<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re going to pull some pseudo-reparations argument, kindly remember that [African</a> and Caribbean immigrants and their children disproportionately benefit from racial preferences](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black#sthash.a1qtl8ou.dpbs]African”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black#sthash.a1qtl8ou.dpbs).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, by numbers alone, there simply are not enough high-scoring blacks and Hispanics for every top private elite to have its “diversity” “goal” met. They must necessarily admit lower-scoring blacks and Hispanics who, but for their racial classifications, would not be admitted to these schools.</p>
<p>Test scores aren’t everything, yes, but again, you don’t see these schools admitting similarly lower-scoring whites and Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I think the point Mayihelp was making is that in the top private elites’ case, this “lowering” is not anything but paper. “Lowering” from 4.0 GPA/2400 SAT to a 3.7GPA and 2100 SAT, say. I just pulled those numbers out of my hat but even if that’s the stat level they go to to get the diversity they want, it’s not like those kids can’t do the work and contribute to the campus. And what if they turn down white, Asian, male or female, non-athletes, non-musicians or non-legacies who have somewhat higher scores/GPAs? It doesn’t seem to be adversely affecting them, quite the contrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Are</a> you aware that on a section basis, 700 is the 98th / 99th percentile for blacks and Hispanics?](<a href=“http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-By-Gender-Ethnicity-2013.pdf]Are”>Home – SAT Suite of Assessments | College Board) With 210,151 blacks and 284,261 Hispanics college bound in 2013, this roughly amounts to no more than 2,000 blacks and 3,000 Hispanics who have stats at or better than 3.7/2100. You really think that’s enough for 100-200 top private elite research universities and liberal arts colleges to have their “diversity” “goals” met?</p>
<p>You are missing the point, intentionally I believe. Do you think the 2100s - or even the 2000’s, can’t do the work and succeed? Do you think a Harvard is scraping the bottom of the academic barrel to get the class it wants?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on what you wrote, it is probably much less than 2,000 and 3,000. That is per section, but not each of the 2,000 or 3,000 score that in all three sections.</p>
<p>I’m sure you’re aware that there are more students who take the ACT but your argument has merit if you believe that the process is solely decide by test scores. Which the private schools have made very clear they do not. It makes no sense to admit a student who is not capable of striving academically. A student can be outstanding with a 1900 sat or a 28? ACT dependent upon what else resides in that application. I think if the school cares enough about diversity they will recruit hard the URM that is highly qualified quantitatively which there are more of than people tend to believe and they will unearth those who can strive in these challenging environments who may not have tested as well. I’m sure we have all read the reports that testing is not the best determinant of success on a college campus. 1400 black students enrolled at Ivy League schools last year if you did not include Act scores in your argument you can double the amount of what you would call a test qualified students. I would venture to say that at least a thousand of these students had scores in the 25/75 range. Which does mean there are students with 28 and 1900’s on elite college campuses. As long as they are successfully doing the work which the grad rates say they are. Why so much angst over a very very small percentage of a student body that is already and still in most cases underrepresented. By the way I do not think every school meets it’s diversity goal. No school is more active recruiting students and students of color than Wash U yet in 2013 they only enrolled 99 black students. </p>
<p>Do you really think the acceptance of URMs with “lower” scores (statistically insignificant in correlation to future academic success,) is higher than similar “lower” score" admits that are legacies? Athletes? Play the tuba needed in the band? George Bush went to Yale! Why is the vitriol always directed at the URM community?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I knew exactly what your “point” was going to be: “they can ‘do the work.’” OK. Then why aren’t there more whites and Asians at these schools with those scores? If the SAT is not only not everything but also not even important past 2100, why is it that at HYP, at least 25% of the incoming classes have perfect scores on at least one section?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. That’s why I said it was “no more than,” as I was not comfortable giving any guesses as to how many would have scored at least 700 for each section. This further weakens the argument of the deniers here that the preferences are small.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, how many times have I emphasized that the process is not solely decided by test scores and should not be solely decided by test scores?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, there really aren’t that many high-scoring blacks and Hispanics. If there were, we would not need racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think nobody takes both the SAT and the ACT? Even if I generously double the upper bound to 4,000, that’s still just 40 black students for 100 schools or 20 for 200 schools.</p>
<p>Suppose I take your 1400 figure as a fact. That’s just for eight schools. What about top private elites that aren’t a member of this athletic association? They need their “diversity” “goals” to be met too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to compare your daughter to Bush 43, that’s up to you.</p>
<p>I’m even more staunchly directed against legacies. Sports not so much, they’re getting in on their merit, not because of how they were born.
None of you are considering this from the student’s perspective. Imagine how frustrating it is for a 17 year old Asian to know that if he had been of a different race he’d have better chances or possibly would have got into top colleges? Imagine the impact this has on negatively affecting their self-esteem as Asians or their hatred of their own identity. Imagine wishing you were another race/ethnicity. That’s what affirmative action is doing to ORM’s, it’s making them fret and detest their own identity,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why this conversation goes nowhere: one side insisting that slavery is to blame for everything, and the other side refusing to acknowledge that discrimination exists.</p>
<p>GMTplus7 point has some merit. When the post go to the extreme simply to make a point the dialogue gets pulled off base. I don’t think you can make a case for self loathing as a culture when you make up 5 % of the country but make up 20% of enrollment on elite campuses. Asians are doing incredible things when it comes to academics to the point that they are now over represented. I would love it as a Black Man if I could look up and see that young black kids we’re over represented at an Ivy League school. The achievements of the Asian culture is something that these kids should be proud of. 95% of all students are rejected. We all have to live with disappointment. That student who had to settle for Cal Berkeley instead of Stanford is probably going to be ok. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not too sure this is fully accurate, but I do understand where you are headed with the thought. Although, I do think it is more complicated. </p>
<p>I do think people acknowledge discrimination exists, however, they question whether AA is a remedy for whatever people want a remedy for. And they actually question, how far does this extend? Do we need AA for overweight people, albinos, dwarfs, etc? The issue is it is so darn superficial, i.e., how you look. Even if people are asked to stop discriminating, AA makes them discriminate; an oxymoron.</p>
<p>People are also concerned that programs, such as AA, set up a never-ending industry of people saying race discrimination. Is it easier to get something if one says I was discriminated against than to actually do the same level of work as everyone else? If that is the case, any smart human will take the less workload road.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I acknowledge that discrimination exists, and the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. “Consider now so we don’t consider later” will never work. </p>
<p>Asians make up such a large percentage of the college population (20%) while they make up 5% of the US populations. African Americans on the other hand make up around 7-8 % of the college population while making up 13% of the US population. When asian students apply to top colleges, they are NEVER in competition with URMs. They are in competition with peers from their demographic. The URMs battle it out for the already limited spots afforded to them while the asians have an extremely competitive group of their peers that they have to compete with. Just because some URM with lower stats got in while and asian with higher stats did not, it does not mean that the URM took his/her spot. The asian had to be more outstanding than his peers for acceptance and he or she was not if they did not get accepted. There is no need to take out their anger out on AA or other URMs do to their rejection. Someone was saying that there should not be such a high percentage of whites in college admissions but they fail to realize the whites make up 75% of this country. It is amazing that asians with such a small population make up such a large percentage of college admissions and they should not be resentful of those who may need the extra boost to get into top colleges. Overall, people believed that affirmative action should be present and no amount of resentful arguing will change that. If you do not like that, you can apply to colleges who do not take part in affirmative action.</p>
<p>AA came into existence during the civil right movement of the 60’s. The only issue that has come close in regards to how people are treated is what has been occurring lately in the LGBT community and for justified reasons. I don’t think you need to worry about a superficial plight. It’s really awkward because you’re right it is based on appearance but unfortunately that is how the whole problem and the need for remedy got started. But race is not superficial because our “Blink” matters. Culture matters. AA should as a process diminish with time. My children did not need AA. They all resided comfortably in the academic mean of all the schools they applied to but if we as parents did not have the opportunities that were bestowed upon us in all likelihood they would not have achieved the academic success they have. We we’re fortunate enough, lucky enough to take advantage of some opportunities. That just hasn’t happened for enough people of African descent yet. In time AA should prove unnecessary it’s just not that time yet. </p>
<p>IMO as it presently goes, affirmative action won’t be “unnecessary” for a looooong time.
Berkeley which takes into account socioeconomic status is filled with Asians and few URM’s. Magnet schools in NYC are filled with Asians even though half of them are on food stamps.
This difference in performance (unless you think it’s based on genetic differences which I disagree with) is because on average (key word on average) Asian culture as it is presently places far far greater emphasis on education, as in far greater parental support and emphasis on education.
As it is, I see 3 main arguments in favor of affirmative action (as it presently is). Remember than my main problem with affirmative action is that it hurts another minority group in the way it currently is executed.