"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11

Applying to College
1621

InfinityMan No one stated that getting perfect score is a “1 in a 1000000000 scenario” except you. The SAT was not designed to do that. If the College Boards wanted to have the outcome you suggest for perfect scores, I’m sure it could be done. However, 1 in 4000 getting a perfect score is pretty daunting odds.

As to your comment that “I am not talking about everyone, but people who actually apply to elite schools.” You realize that these students have taken the SAT more than once and most have studied extensively and received tutoring by the pros and there are still but a handful of perfect scores even among the best and the brightest.

As to your arguments about the Writing portion of the SAT, that has more merit and I tend to agree with you there. But not about your attacks on the SATM. The SATM data suggests otherwise.

As to why there are SAT prep courses, because people are willing to pay $$$ to do well, even though the average gain on SATM and SATV is only about 25 total points. If IQ tests were used in the college admission process, there would be the same people selling IQ prep courses.

You are right most of the rest of the world uses Achievement Test for entry or the students have been tracked based upon achievement from an early age. If this was required by US Colleges, do you have any idea what the results would be? The same groups of people would fall in the same scoring distribution just like that of the SAT. The SAT is a cheaper method than Achievement Test by each college or the tracking of kids to college prep schools vs the ordinary kids schools or better yet the schools that only take the lowest performers. For some reason many parents don’t really like the idea that their child must go to the low achiever school.

florida26 Then you and I are saying the same thing. If one has high SAT then it generally predicts high future income but high income does not predict that one will have high SAT. The research that I posted goes even further to say that there is virtually no significance to the proposition that the SAT is just about how much your family earns when controls are factored especially parent education levels.

Many like Prof.Guinier like to show the SAT to income correlation to disseminate the idea that SAT is a rich person’s tool to suppress the poor, but never shows that parental education level is even more correlated to income. Which ironically is the reason why there is such a push for kids to get a college degree and into the best colleges. When parental education is controlled there is little to no significance in the income to SAT data.

1622

They’re correlated.

1623

voice we are not saying the same thing Higher income gives Asian families in general an unfair advantage in regards to admission . Also more educated family members give Asian students an advantage To take away these biases we need holistic admissions

1624

We need affirmative action for those with lower intelligence. Is it really fair that only the smartest people get to go to the best schools? Sometimes, in fact, those with lower intelligence can’t get in to any college at all. That’s blatant discrimination!

1625

@foosondaughter Hahaha…

1626

florida26 If you are saying having a higher income is an advantage, no dispute. But if you are saying that low income white and Asians should be discriminated against because they are not blacks or Hispanics, you are off base.

Also, being from a more educated or wealthy family is not a bias. You also seem not to understand holistic. Not much I can do for you in helping you to understand since you have missed most of the points made in prior postings by me and others.

albert69 You laugh, but what fooson is posting is in fact what the huge racial preference adds up to and why fabrizio’s mismatch is such a powerful argument and why no one has been able to step up with another explanation that the likes of GMT states the issue has been beaten to death. Yet, those that state that can’t succinctly produce the argument against mismatch and relative deprivation theories.

1627

You may have noticed a certain person claiming to have a high IQ got his posts deleted. Good riddance!

1628

^ Hooray

1629

@Falcon1 He obviously was a troll. But he was amusing – I for one will miss him.

1630

So socioeconomic differences justify racial preferences? Do you really not see how your conclusion does not follow?

1631

fabrizio That is an example why not all can score well on the SAT. Somewhere the logic function goes awry. florida26 can not see that simply because Asian’s have a higher average income than URMs does not equate to giving preferential admissions to rich blacks and Hispanics, it may mean giving the poor a helping hand but not the rich.

I still have not heard the exhaustive arguments why mismatch theory is wrong or misplaced from GMT or anyone else.

1632

Affirmative action should be based on income not race, there are plenty of black kids as privileged/even more privileged than whites and Asians.

1633

Race needs to be factor in any and all affirmative action programs. It doesn’t need to be the only factor but it needs to be a factor or the imbalance in our society will never be corrected. As stated before Asians by over a 5 to 1 margin support this concept according to the latest Field poll supported by Asian groups. The groups against AA on this site are part of a small minority not even in tune with their own ethnic groups

1634

florida26 So it is your position that discriminating against certain races is a good thing that will result in correcting “the imbalance in our society”? Could you please elaborate Why? and how it has been working so far? From the looks of things, it has worked to balance your so called “imbalance.”

If mismatch theory is accurate, then AA in college admissions will continue to negatively affect those who receive huge racial preferences and the racial imbalance will grow ever wider.

1635

Let me give you a quote from Grutter v Bollinger 539 us 306 it may help you understand. It is by justice OConnor

We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition. See, e. g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S., at 603. In announcing the principle of student body diversity as a compelling state interest, Justice Powell invoked our cases recognizing a constitutional dimension, grounded in the First Amendment, of educational autonomy: “The freedom of a university to make its own judgments as to education includes the selection of its student body.” Bakke, supra, at 312. From this premise, Justice Powell reasoned that by claiming “the right to select those students who will contribute the most to the ‘robust exchange of ideas,’” a university “seek[s] to achieve a goal that is of paramount importance in the fulfillment of its mission.” 438 U. S., at 313 (quoting Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., supra, at 603). Our conclusion that the Law School has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School’s proper institutional mission, and that “good faith” on the part of a university is “presumed” absent “a showing to the contrary.” 438 U. S., at 318-319.

As part of its goal of “assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse,” the Law School seeks to “enroll a ‘critical mass’ of minority students.” Brief for Respondent Bollinger et al. 13. The Law School’s interest is not simply “to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.” Bakke, 438 U. S., at

[330]

307 (opinion of Powell, J.). That would amount to outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional. Ibid.; Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467, 494 (1992) (“Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake”); Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S., at 507. Rather, the Law School’s concept of critical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.

These benefits are substantial. As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes “cross-racial understanding,” helps to break down racial stereotypes, and “enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 246a. These benefits are “important and laudable,” because “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when the students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.” Id., at 246a, 244a.

1636

Sorry about the lines in the last part of the quote. I don’t know how they got there.

1637

How do racial preferences solve socioeconomic imbalances? Do you really, truly, honestly not see the disconnect here?

The Field Poll didn’t ask the respondents whether they approved of racial preferences. You refuse to acknowledge how sensitive results are to phrasing. And you can’t explain why Asian American state legislators blocked the bill. If such an overwhelming majority of Asian Americans support “affirmative action,” why then, did the state legislators feel the need to placate a tiny minority? Logic, it seems, is not your strong suit.

1638

Grutter was a huge mistake. It legitimized the amorphous concept of “critical mass,” even though oral arguments both then and afterward have repeatedly shown that supporters of “affirmative action” cannot define it beyond “I know it when I see it.” Of course, the reason is obvious: if they were to give an exact number or even a range, then everyone would see it for the sham that it is (cough quota cough).

1639

fabrizio logic is actually my strong suit. Asian legislators actually supported SCA 5 in strong numbers until a small but vocal group put pressure on them. This had negative consequences for those legislators with some of their bills. you really need to be open to helping people of all races so EVERYONE can share in the fruits of the educational system. I think you would be well served by reading again Grutter and volunteering in an inner city school It might give you a new perspective and an openness to helping all races

1640

Then explain why socioeconomic disparities justify racial preferences. I’ve asked you this several times now, and you’ve ignored it each time.

As for your claim that a “small but vocal group” torpedoed SCA 5, who put pressure on that “small but vocal group”? They were always against racial preferences? Their constituents happen to be mostly against racial preferences whereas the other legislators’ constituents are mostly for them? At some point, you’re going to have to acknowledge that SCA 5 was blocked because Asian Americans united and stood up for equal treatment.

Don’t even try to play that card on me. The middle school and high school I went to in Georgia each had slightly more black students than white students; Asian students barely made up half a percent. I know how useless racial preferences are in addressing socioeconomic disparities. All your preferred policy does is grant preferences to the children of educated professionals. How ridiculous.