<p>There is some truth to this. Blacks tend to have a much lower income and live in poorer neighborhoods than many other ethnic groups. It was also discussed here on CC that a very large amount of ethnic Africans are immigrants or children of immigrants.</p>
<p>What I don’t like is that the author implicates that immigrants and children of immigrants are more privileged than “traditional” African-Americans.</p>
<p>There are some truths to this column, but a lot of it is Ivy League envy, sensationalism, assumptions, and just stupid logic.</p>
<p>“A poster above spoke about poor inner-city kids who lack computers and, therefore, do not know when SATs should be taken, etc. That’s a laughable premise. The idea that a student needs a home computer to know such information made me chuckle. More to the point go to any inner city neighborhood. In fact, go to my neighborhood. My neighbors didn’t have home computers but they did drive a Lexus, had the nicest shoes in town, and found enough money to purchase gold necklaces and rings and have nice phones.”</p>
<p>Your inner city neighborhood is significantly different then the one I’m specifically referring to which I have intimate knowledge of. Yeah they have sneakers and a big screen TV, a sofa and pretty much nothing else in their cinder block apartment. There is no Lexus. Only an unregistered van, that half the people in the project share.</p>
<p>If there is one thing I remember from what I have learned from Stats so far is that statistical data must be used carefully and taken lightly. </p>
<p>However, I agree with the author. Why would college want to get kids they would have to pay for when they could get other kids they don’t have to pay for? It’s quite simple.</p>
<p>Whenever someone writes that it is pretty much impossible for bright, middle-class kids with no hooks to get into the top schools, I have to disagree. I don’t have comprehensive figures, but I have the anecdotal evidence of my own family that says otherwise. </p>
<p>I have two daughters who are both very bright students and moderately talented musicians (not prodigies or pro material but among the top musicians in their high school band). They both got straight-A or near straight-A grades and both had excellent but not perfect SATs. And they both got into and went to Ivy League schools. They didn’t get in everywhere they applied; both had disappointments. Neither got into their EA school, Yale and Stanford, respectively. But in general the system worked for them. It wasn’t a lie or a scam.</p>
<p>We are a middle-class family with no hooks. The girls are not athletes, not minorities, not famous, not politically well-connected, haven’t cured cancer, or won an Olympic gold medal or a Westinghouse/Intel science prize. They both graduated from our large, mediocre local public high school, taking the most rigorous course of study available to them.</p>
<p>So from my point of view, I have to say where is the scam? It worked out for us. We went two for two.</p>
<p>The author of this article distinguished between “African Americans” and black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean for a reason. Although it may be unknown to those outside of this black culture, black immigrants (especially adults) tend to have complete disdain for the African-American hip-hop culture. When we moved to NYC, my parents wouldn’t let me associate with American blacks. Black immigrants tend to embrace a culture similar to the American Asian culture: Hard work, quiet, both parents at home, a strong emphasis on education. This is why so many blacks at Ivy League schools are immigrant children. As my Asian friends have discovered, a group is consider “of color” or a “minority” only if they don’t succeed academically. One a non-white group exhibits success – like Asians and black immigrants from African – they are thrown into the “white” pile, marginalized, and no longer count as reasons to celebrate, as the author of this article so clearly demonstrated.</p>
<p>“Why would college want to get kids they would have to pay for when they could get other kids they don’t have to pay for?”</p>
<p>Because they want to keep themselves attractive to their desired student base; being economically diverse is one form of diversity many schools seek to attain or maintain. There are many bright HS students who don’t want to attend a school of only wealthy students.</p>
<p>Why does the author not consider blacks from the “West Indies” to be African-Americans? Maybe they are not African-United States residents, but they are certainly Americans.</p>
<p>This op-ed piece is skewing facts and using old statistics. How relevant are 2004 figures in 2010? Also, stating that EA at certain school make up 40 to 50 percent of the incoming class is plain wrong. He is comparing apples to oranges. He should compare acceptees to acceptees and not EA acceptees to the matriculating freshman class. In the EA settings of Stanford and Yale, not all acceptees matriculate.<br>
He should review these boards on decision days and see the stats of those accepted where race and financial aid status are among the facts given.</p>
<p>Didn’t read all posts so I hope I’m not repeating something.</p>
<p>I agreed with the article almost completely.</p>
<p>Everyone on here who is saying, “My family put 12 kids through college taking in wash, we were dirt-poor immigrants who lived in a shoe and we all went to Yale” try doing it now. Take your family income then, figure out what you earned in all your jobs and make it add up to the annual tuition minus financial aid at a private college now. Think about if there was the same disparity between your school and schools in wealthier areas then. Did you all belong to travel sports teams? Take private music lessons? Get SAT tutoring? Things were a lot different then.</p>
<p>But it’s not just the cash. I actually do know a kid who got into Harvard on a full ride and was actually pretty poor. But he went to a top school. They lived in a town house for low income people that the state shoved down the town’s throat. His parents both had graduate degrees although they were divorced and there were 4 kids and somehow they ended up poor. His top public school had all the bells and whistles - an excellent music program that he could excel at, AP classes, books, etc.</p>
<p>My friend teaches in an inner-city school and they have no books! My son’s school has 2sets of books - one that stays at home - so that our precious little darlings don’t strain themselves carrying them to school. My friend is teaching “To Kill a Mockingbird” and she showed them the movie because they don’t have any books.</p>
<p>And one of the purposes of affirmative action was to right past wrongs mainly slavery. America doesn’t really owe immigrants a leg up for elite college admissions. They are taking spots which were intended for the descendants of American slaves.</p>
<p>Coreur - are you from Kansas? I think I remember you from a previous post. If so, I hate to tell you but that’s your hook. It doesn’t take away anything from your daughters but the experience of people from the New York area is different. I just heard that our top senior got rejected from his 2 EA choices. He walks on water.</p>
<p>“Take early admissions. Early admissions account for 35 percent of the incoming class at Duke this year, 20 percent at Brown, 50 percent at Yale and 40 percent at Stanford. Under most programs, early admittees are obligated to attend that school should they be granted admission. But early admissions favor the wealthy - in part because they are able to forgo weighing options for financial aid.”</p>
<p>I disagree. I’m the opposite of wealthy and I applied ED to Duke. My financial aid package that came in the mail was perfect for me and didn’t leave me any doubts on whether or not I’ll be able to afford Duke. Unless something drastic happens and my aid changes completely, applying ED to Duke was a great idea and saved me a lot of money and stress on applying to other colleges.</p>
<p>No, you have me confused with Dorothy and Toto. We live in suburban San Diego. No hook there. California has a ton of kids at most high-end schools.</p>
<p>“And one of the purposes of affirmative action was to right past wrongs mainly slavery. America doesn’t really owe immigrants a leg up for elite college admissions. They are taking spots which were intended for the descendants of American slaves.”</p>
<p>This is the dogma that I’m talking about. There is no precedence for Ivy League admission. If someone has inferior stats, or aren’t exactly Ivy material, than why should they be admitted for merely being African American? If that’s the case than shouldn’t Native Americans take even higher precedence? After all, European colonists only decimated their entire culture and pillaged their land. We could discuss this all day, but the fact is, the Ivy League rewards unhooked applicants based on merit.</p>
<p>Look, we went through hundreds of years of “white is better than black” and finally got down the “we’re all equal” concept. Now blacks are getting treated BETTER in admissions. Back then the blacks were almost impossible to get into schools. </p>
<p>Is this the society’s way of saying sorry to the African Americans?</p>
<p>I’m thinking that at many schools they probably do. I’ve long thought that in terms of admission boost, being an American Indian formally enrolled with your tribe (and not merely some bogus NA wannabe with vague claims of an “Indian princess” for a great grandmother), is the best minority you could be. The trouble is there are so few Native Americans who go to college that it’s tough to get meaningful numbers.</p>
<p>Meanie - I’m not saying I agree with the policy. I’m just old enough to remember the original justifications. People also said that blacks (as they were called then) might be more likely to return to their communities - so letting black people into law and medical school might lead to more of these professionals in underserved communities. I really haven’t heard that in a while either.</p>
<p>The article at least helps some of the students rejected at the top 20 (or 50, or whatever number you choose) to find someone to blame – yes, the wealthy and the privileged. It’s ingrained in human nature to do that … something of a sport.</p>
<p>But it is awful journalism – unsubstantiated opinion. Inaccurate. Mean spirited.</p>
<p>Funniest is the claim:</p>
<p>“poets require classes and opportunities for publication”</p>
<p>I think he’s referring to high school students who are renowned (maybe just published) poets. And I’m proud of someone I know who is indeed that. But classes??? for high school students who want to be poets??? And opportunities to publish???</p>
<p>I call bull on this article. No reliable references are cited, and numbers seem like they have been pull out of the author’s rectum. He mentions “A New York Times article in 2004” and uses a lot of other nebulous references and weasel words without so much as a link or a title to search by. This guy cites the correlation between income and SAT scores (bearing strange resemblance to the wikipedia article on the same subject) as a reason to phase out SAT and other standardized testing. NO S***. If you are born in a middle-class family, education will be much more accessible to you than someone born in the slums of Mexico City or Harlem. WEALTH and PERSONAL APTITUDE are correlated. That does NOT mean someone who is rich will get in more readily than someone who is poor, if they are equal in achievement and intellect.</p>
<p>Being poor doesn’t justify performing poorly. Causation should not be cited as justification. If you were born in a bad environment, suck it up. There is absolutely no reason why a college should accept you in lieu of a wealthier person who is more qualified than you are.</p>
<p>Look at the statistics on the composition of the top 20 schools. How many come from families with incomes > $250,000 a year. I think it was something like 60%. Are rich kids really just smarter and better? </p>
<p>The poetry was an unfortunate choice. All of the other things cost money - elite teams, lessons, etc.</p>