Want diversity w/o Affirmative Action? Don't rely on the SAT

Parents Forum
321

<p>curious, (referring to #316)</p>

<p>You are right and I agree. I simply found lfk's mini-biography to be sophomoric and irritating, to be quite honest.</p>

<p>I would guess that the majority of America's 306 million residents would have a similar story to tell (unless their relatives came from England, in which case they would of course speak English), and unless they were descendants of African slaves. The latter's history and struggle is much different than simply a little difficulty with the language and a little prejudice. Just MHO.</p>

322

<p>Bay,</p>

<p>The problem is that there a lot of such stories and while, as a class of people, I would agree that the history of African American's is among the most horrific. Some of the other stories are far more recent and some of the other stories are actually more horrific than those of some African Americans.</p>

323

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose I work for an after-school tutoring center that is located in a predominantly black neighborhood. Just to add numbers, let’s assume it’s about 80% black. The company I work for claims that its services are available free-of-charge to anyone who is willing to come in and improve his grades. That is, I won’t turn anyone away due to his race, gender, religion, national origin, and so forth; I treat all students equally without regard to these factors. Yet, by virtue of its location, is this center not “help[ing] blacks” while “also [being] race-blind”? I think it is, although I anticipate you will disagree.</p>

<p>If you want a guaranteed way to help only blacks, then it’s racial preferences all the way. I admit that I can think of no way that can guarantee exclusive aid blacks without explicitly considering race.</p>

<p>Is that what you want?</p>

<p>In the context of undergraduate admissions, race has not been a sole or primary determinant for quite some time. Even the University of Michigan’s previous undergraduate formula, which gave black and other “under-represented” applicants an automatic twenty points out of the 100 necessary for admission, did not make race a sole or primary determinant. Though the twenty points received for being “under-represented” were substantial, eighty other points were still needed for admission. Thus, it’s no surprise to me that you have “never advocated preferential treatment such that race is the sole or even primary determinant in whether a person gains admission to a school, where blacks are simply preferred over whites because of their race.”</p>

<p>Michigan’s old policy did treat race as “one of many factors in determining admissions.” Are you suggesting that it was not preferential treatment?</p>

<p>I appreciate that you restrict your support for affirmative action to its definition “[under] current law.” According to The People’s Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, affirmative action today is a “the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority.”</p>

<p>Hmm, special rights, are you sure that isn’t preferential treatment? Sounds kind of like one of those weird “synonyms” to me.</p>

<p>I support the original use of the phrase “affirmative action,” which was first used in Executive Order 10925 by President Kennedy. The order mandated contractors “[to] take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (emphasis added). You may view it differently, but I see “without regard” as meaning “don’t consider.”</p>

<p>
[quote]

This is Affirmative Action that helps blacks, women, and other minorities, including class and regional minorities. It is practiced today as described by law. I support it, happily, along with 70% of other Americans.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To claim that the 70% group supports the affirmative action you support is devious. According to Pew, “half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment” (emphasis mine). No matter how you redefine or shy away from it, what you propose is a system of preferential treatment. You call it a “substantial boost” for white males. I call it “preferential treatment.”</p>

<p>
[quote]

You would not, since that 70% expressed a desire to help "blacks, women, and other minorities". Clearly, race has a role here in the programs these Americans claim to favor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that I do not have a desire to help these Americans? That I would also be in the 62% group does not mean that I am not interested in helping these fellow citizens. I am for affirmative action as President Kennedy defined it, thus I would be in that 70% group.</p>

<p>Again, you neglect that “half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment.” This is a very important observation from Pew. It should not be ignored.</p>

<p>I have never suggested that preferential treatment means “accept[ing] [a student] just because he is black.”</p>

<p>I find your response to my statement “However, I would also be in that 62% group because I am against racial preferences” to be in both poor taste and bad faith. Again, you are depicting me as a fraud who has never admitted his disagreement with Dr. King on several issues and who does not truly believe in racial equality and the ideal of colorblindness. I find this very offensive and utterly unfounded.</p>

<p>That you cling on to the 70% figure while ignoring the revelation that “half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment” is revealing. The persons in the 70% group are indeed supportive of “affirmative action programs to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education,” like you. Unlike you, however, “HALF…DISSENT from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment” (emphasis added).</p>

<p>“[A]nyone here with even a thimbleful of brain cells” sees that you’re for preferential treatment; you’re just against the phrase. Call it whatever you want, sir. The day you support an initiative from Mr. Ward Connerly banning preferential treatment is the day I believe you.</p>

324

<p>AdOfficer, I would venture to say that any flagship state university practices AA (provided they haven't banned it like in California.) Also, I doubt most smaller state schools are open enrollment. These practice AA also. Unless they've banned it, I've never seen a university say they don't practice AA.</p>

<p>Most people on CC have great stats and so they wouldn't have an issue getting into a state university in the state they live in, but that doesn't mean the universities don't practice AA.</p>

<p>Also, while rowing and lacrosse are non-URM sports, please stop equating that with a boost to all non-URMs. It's not even a boost to all rich non-URMs. The midwest basically has no rowing teams. My high school didn't have lacrosse, either. Maybe it's not that hard to join a rowing team in the northeast; I don't know.</p>

325

<p>
[quote]
Also, while rowing and lacrosse are non-URM sports, please stop equating that with a boost to all non-URMs. It's not even a boost to all rich non-URMs. The midwest basically has no rowing teams. My high school didn't have lacrosse, either. Maybe it's not that hard to join a rowing team in the northeast; I don't know.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then should we add, skiiing, watepolo, sailing, men and women's ice hockey, squash, swimming, tennis, baseball, softball, volleyball, and ice skating all which are overwhelming non-URM sports at the ivies and Elite LAC.. BTW, since the ives donot give athletic scholarships, you would also be hard pressed to find many black basketball players (the bball team is also overwhelming white).</p>

326

<p>

I seem to have hit a nerve. Is there some reason that we must all acknowlege how tough you have it because of something that happened to your ancestors, yet nobody else is permitted to have a past heritage? Some black posters here have written lengthy posts on their family life. Is it not pc for me to have one? Or, are you just basically hostile? I did not personally attack you (or your race or your ancestors), so I am at a loss to understand your nasty remarks.</p>

327

<p>lkf,</p>

<p>No personal attack taken, and you are entitled to post about your past heritage, although I submit that it is not in the least unique for this country. My impression was that you were using your own history, struggle and success as the standard for judging everyone else, and frankly I just find that to be simplistic. Not intending to be nasty, just honest.</p>

<p>P.S. I did not post anything about my ancestors and do not ask for any acknowledgement about how tough I have it.</p>

328

<p>
[quote]
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose I work for an after-school tutoring center that is located in a predominantly black neighborhood. Just to add numbers, let’s assume it’s about 80% black. The company I work for claims that its services are available free-of-charge to anyone who is willing to come in and improve his grades. That is, I won’t turn anyone away due to his race, gender, religion, national origin, and so forth; I treat all students equally without regard to these factors. Yet, by virtue of its location, is this center not “help[ing] blacks” while “also [being] race-blind”?

[/quote]
Of course not. It is in a black neighborhood. If it could have been in a white neighborhood then it is not Affirmative Action, but merely a center, presumably one of many, much like public libraries and recreation centers. When people think of Affirmative Action, they think of programs designed to help historically disadvantaged groups, like blacks, gain a greater share of the opportunity traditionally enjoyed by advantaged groups, like whites. People aren’t sitting around rubbing their hands and fretting about programs that are aware of race, just as they aren’t trying to keep programs blind to sex. No one is thinking “We must build centers that completely ignore sex, but just hope they somehow help women.” Such a thing it is to intentionally build without seeing what one builds, which is quite ludicrous. What people are having a problem with is programs that actually prefer one race over another (hence the term “racial preference”, don’tcha know?) Even I am against such programs, along with huge numbers, pushing toward half, of other blacks. You insult yourself with this nonsense that Americans are sitting around claiming that discrimination against blacks is still common, that programs are needed to help blacks, but that those programs should totally ignore race.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you want a guaranteed way to help only blacks, then it’s racial preferences all the way. I admit that I can think of no way that can guarantee exclusive aid blacks without explicitly considering race. Is that what you want?

[/quote]
I have been very clear here about what I want and why I want it. I just want race to be considered in any evaluation of college applicants. I want this for two reasons: 1. because race affects everything, even a student’s accomplishments, and 2. I think it can help repair the difficulties handed to blacks from the past. I don’t care about guarantees. I just care about being honest about the truth, to wit, ignoring something that is so “unignorable” and significant as race is rank dishonesty. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Michigan’s old policy did treat race as “one of many factors in determining admissions.” Are you suggesting that it was not preferential treatment?

[/quote]
I am suggesting that acting as if being black in America is so insignificant it should be ignored in admissions is dishonest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I appreciate that you restrict your support for affirmative action to its definition “[under] current law.” According to The People’s Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, affirmative action today is a “the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority.” Hmm, special rights, are you sure that isn’t preferential treatment? Sounds kind of like one of those weird “synonyms” to me.

[/quote]
Coming from a kid who thinks a “Google” search is authoritative on issues of race, this is not terribly impressive. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I support the original use of the phrase “affirmative action,” which was first used in Executive Order 10925 by President Kennedy. The order mandated contractors “[to] take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin” (emphasis added). You may view it differently, but I see “without regard” as meaning “don’t consider.”

[/quote]
I think likewise. In fact I have always thought there should not be Affirmative Action for jobs, but merely in judging potential of a student to acquire and create knowledge, in addition to skills that might apply to a job. Kennedy and I have no problem here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
To claim that the 70% group supports the affirmative action you support is devious. According to Pew, “half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment” (emphasis mine)...

[/quote]
And when blacks themselves are asked about “preferential treatment” their numbers against it skyrocket. There is no way that blacks are thinking you can totally ignore race in anything. And neither are whites thinking it. That 70% understands that race is still important enough that it cannot be ignored. They just don’t want race controlling anything so that one race is generally preferred over another. I think that is right. I agree with it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you suggesting that I do not have a desire to help these Americans? That I would also be in the 62% group does not mean that I am not interested in helping these fellow citizens. I am for affirmative action as President Kennedy defined it, thus I would be in that 70% group.

[/quote]
Kennedy only used the term for a narrow application to government jobs. Most Americans in that 70% likely don’t even know of this executive order and are thinking about Affirmative Action in exactly the same way as every tends to think about it – action that is sensitive to race. That is why as soon as anyone mentions AA, the very next thing out of people’s mouths is “The blacks…” No one is sitting around thinking of Affirmative Action as something that totally ignores race. Come on, now son. You’ve gone from whining about getting stiffed by AA because you can’t control your race, to dreaming of a pollyannaish society where people don’t even mention differences in skin color, to now harping on and on about how you and 70% of Americans want to return to the “original” definition of Affirmative Action originally given in an executive order that no one even knows about. Son, whuswrongwichu?</p>

<p>LOL</p>

329

<p>i believe in standardized testing. GPA's mean nothing.</p>

330

<p>Re Post 328:</p>

<p>Amusing picture of a partially blind building contractor, noticing only 20% of the environment, not the 80%.</p>

<p>Seriously, people should understand that while AA programs use the language that D uses ("historically" or "traditionally" underserved), it's important to know that this is practically and actually and presently. The reason an African American student would go to a tutoring center set up by fabrizio, is that he doesn't have that opportunity at home. The educated a-am family is not necessarily living in an underserved neighborhood, and the "service" is within the home, as well. (Naturally) Even the A-am student being raised by a single Mom, if that Mom has a basically complete education -- and especially if she is working in any kind of an occupation which will tend to increase that literacy & general education (such as city government or other large agency, which these parents often work in: good benefits, stability, promotion opportunity, etc.), the student still has access to moral support and educational assistance at home. But there is large segment (I don't know percentages) of A-am homes headed not only by a single mother, but by a single, undereducated mother. The less educated she is, the less she will be in a position to help her student: both in terms of her skills and sometimes in terms of her time. (Given her low skills & education, she may have to put together more than one job to make ends meet; sometimes she is going to school + working.) The homeschooled minority students I have <em>recently</em> taught often have a single parent at home with a functional literacy of 4th grade, tops. Sorry, but when your son gets to high school, you are not then in a great position to be his tutor when his homework is beyond your highest grade in school.</p>

<p>Nor is this A-am student going to a community center in his neighborhood which is staffed by Korean youth speaking Korean to younger students, and assisting them with homework (younger students who may be going to the same underperforming school that the A-am student attends). Nor is he going to his parents' crowded, hot laundromat, restaurant, dry cleaning business, where he is set down to begin his daily math drills immediately after school, overseen by at least one of those parents, who will time him in those drills & correct the work.</p>

<p>I do know and do see these lifestyle differences played out daily & weekly among my families. It's not just "historical." It's 2007.</p>

331

<p>i did not mean for this to turn into a discussion about the importance or validity of college sports...but since some folks want it to go there, fine...but i'm going to bring it back to a comparison to affirmative action. why? because it is, essentially, giving the same kind of "advantage" - if not moreso - to the students benefitting it. </p>

<p>i do think that students who are able to participate in varsity collegiate athletics should be recognized - having the skill necessary to do so while balancing a challenging academic courseload and doing well in those courses says a lot about these students. these students are making huge time committments to represent their institutions and, whether we like it or not, athletics are important in american society - you only have to look at the salaries paid to professional athletes, the revenues generated by professional and some collegiate athletics, and the way athletes are revered in our society to understand this. i do not, however, condone a student being granted admission (let alone "scholarships") if they are unable to handle the rigors of a given institution. that would simply be using the student and setting them up for failure. </p>

<p>i would suggest everyone interested in this topic read "the game of life: college sports and educational values" by james shulman and bill bowen...it is very intriguing, not to mention informative. excellent research, too. interestingly, what these authors have found is as follows:
if we equate the admissions "bump" to sat points (which the authors, myself, and others aren't terribly keen on because of the limitations of the sat, but it is a quantifiable way to do it), over time things have changed dramatically. doing a longitudinal study, the authors found that over three male cohorts - 1976, 1989, and 1999 - the "advantage" for minority students in the admissions process and highly and most selective schools has dropped significantly. They compared students with comparable sat scores to determine their "admissions advantage" and found that in the 1976 cohort, minority students had a 49% better chance of being admitted over a white student with similar sat scores; that number dropped to 26% a decade later; in the 1999 cohort, is even lower, at 18%. comparably, legacies had a 20% advantage, 23% advantage, and 25% advantage in the three cohorts. athletes, however, have proved to be getting the most "advantages" over time: in 1976, recruited athletes had a 23% admissions advantage over non-athletes; in 1989 it was 30%; in 1999, 48%. </p>

<p>the study goes into great details about predicted and actual college performance of athletes, as well as comparisons amongst sports. but the message is clear - the advantage for recruited athletes is strong. as the majority of these students are white, i do think it is fair to say that white kids are also getting "advantages", too, over and above the social and psychological advantages afforded to them by their skin color. certainly not all white kids are - because not all white kids are recruited athletes - but then again, affirmative action based on race does not work in all cases for non-white applicants, either. couple this with the fact that the vast majority of legacies at highly and most selective schools are white - as are development cases - and i think it is clear that white kids are getting bumps others are not just like under-represented kids are getting a bump that white kids don't get. </p>

<p>collegealum...yes, i would venture that SOME flagships are practicing affirmative action (like uva and chapel hill, as i've mentioned). however, the extent to which the vast majority of them use it isn't extreme or as far-reaching as you make it out to be. on the contrary...except for the big names like uva, chapel hill, michigan (which admits around 50% of its applicants), these schools aren't using affirmative action as much as privates like the ivies or liberal arts colleges, if they are at all. at the flagships in states like kansas, the dakotas, idaho, mizzou, oklahoma and others, admissions is a formula - it is a composite based on sat or act score and high school gpa. there is nothing "holistic" about the processes at these flagships, at least when compared to a school like an ivy or lac. affirmative action does not come into play here...the formula is mandated by the state. nevertheless, most public institutions are not even flagships - most are 4 year "state" schools or 2 year schools which do not have a selective admissions process at all - they only require a high school diploma in some cases. these schools make up the bulk of the 4000+ schools enrolling our students every year. </p>

<p>here's an interesting tidbit about a flagship...the university of north carolina at chapel hill is mandated to have about 80% of its students be from in-state. north carolina has a black population of about 22% (see the 2000 census) while about a third of the students in north carolina's k-12 system are black (see the education trust's report on state achievements in education). yet only 11% of chapel hill's undergraduates are black. so how much affirmative action are we talking about here when the black student population at the flagship is three times less than the black student population of the state?</p>

332

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>That the center is located in a “black neighborhood” does not disqualify its openness to students without regard to their race. The center does not exclude the 20% non-black residents of the area.</p>

<p>In order to convince me that you don’t support what you deem as “racial preference” programs, I request that you affirm support for Mr. Connerly’s civil rights initiatives. If you can honestly write, “I am for his initiatives,” then I’ll believe you. Otherwise, as the Espenshade and Chung study showed, there are serious preferences for “one race over another.”</p>

<p>I appreciate your concern, but I don’t think I’m insulting myself by thinking that “Americans are sitting around claiming that discrimination against blacks is still common, that programs are needed to help blacks, but that those programs should totally ignore race” especially since the Pew survey showed that “half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment.” And, as mentioned above, if you can state that you support the ACRI and its actions, then I’ll believe you that you’re against preferential treatment. If you can’t, then you’re playing semantics.</p>

<p>You say that “ignoring something that is so ‘unignorable’ and significant as race is rank dishonesty.” As you’ve repeatedly mentioned, our nation used to grossly mistreat non-whites, especially Native Americans and blacks, simply because they were non-white. That is, they were discriminated against because of their race. Clearly, race was a significant factor in determining how to mistreat them. I believe that in light of this history, the role of race in our society should be minimized as much as possible. I am not interested in dividing people by race.</p>

<p>You did not answer my question regarding Michigan’s pre-2003 undergraduate admissions system. They did treat race as “one of many factors in determining admissions.” Yet, they also gave twenty automatic points to any member of an “under-represented” group. Are you suggesting that it was not preferential treatment?</p>

<p>Do you disagree with the definition set forth by Gerald Hill and Kathleen Hill? If so, then please inform me. Your non-too-subtle sarcasm did not provide an answer to my question. Is “special rights” the same as “preferential treatment”?</p>

<p>Thank you for the clarification on your viewpoint toward Executive Order 10925. I just go one step further and say what applied there – “without regard” - should also apply for college admissions.</p>

<p>You say that you “don’t want race controlling anything so that one race is generally preferred over another.” Like I wrote in paragraph two, for me to believe you, I’d have to read that you support Mr. Connerly’s civil rights initiatives.</p>

<p>Even though I can’t control my race, I did not get “stiffed” from racial preferences. As I have mentioned several times on this thread, I had a 100% acceptance rate in my applications. I dislike how you insinuate that I am against racial preferences because I was “harmed” by them. I was not harmed, but I am still against the policy. Why? Because I don’t believe in discrimination against, and I don’t believe in discrimination for. We differ only on the last part.</p>

<p>I have never claimed that 70% of the polled Americans in the survey “want to return to the ‘original’ definition of Affirmative Action originally given in an executive order [10925].” This is a straw man you have created. Rather, I have claimed that I want a return to the definition of affirmative action as set forth by President Kennedy.</p>

<p>I kindly request answers to the two questions that you tried to dodge.</p>

333

<p>Ad Officer,</p>

<p>Thanks for the tip on the book, interesting ammunition for the debates on preferences for recruited athletes. I personally have no quibble with colleges valuing participation in sports as long as they ascribe the same value to other equally time and commitment consuming EC's. I will have to read the book but I'm not sure I understand how the metric of comparative probability of admissions works. This sounds like it could be problematic since a large number of legacies and recruited athletes are admitted ED but I'll check it out. I think comparing the SAT's of admitted students from each group would be a less problematic approach. Are you aware of any literature that does that?</p>

334

<p>WOW, just read an online review of the book, referred to by Ad Officer, and it said that the difference between SAT scores for recruited athletes and non-recruited athletes was about 300 points at Ivy league schools. It's a few years old, so im assuming that's out of 1600. I wonder what the average SAT score for a non-URM, non-recruited athlete, non-legacy is at HYPS.</p>

335

<p>curious...
if you are interested in ed, read "the early admissions game" by avery, zeckhauser, and...shoot i don't remember the last guy's name. but they go into a lot of detail about early decision - namely who applies early and why and what "advantage" it has at certain schools. of course, not all schools use ed the same way (some use it to enroll 50% of their class, some use it to enroll top athletes before their peers, some just to let kids know early whether they are in or not and don't care about the other stuff), but the authors do a great job on it...i used chris avery's research extensively during my time in grad school (he is the man!). </p>

<p>your words should resonate for everyone on college confidental though..."I'm not sure I understand how the metric of comparative probability of admissions works." maybe i'm taking this out of context or misunderstanding you, but i think what you are hinting at is the idea that with so many variables, it is simply impossible to accurately predict one's chances of admission at highly and most selective schools. if you are suggesting this, i think you have it spot on...i always tell parents that i don't have any idea on how their child will fare in my school's applicant pool because i have no idea who else will be applying! truly, this process is about the individual on many different levels (which, if we are speaking in variable terms, is what the individual has the most control over). however, we also look at students not only within their own life's context, but also in the context of the greater applicant pool (which, "variably-speaking," the individual has no control over). it is this part - these applicant pool variables (which are, basically, the other kids applying) - that make predicting admission such a crapshoot.</p>

<p>the one thing that makes using the sat problematic, btw, in educational research, is that it does not predict college success well. it is marketed as "the big test" with a multi billion dollar industry feeding off of it, but in reality, it is limited in what it can tell us. it measures analytical abilities, but that's it. we know that students need much more than analytical abilities to do well in college (and life). some students are taught analytical skills well - whether they be in math, writing, or language - but others are not. there have been "twin" studies done on this - wherein two identical twins being raised in the same household by the same parents attend different schools and their educational outcomes are different. sat scores - like other educational outcomes - are only as good as the teaching you've had and the social and psychological barriers you may have faced growing up. we can't control for all of these things, though, in our research. so, what quantifiable tool do we have to "measure" educational achievement? "achievement tests," or so-called achievement tests. but despite their limits, the use of the sat is so wide-spread (in college admissions, that is) that it is the easiest matrix for us to use in our research. researchers will typically, then, try to control for other variables as much as possible to isolate the most critical factors affecting achievement when they can. you're darned if you do and if you don't...</p>

336

<p>btw, curious...read the book...reviews are often times not an accurate depiction of the research or work. in this case, it seems to be misrepresenting the data. </p>

<p>i'm looking at the book right now...the greatest average sat differential in the ivy league was 126 points...for ice hockey players. the "differential" is the difference between the average athlete on that team and the "at large" student population. only 5 sports actually show an average point differential greater than 100 points. these figures, it should be noted, are from their data for male athletes (from the 1989 cohort) only. interestingly, the same is true for d3 liberal arts colleges...and it is in the same 5 sports. </p>

<p>if you look at private d1 universities (the ivies plus other division 1A schools), there is a 307 point divergence in one sport; 2 others have over a 200 point differential. however, when isolated, the ivies do not show that kind of differential.</p>

337

<p>It strikes me that between the SAT I, SAT II, AP Exams, and the grades along with the school profiles (that show you the test scores of this school and the grades of other students at the same school) you have a a lot of fairly objective data to work with. The problem with these boards is that much of that data is not available and the only objective, fairly universally available, piece of data available is the SAT I. Hence, we tend to work with what we have.</p>

338

<p>My error, what the review said was:</p>

<p>"The difference in average SAT scores for athletes and non-athletes admitted to Ivy League schools is often as much as 300 points." </p>

<p>Quite a different thing and consistent with your data.</p>

339

<p>Here is the cite:<a href="http://rmmla.wsu.edu/ereview/57.2/reviews/barringer.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rmmla.wsu.edu/ereview/57.2/reviews/barringer.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

340

<p>He seems to suggest that the differnces for womens sports are much smaller but growing.</p>