<p>Hey crims, even if colleges won't acknowledge it, I still think you gain a certain degree of maturity and insight from being disadvantaged that will help you later in life. I grew up in a poor section of the city, went to a school that was 80%+ black and had to be shut down because it was underperforming so badly, and had a household income of $9000. My parents worked hard to dig us out of the hole so that when I applied to college, I was no longer economically disadvantaged (and thus gained no advantage in college admissions). However, the value of education and hardwork was not lost on me and I truly believe my childhood experiences growing up in a community that was predominately poor and black has benefited me to this day.</p>
<p>crims,</p>
<h1>1: Do you believe that you are qualified to do the work at a demanding U?</h1>
<h1>2: Are you interested in attending such a very demanding level of U?</h1>
<p>If you believe that your lack of academic opportunities, such as described in your post 174, do not make such ambitions realistic, then you shouldn't apply. (Same as everyone else who would be considering applying.) </p>
<p>But if you feel that you are bright enough, capable enough to do the work, and have a shot at expressing that capability in your applications, then your circumstances/environment will work in your favor, as discussed by AdOfficer.</p>
<p>It is not only ability & potential that is important to upper-level U's; it is also preparation. (Yes, no math past geometry + no foreign language will hurt your chances for upper-tier colleges.) </p>
<p>However, regarding the "what they will see" business, the fact that you are white & female is not a negative. You have reduced economic options, a bad environment, & many challenges in your life. Low socioeconomic status is a very imp. element in admissions, in itself. It's a diff. category than race or ethnicity, but an imp. one.</p>
<p>crims,</p>
<p>I am cross-posting with epiphany.</p>
<p>what are your grades like?<br>
[quote]
But it won't show up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the admissions committee members are not mind readers, that is why it is up to you make sure your story gts told (not from a woe is me perspective, but showing in spite of it all you are doing your thing).</p>
<p>This is where your essays short answers, GC evaluations,Teacher recommendations, school profile all come into play as helping to give a fuller picture of who you are and what you have had to overcome.</p>
<p>You will be evaluated based on the opportunities presented to you how well you took advantage of the opporunities that you were presented with (this is the part that many students do not get).On the surface you show that even though you don't have much you have done a lot with the little that you do have.</p>
<p>Your school profile will tell the colleges :</p>
<p>what percentage of studnets graduate from your high school
what percentage of students went on to attend 2 to 4 year schools
some even have SES evaluations (as what percentage of students free or reduced lunch)
the average SAT score for students at your high school
THe big orange fee waiver that you got from the college board will be an indication you have need.
The application does ask about your family, what your mom does for a living and her education level (if your mother has never attended college you are a first generation college student and the colleges will understand that your mom wasn't in postion to help you with the college process, or to guide you through).</p>
<p>Don't fret, the admissions counselors are very astute when it comes to knowing the schools in their territories. Your having a 1900 at a low performing school does peak volumes. It shows that in relation to students at your school, you did well inspite of having very little (your scores are above the national average and admissions officers will know that too).</p>
<p>from the college board</p>
<p>average writing score for all was 497
Average critical reading score 503
Average Math score 518</p>
<p>If your school does not offer AP's that is not going to be held against you. Just continue to do well in the curriculum that is offered at your school.</p>
<p>good luck to you</p>
<p>hmmmmmmmm...</p>
<p>this goes against everything admissions says..</p>
<p>YES. If they admit it or not, taking AP's WILL increase your chances. It's unfair. That's the point she's making. Why would they choose the same applicant w/ lower test scores and no AP's?</p>
<p>Why would they choose someone who has a lot of experience and a great education when they could have someone with a great education and can pay/play on their sports teams/will be a leader in the world... that's what they want!!!</p>
<p>If her school does not offer AP (and admissions reps already know that many poor underfunded and low performing do not offer APs) it will not be held against her.</p>
<p>I have straight a's but that doesnt matter because my school isn't challenging. That doens't mean I'm not capable, i just don't have the opportunity!!! so basically i'm a c student (if i went to a decent high shcool)/1900 sat w/ absolutely no extracurricualrs. Those statistics cannot get into Yale...and why should I be denied admissions because of that? Because there are AP/officer/sports captains/future business leaders that they want and can use!!!</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>I don't see it that way. Support for race-blind admissions does not automatically go with the belief that racism is dead. It does, however, indicate a belief that no one should either be discriminated against or receive preferential treatment now.</p>
<p>A popular essay topic, even from non-Common App schools, asks the student to describe a difficult or challenging experience and how the student overcame. I see this as an opportunity for disadvantaged students to use their writing skills to show a part of them that otherwise would not be on the application. Let this determine the extent of the disadvantage, not a box.</p>
<p>In context, I"ll assume that your sentence, "Your continued insistence is just bunk," refers to your claim that 'under-represented' minorities do not receive preferential treatment as opposed to other types of preferences (e.g. legacies, development cases, athletes). I would like to imagine that persons in your occupation do spend that much time reading applications and your evaluations are all neutral. Based on what Ms. Rachel Toor described, though, I don't think that's what actually happens. Plus, comments like "not another boring Asian" don't help. Sorry!</p>
<p>Thank you for elaborating on the meaning of "hack it." I'm not going to ask you for clarification on just how decent "decent" is.</p>
<p>Hard*er* is a relative word. I did not give any mention of Honors, AP, or IB in that sentence. I just said hard*er*. What is hard*er*? College prep is hard*er* than technical prep. Honors is hard*er* than college prep. AP is hard*er* than Honors. And, as some argue, IB is hard*er* than AP. It?s all relative.</p>
<p>So, to answer your questions. No. No. No. Yes. Maybe this student was intimidated by the homogenous makeup of that AP class and decided, "Eh, college prep is good enough for me." Maybe this student was discouraged that none of his friends were in the college prep class. And so forth.</p>
<p>crims...</p>
<p>when admissions officers read an application, they look at the profile of your high school...they see what classes are offered and base their assessment of your academic achievements on this context. so, TO BE HONEST, if i got your application and saw that no ap or honors classes are offered at your high school but that you took the highest level courses available to you and did well, you're in very good shape. as far as testing is concerned, no highly selective admissions office is going to expect you to score 2400 or even close to that if you haven't had ap or honors courses...we're going to look at your scores within the context of the academic opportunities you have had. that's why we give "middle 50% ranges" on our colleges' profiles - there are a lot of kids at my school, for example, who are scoring above 750 on all parts of the sat exam...however, over 35% of the kids we admit don't hit 700 on any of the three sections...many are in the 500-600 range and 600-700 range for each section and, most often, these are the students who haven't attended strong high schools but who have achieved as much as they possibly could have. no highly selective school is going to hold this against you...</p>
<p>
[quote]
THE SAT IS NOT A MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE. If anything, IT IS A MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT WHICH IS LARGELY AFFECTED BY THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION ONE RECEIVES.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not a measure of anything actually. The letters SAT do not even stand for anything. It's just a ******** test that determines whether you get into a certain college or not. I literally spit out my soda at that statement since it is 100% false according to the College Board. They couldn't even agree on what the letters S A and T meant. </p>
<p>These standardized tests make or break your entrance to a 4 year college, which is rather unfortunate. It makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE IN YOUR APPLICATION. HUGE. </p>
<p>If I would've known that these admissions tests had a huge impact, I would've spent more than the 700 dollars in test prep and 50 dollars in test prep books to prepare. I'm now putting a lot of pressure on my brother to study for these stupid tests EARLY. Also, since I'm planning on attending a professional school, I'm starting to prepare for the appropriate test already, AND I'M NOT EVEN A SOPHOMORE IN COLLEGE YET!</p>
<p>Nice way for the makers of the tests to earn their $$$$ at the expense of overstressed, overachieving students, right?</p>
<p>If I would've known that these admissions tests had a huge impact, I would've spent more than the 700 dollars in test prep and 50 dollars in test prep books to prepare.</p>
<p>Wait... you spent **700 dollars **in test prep?????????? On what?</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>As far as racial preferences being nonexistent, I will quote from Bowen and Rudenstine.</p>
<p>"Minority candidates are, of course, by no means the only group of applicants to receive special consideration."</p>
<p>Hmm. Special consideration. I wonder what that means. Could you reconcile this statement with your previous claim that each student has a fair shot?</p>
<p>If racial preferences is "bunk" as you assert, then please tell</p>
<ol>
<li>Dr. Thomas Sowell</li>
<li>Dr. Shelby Steele</li>
<li>Dr. Richard Sander</li>
</ol>
<p>that the papers they have written are fundamentally flawed.</p>
<p>Fab...</p>
<p>I did not state that "racial preferences" are "bunk"...I've stated, ad nauseum, that "preferences" based on race don't exist in admissions...this is your assertion, not mine. stop taking things out of context (you are SO good at that). And again...Steele, Sowell, Sander...what did I suggest to you before? Look at who is funding them...and how much money they are PERSONALLY getting from the work they are doing...you really do not consider what other people say to you...</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>Ah, then I apologize.</p>
<p>Preferences based on race don't exist, but racial preferences do. Remove two words, change one...fine with me.</p>
<p>As far as taking things out of context, I try to avoid doing so. I don't think I'm that good at this, anyway. There are others who do a much better job.</p>
<p>Yes, I'm aware that in the eyes of the liberal academic establishment, the Hoover Institution is monstrously biased and funds non-objective research. Thus, by association, the writings of Dr. Sowell and Dr. Steele are biased and non-objective.</p>
<p>Dr. Richard Sander is not associated with the Hoover Institution. He is a professor of law at UCLA. It just so happens that his son is racially mixed. Hence, he is very concerned about the actual benefits of racial preferences. Based on his research, he has concluded that in the case of law school admissions, affirmative action hurts the "beneficiaries" more than it helps.</p>
<p>All I have to say is this.....When an excessive amount of blacks start earning mega-salaries (in excess of $200/per hour) and living in elite neighborhoods, then affirmative action will need to be droppped, but until then, the poor ghetto black kid needs some DEFENSE against all the posh 'prepped out' white boys...</p>
<p>I find the whole situation rather ironic. One of the many definitions of the word discriminate is "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit" (Merriam-Webster). So, when American colleges pretend they're not discriminating by using race as a factor, well, that's just total BS. I'm asian and I despise this method of college admission and personally advocate a system of identification that does not involve giving out names and ethnicities. And, of course, the ultimate irony is how African Americans were once fighting against "discrimination" and are now being rewarded as a result of it. Reality sux and if our society doesn't eventually make some changes, we're going to be faced with a conflict of interests in the very country that stands for freedom and equality.</p>
<p>darkknight203,</p>
<p>According to Dr. Sander, ending affirmative action benefits Black law school students by correctly matching them at schools where they can succeed.</p>
<p>The results?</p>
<p>More graduates successfully passing the bar on their first try and landing jobs which result in, to use your words, "mega-salaries."</p>
<p>The only way to help that poor ghetto Black kid you describe is to tell him that not only can he meet high standards, but he must meet them if he wants to achieve his dream. He needs real help, not an artificial boost.</p>
<p>Needless to say, an end of affirmative action will make comments like "you're Black, so you're a shoo-in" obsolete.</p>
<p>I can see the argument for and against affirmative action and here's my stance:</p>
<p>I do believe that AA makes it so that minorities with weaker records are allowed into colleges that higher-level students would be accepted into. However, look at the stats. Minorities in college are still that: less than the majority. Schools are not necessarily letting in applicants that they would otherwise not consider just because of their minority. It's just allowing for the students from stereotypically more "disadvantaged" backgrounds to have an opportunity in college. It's America's way of saying, "We oppressed you. Now accept our admission's ticket and get over it." It's an attempt to make a level playing field which has obviously resulted in controversy. Without AA, a lot of communities may not send educated students to college and the "bad" areas would stay "bad" without anyone willing to bring them up. Affirmative Action is neither good nor bad, it's just a faulty solution to a real problem.</p>
<p>its not even enough</p>