<p>By the way, I think that this thread should be moved to College Admissions and will also probably be merged into the whale of a thread that houses the discussions of race in admissions.</p>
<p>I love how Asians faced discrimination historically as well, but because they managed to be more succesfull than other minorities, they get punished for it. Screw rewarding a strong work ethic!</p>
<p>Yet another simplistic and reductive analysis by the OP, U of Florida’s resident “scientist.” Anyone with a master’s degree from a third-tier toilet can be an expert, apparently.</p>
<p>Skateboarder, the situation is not one of punishment. Read my previous posts.</p>
<p>“Yet another simplistic and reductive analysis by the OP, U of Florida’s resident “scientist.” Anyone with a master’s degree from a third-tier toilet can be an expert, apparently”</p>
<p>A Personal attack is a very mature and logically valid means of rebuttal?</p>
<p>“Average SAT’s prove little. You can only show that URMs are getting a boost if the bar is lowered. If the bar for admission is a 1000 SAT and all the URMs manage to get 1001 and all the others get a 1600 that doesn’t mean the URMs are getting a boost. They made it over the hurdle just like other ethnicities”</p>
<p>I completely disagree. Try telling the admission committees of the Ivy league schools that the average SAT of their student body means very little. In fact, because SAT’s are actually the ONLY standardized metric used in college admissions, they are the ONLY 100% reliable measure of afirmative action. Grades are very much subjective, talket, interview impressions, school class difficulty, etc. are ALL subjective to some or more extent. However, an SAT score is an SAT score is an SAT score. That is the FIRST place one should look to inspect for discrimination in admissions.</p>
<p>How is it not one? They make something of themselves ad now need to work harder than other groups.</p>
<p>For those of you with your eyes wide shut about SAT based affirmative action currently and historically being part of college admissions, here is a quote from our latest supreme court justice, SOTOMAYO, right from the source’s mouth: </p>
<p>“I am a product of affirmative action,” she said. “I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.”</p>
<p>[Sotomayor</a> says she was ‘perfect affirmative action baby’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/11/sotomayor.affirmative.action/index.html]Sotomayor”>Sotomayor says she was 'perfect affirmative action baby' - CNN.com)</p>
<p>curiouslee, I guess she went to a third rate school and isn’t very smart either? Well, the isn’t very smart, I’ll give you-afterall she wasn’t as smart as her classmates at Princeton OR Yale.</p>
<p>She said that using “traditional numbers” from test scores, “it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted.”</p>
<p>^ Nope. I was talking about you. (Try not to twist my words around.)</p>
<p>Compared to Sotomayor, you’re a mental midget.</p>
<p>If she had gone to SUNY Oswego like you, she’d been a Rhodes Scholar!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on the test scores that she took in high school, no, Sotomayer was not as smart as her classmates at Princeton.</p>
<p>But are test scores really the only definitive measure of “smartness” ? </p>
<p>It’s also true that Sotomayer graduated from Princeton summa cum laude, with highest honors in history, and was co-recipient of the Pyne Prize (Princeton’s highest award for undergraduates). </p>
<p>Based on her academic performance as an undergraduate, Sotomayer actually proved to be smarter than her Princeton classmates – despite her lower test scores when she applied. That’s why she is considered an affirmative action success story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just as valid as this:
</p>
<p>Florida is not any ivy league school as much as you may want it to be. Florida, like most public schools, operates mainly on a stat based admissions process. If you have SAT scores and grades above a certain threshold you’re in. If not you’re out. There’s an absolute standard being applied not a relative one as with the ivies. For that reason average SAT means little when talking about a school like UF. The bar is much more important. If that threshold were 1000, and all the URMs who had over a 1000 got in as well as all the Whites then there’s no discrimination. If all the URMs who had under a 1000 were out and all the Whites who had under a 1000 were out, even better. Now in the extreme example, imagine if all the URMs who got in had a 1001 and all the Whites had a 1600. It may look like discrimination, but it really isn’t. Florida is following the rules and within the law. Not saying this is what is definitely happening, but it’s a lot more likely than UF breaking the law. Since URMs have lower scores on average, those who got over the threshold would be less likely to clear it by a long shot as opposed to whites and Asians. Again, you cannot conclude anything from this data except for the null hypothesis-no discrimination is going on because UF is required to follow the law.</p>
<p>The gap between applied and admitted is largest for URM’s and smallest for Asians. If several factors are used in admissions, and groups have different average SAT scores, this is exactly what you would expect.</p>
<p>^ Nope. I was talking about you. (Try not to twist my words around.)</p>
<p>Compared to Sotomayor, you’re a mental midget.</p>
<p>If she had gone to SUNY Oswego like you, she’d been a Rhodes Scholar!</p>
<p>I also have an MBA from a top 50 program (yes, I’m a gator) and a 720 GMAT score. I’d love to bury using my wit, but the fact is that you’re embarresing yourself by attacking me for disagreeing with you. You aren’t trying to counter. Please, try attacking my argument and not me. I never attacked you, so why do you feel the need to insult both me and the schools I attended?</p>
<p>^ Any MBA outside the top dozen or so is virtually useless, unless you plan to live and work near the school at which you received it.</p>
<p>Tsk, tsk…there you go again, bragging about your “wit.” Don’t you Gators ever quit!!!</p>
<p>"Based on the test scores that she took in high school, no, Sotomayer was not as smart as her classmates at Princeton.</p>
<p>But are test scores really the only definitive measure of “smartness” ? </p>
<p>It’s also true that Sotomayer graduated from Princeton summa cum laude, with highest honors in history, and was co-recipient of the Pyne Prize (Princeton’s highest award for undergraduates). </p>
<p>Based on her academic performance as an undergraduate, Sotomayer actually proved to be smarter than her Princeton classmates – despite her lower test scores when she applied. That’s why she is considered an affirmative action success story. "</p>
<p>As I am currently studying to try to crack a 760 GMAT, I must reply to this, as it is a line of reasoning often used to trap test takers:</p>
<p>IQ (as measured by SAT, LSAT, etc) and success in college as measured by grades are mutually exclusive. You don’t have to be the smartest in the room to get a BA degree, or even to graduate with honors. Scoring, say a 170 on the LSAT in order to gain access to Cornell does not mean that someone with a 160 can’t make law review. However, Cornell law school seeks higher LSAT scores because those with higher scores make up a smarter class IN THE AGGREGATE. In other words, past a minimum level, a higher test score becomes more of an admissions hurdle, not a predictor of success.<br>
In summary, test scores and doing well (past a certain level) are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you can admit someone based on AA with lower test scores who is still capable of graduating at the tops of the class. Here is the part that AA proponents never want to address: for everyone who is admitted under AA, there is exactly one person who earned the slot based on either studying or innate ability, but was denied based on the color of their skin not being of the correct tone.</p>
<p>curiouslee, why dont you stop attacking me and go after my arguments?</p>
<p>^ It’s more fun this way!</p>
<p>Curious, how old are you?</p>
<p>While I don’t support him in continuing to attack you, it’s because your arguments are just inane. They don’t make any sense. You’re blind to any possibility that your conclusion is wrong.</p>
<p>^^pwned ouch that must hurt…</p>