<p>
[quote]
Except for the fact that no matter what background they are from, they get a boost in admissions. If a wealthy black/Hispanic applied, they would still get the same 'boost'.
[/quote]
That is true... which is a major drawback. It should be based more on socioeconomic background that directly based on race.</p>
<p>There was inequitable treatment before the civil rights movement, based on skin color. Those who are in the majority, still can treat others as they see fit. Thus, there is still political gerrymandering, low-income housing concentrated in poor areas, under-funded schools, and creaping gentrification--which pushes out less affluent minority populations. URMs also face higher insurance, housing, and transportation costs. </p>
<p>While I agree about socioeconomic AA, ethnicity (and to an extent gender) are still considered at the macro level.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the color of one's skin sometimes causes others to behave differently towards them, no matter how affluent.</p>
<p>yeah. english is my second language ( I speak a different language at home w/ my family).
I'm also from a low income family and first generation college bound.</p>
<p>maybe those factors affected my scores a little?
I didn't qualify for the free SAT prep at my school because it was created for students who are natives of the city.</p>
<p>SATs are true mesaurements of someone's intelligence, unlike high school grade which are majority a person's will to study and work hard.</p>
<p>Hoenstly most people i know that have 4.0's and above aren't all that briliant, but instead are hard workers with initiative.</p>
<p>It just depends on how you measure intelligence and success.</p>
<p>(This coming from a 3.45 GPA and a 2040 SAT)</p>
<p>2000 SAT Hispanic male-deferred from Brown.</p>
<p>The URM card isn't as great as people made it seem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BECAUSE THE TEST IS IN ENGLISH YOU MORON !!!,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>An unfortunate surprise for some - except for your foreign language classes, nearly all classes in college are taught in English. It's important to have a firm grasp on English if you want to study at an American university. In the same sense, because I am only somewhat fluent in French, I would not go to a French university for four years.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the English-speaking world is dominating higher education. If you want a degree from a top university, you'll need to know the English language inside and out or you will likely have problems. And if you are having major problems with the Critical Reading and Writing sections, you would not fare well in an English class at a top university.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that's a good thing, and I definitely see your frustration. However, that is the way it is.</p>
<p>Yeah. This is my problem with many of the "the SAT is discriminatory/flawed because..." arguments. I've heard numerous arguments as to why the test is discriminatory: URMs do worse on average, poor people do worse, those who don't prepare do worse, ESL people do worse, etc.</p>
<p>But has anyone ever thought that those kind of statistical differences extend to far more than the SAT alone? Of course poorer people do badly - but they often do badly at more than just the SAT. It's a result of many factors. The same goes for ESL students. Yes, the SAT doesn't reflect the same way on diferent people depending on myriad factors. But the fact is, neither does real life. Unfortunately, it's part and parcel, and I don't understand why everyone singles out the SAT for the criticism. (That's actually not true, I would say they single it out because it is the sole most obvious quantifiable gatekeeper in college admissions, but still.)</p>
<p>rub it on....</p>
<p>The point is that the SATs are just inaccurate, PERIOD. Take, for example, my SAT 1 math score: 670. Why don't you compare it to my 770 SAT II Math level 2 score, my 35 ACT math score, or my 5s on the Calc BC and Stats AP Exams. The fact is, the SAT scores vary so much that there's a possibility that someone could score 100 points plus/minus to what their actual score should be.</p>
<p>However, most people just don't understand that colleges do NOT look at the SATs as a definitive measure of one's intelligence. Based on my 1230/1890 SAT 1, you'd think I would SURELY get flat-out rejected from a great university such as University of Chicago. However, I got in... and moreover, I EXPECTED to get in.</p>
<p>There are a few obnoxious colleges that look at SAT scores and then forget everything else. But most elite colleges do not do this. They look to see if your scores are reasonable (i.e. at least in the range of 600) and then evaluate the rest of your application. If you have other strong credentials, then your SAT score will probably be overlooked. If it's not, then the college you applied to is filled with retards and you probably shouldn't've applied there anyway. Trust me. If you want to prove your intelligence with bad SAT scores, just write a great essay for your application. Intelligence can be evaluated better from a single essay than it can be from an SAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
SATs are true mesaurements of someone's intelligence, unlike high school grade which are majority a person's will to study and work hard.</p>
<p>Hoenstly most people i know that have 4.0's and above aren't all that briliant, but instead are hard workers with initiative.</p>
<p>It just depends on how you measure intelligence and success.</p>
<p>(This coming from a 3.45 GPA and a 2040 SAT)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. It depends on how you measure intelligence.</p>
<p>I for example have semi-illeterate parents, low income, e.t.c so I have to work hard in school to get good grades because I don't have the priviledges and advantages most other students (with high grades) have.</p>
<p>For example, While I and one of my friends had to spend hours researching on a specific author for class, Another student and her friends in my class already attended a summer camp in 8th grade and learned everything there.</p>
<p>Another scenario: some kid got a big scholarship because he did some science research on cancer but then his dad and uncle are cancer specialists 'coincidentally' working on the same research!? </p>
<p>yeah life's not fair.
some people have to work harder than others to get to the same position. not because they're less intelligent but because they're less priviledged.</p>
<p>I had to rant. srry.</p>
<p>@Phuriku, i agree with you on the inaccuracy of the test. lol</p>
<p>yes i applied to colleges that put less weigh on sat scores. (thanks to IsleBoy for the suggestions)</p>
<p>congratulation on your UChigago acceptance btw! :)</p>