problem is that you don’t want to admit that there are not enough high-scoring blacks and Hispanics in the United States. You want to pretend that there are, and anyone who tells you otherwise is “conceited” or believes in racial superiority / inferiority.</p>

<p>Sorry to shatter your illusion, but it is because there aren’t enough high-scoring blacks and Hispanics that elites have to practice racial preferences. It isn’t because there aren’t enough medium-scoring blacks and Hispanics. [In</a> 2012](<a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2012.pdf]In”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2012.pdf), a black college-bound senior who scored a 550 on the Critical Reading / Math / Writing section beat 88% / 89% / 91% of other black college-bound seniors. Basically, less than 10% of all black college-bound seniors scored 1650+/2400 on the SAT.</p>

<p>By comparison, a white college-bound senior who scored a 550 on those sections beat 58% / 55% / 63% of other white college-bound seniors. More than 45% of all white college-bound seniors scored 1650+/2400 on the SAT. To (roughly) beat 88% / 89% / 91% of other white college-bound seniors, a white student would have had to score 650 on each section, 100 points greater than his black peer.</p>

<p>Hispanics are the most disaggregated, but eyeballing the numbers suggests that they perform similarly to blacks. There are certainly enough medium-scoring blacks and Hispanics for T2/T3 state schools to admit them by their own merits. There are not enough high-scoring black and Hispanics for elites to have “enough” of them in their classes without resorting to racial preferences.</p>

<p>So here we have it. Your fundamental assumption - no gap in achievement at the high end by racial classification - is flawed. You choose to believe it because you find the alternative, the truth, to be too painful to accept. So anyone who calls you out on this gets called “conceited” or “obsessed with elites” or someone who believes in racial superiority / inferiority. So you find comfort by making up outlandish claims that “political pressures” cause T2/T3 state schools to practice racial preferences to a far greater extent than do elites.</p>

<p>Your standard excuse doesn’t apply here because the data come from 2012, not 2006 or earlier. Also, nothing I’ve said is meant to imply that the SAT is everything, or that it should be. All I’m doing is demonstrating that you have chosen to believe something that is not true: there is no gap in achievement (or at minimum, the SAT) at the high end when comparing blacks / Hispanics to whites / Asians.</p>

<p>Indeed, if there were no gap in the SAT score at the high end by racial classification, there would be no need for racial preferences. That statement is logically true. But that statement assumes that there is indeed no such gap, which there is. Thus, in reality, that statement is false.</p>

<p>But if it makes you feel better, who am I to tell you not to accept reality? If the truth is too painful, by all means, please continue to believe that there is no gap at the high end and that “political pressures” cause T2/T3 state schools, which by your own claim nobody complains about rejections at, to heavily practice racial preferences.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

Did you now? In post 950, you said, quote, “The elite colleges at the top of the pyramid likely employ very little AA. It’s much more prevalent at T2 &T3 state schools. Is anyone really complaining about not being able to get into a T3 school?” No mention anywhere of “5-10% selection rate.”

</p>

<p>Again you are wrong. See post #985</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

I’ve had enough of beating around the bush. You will ignore every fact that doesn’t get at your fundamental assumption, so it is time for me to get at the root. Fundamentally, your problem is that you don’t want to admit that there are not enough high-scoring blacks and Hispanics in the United States. You want to pretend that there are, and anyone who tells you otherwise is “conceited” or believes in racial superiority / inferiority.

</p>

<p>F: Be on notice that whenever you post nonsense that I will be there to put things right. Firstly you post an unfounded assumption, assuming that you know what I believe, but only in truth to leak out the prejudices of which you believe. Frankly, It smacks of cowardice. If you believe it then say it directly.</p>

<p>Your lack of understanding the large numbers involved is frankly a bit sad. There are likely 400,000 black and Hispanic graduates. 10% or 40,000 students are likely to be very good to excellent students.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

It remains that Berkeley and UCLA are not just California’s flagships but are elite institutions in their own rights. It remains further that when supporters of racial preferences fought against Proposition 209, they were fighting for black and Hispanic representation at those schools, not at Cal State Fullerton, not even at UC Riverside. And lastly, you simply cannot explain why black and Hispanic enrollment dropped at Berkeley and UCLA after Proposition 209 but increased at Irvine, Santa Cruz, and Riverside.

</p>

<p>Your writing at times is very unclear. Are you saying CSU’s don’t practice AA? Also, more Asians at UC’s really only means more Asians are benefiting from state level AA. BTW this is a normal function of the economics involved since after all there is more AA at state level universities.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

So you find comfort by making up outlandish claims that “political pressures” cause T2/T3 state schools to practice racial preferences to a far greater extent than do elites.

</p>

<p>Again an outlandish statement with no thought to truth. How can one possibly argue against the vastness of political/economic AA at the state level. AA at the elite schools is a glass of water. AA at the state level schools is a lake.</p>

<p>F: Time to move on. This one’s over.</p>

[perazziman]

<p>

@fabrizio

It isn’t that your son’s ability improved from attending the “competitive school” so much as it was unlocked.

</p>

<p>Then, it would not make sense to track kids at age 13, but it is what schools districts do across the country, especially where segregation is rampant . Every day, kids who do not take honors level high school courses in middle school have their GPA placed on a 4.0 scale. In contrast, kids who take honors level high school courses in middle school are placed on a 5.0 scale. So, there is no way for the 4.0 kids to catch up in class rank and GPA to the kids on the 5.0 scale. These GPAs generate class ranks that admit kids to flagship state universities. This is the system that is in place. </p>

<p>Apply this concept in its absurdity to kids in poor middle schools that do not offer any honor level high school courses and you can create invisible walls around entire communities. Then people such as you want to compare SAT scores of these unlocked kids with kids who had the opportunity to unlock and claim race is being used by admissions to discriminate. In which case, admissions is simply seeing how race is being used by society to create this defacto-segregation and equalizing its effects- kind of looking for the unlocked kid. </p>

<p>The so called ostensible “reason” for why the above system exists hinges on the idea that children cannot be “unlocked” after age 13. In fact the idea is that they cannot be unlocked after 6 or perhaps 9. So, middle school students at 12 either take or do not take honor level courses and it influences their high school GPA for admission to college. The only exception being kids who speak foreign languages, in which case the kid would need to take the test in his / her native language. Other than that, it is believed that these kids cannot possibly improve and therefore are not being denied an opportunity to get better (because they cannot get better) by a 4.0 track. So, if you disagree with this then speak up and tell everyone why these SAT scores cannot be compared, if you care.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

OP: Be on notice that whenever you post nonsense that I will be there to put things right. Firstly you post an unfounded assumption, assuming that you know what I believe, but only in truth to leak out the prejudices of which you believe.</p>

<p>Your lack of understanding the large numbers involved is frankly a bit sad. There are likely 400,000 black and Hispanic graduates. 10% or 40,000 students are likely to be very good to excellent.

</p>

<p>Proverbs 16:18 could not be more appropriate here. Do some simple arithmetic [from</a> the 2012 SAT data](<a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2012.pdf]from”>http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2012.pdf). Indeed, there were 490,289 black and Hispanic college-bound seniors who took the SAT in 2012, more than double the 192,577 Asian college-bound seniors who took the SAT that year.</p>

<p>But let’s pick two score cutoffs - 650 and 700 - and see what happens. Less than 12,816 black and Hispanic college-bound seniors scored 650 or higher on all three sections in 2012, and less than 4,903 of them scored higher than 700.</p>

<p>What about Asians? Less than 32,738 scored above 650 on all three sections, and less than 17,332 scored above 700 on all three sections. So even though there were more than twice as many black and Hispanic college-bound seniors who took the SAT in 2012, more than twice as many Asians scored 1950+/2400 than did blacks and Hispanics, and more than three times as many Asians scored 2100+/2400 than did blacks and Hispanics.</p>

<p>Sure, the SAT isn’t everything, nor should it be. But your entire claim rests on an assumption that I just showed was false. Even though there are more than twice as many black and Hispanic college-bound seniors than Asian college-bound seniors, there are more than three times as many Asians scoring 2100+/2400 than blacks and Hispanics.</p>

<p>There were less than 4,903 black and Hispanic college-bound seniors in 2012 that scored 2100+/2400 on the SAT in the entire country. Divide 4,903 by 50 (top 25 universities / top 25 LACs), and you get 98.06, which we’ll round down to 98. You think those fifty elites will be satisfied with 100 black and Hispanic freshmen in their incoming classes? Of course not. So what do they do? They practice racial preferences. (In fact, there are many more than fifty selective institutions throughout the country, so it just gets worse for your farcical argument.) Without racial preferences, they could not fill their classes with “enough” blacks and Hispanics, and then people like you would raise hell.</p>

<p>Go on. Ignore the facts. Tell me I’m “conceited” or “obsessed about elites.” Show everyone just how deluded you are and how you prefer to cling on to a lie than face reality.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Then people such as you want to compare SAT scores of these unlocked kids with kids who had the opportunity to unlock and claim race is being used by admissions to discriminate.

</p>

<p>Actually, I referenced the 2012 SAT data to get sosomenza to shut up and stop pushing complete nonsense as “the truth.” He’s made it painfully obvious that he will ignore all facts that do not get at his fundamental, core assumption: there is no gap in achievement at the high end of the distribution by racial classification.</p>

<p>But there is a huge gap at the top: even though more than twice as many black and Hispanic college-bound seniors take the SAT than do Asians, there are more than three times as many 2100+/2400 scoring Asians than blacks and Hispanics. You offer an explanation for why there is: tracking. In other words, you’re disagreeing with him. He thinks there’s no gap at the top, but there’s a huge gap in the middle. I gave him hard data that directly showed that his fundamental assumption has no basis in reality. Of course, he will deny the facts and continue to believe in his fantasy world.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

But let’s pick two score cutoffs - 650 and 700 - and see what happens. Less than 12,816 black and Hispanic college-bound seniors scored 650 or higher on all three sections in 2012, and less than 4,903 of them scored higher than 700

</p>

<p>Thanks for pointing out the large number of qualified minority candidates. Feel free to keep shooting yourself in the foot.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

But there is a huge gap at the top: even though more than twice as many black and Hispanic college-bound seniors take the SAT than do Asians, there are more than three times as many 2100+/2400 scoring Asians than blacks and Hispanics.

</p>

<p>Before you get too excited please Factor out:</p>

<p>1)International SAT Scores.
2)Repeated attempts by high scoring candidates (all in the quest for perfection).
3)Deception & Fraud</p>

<p>BTW Since the SAT is changing, one has to conclude that it is severely flawed. If so, between a score range of a couple hundred points, it likely proves very little. You are hanging onto something that has been judged lacking and outdated. Good luck holding on.</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>

In other words, you’re disagreeing with him. He thinks there’s no gap at the top,

</p>

<p>Again, again and again. The seats at the top are so few. The applicant base is so large, (see post 1037) that there can be no significant gap at the Top.</p>

[anon39653830]

<p>I just had to get in on this.
In addition to your other factualy flawed statements this one is the kicker “Deception & Fraud” </p>

<p>1) shouldn’t there be a fairly equal percentage of fraud between ethnicities
2) Do you realize how hard it is to cheat on the SAT?
3) Do you realize how many students have to cheat in order to dramaticly affect the results?
I’m sorry but that statement was moronic.</p>