<p>
[quote]
Women outperform men in high school grades, and for much the same reason, in college grades and graduation rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except that it wouldn't have an impact on admissions since colleges are desperately trying to keep admissions gender-balanced. Already, even without throwing out the SATs, a large percentage of qualified women are being denied admission to the elites. (I'm not sure whether there is the same gender crunch in the lower tiers.)</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Tell me do you justify affirmative action on the basis of compensation for slavery and segregation. If so why do we offer it to Hispanics and Blacks whose ancesters arrived here long after those events. Noting the study which indicated that the principal victims of affirmative action are Asians (predominantly immigrants over the last 50 years), it would appear that you are compensating African Americans at the expense of groups who had nothing to do with the injustices they faced during those periods.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew, </p>
<p>I have reread your repost to me #79 three times and I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you try again?</p>
<p>Since my finals are over, I would like to tender a longer response to Drosselmeier’s essay in post #45, where he argued that upper middle class blacks lack educational opportunities that below-poverty level whites and Asians have.</p>
<p>In 1995, black students from families earning more than $70,000 per year scored a total of 850 on average. Using the CPI inflation calculator, available at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm</a>, $70,000 in 1995 dollars is the equivalent of $95,699.74 in 2007 dollars. These families are able to send their children to private schools, private tutoring, and private counseling. They are not poor.</p>
<p>In 1995, Asian students from families earning less than $10,000 per year scored a total of 825 on average. Using the CPI inflation calculator, $10,000 in 1995 dollars is the equivalent of $13,671.39 in 2007 dollars. Assuming a two-person household, that income is below the 2007 poverty level in the United States (<a href="http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml</a>), which is $13,690. These families are not able to send their children to private schools, private tutoring, and private counseling. They have to subsist on less than $263 in 2007 dollars per week. They are extremely poor.</p>
<p>In the same year, white students from families below the poverty-level scored 875 on average. Thus, despite having 600% more income in 2007 dollars, black students scored lower than their white peers.</p>
<p>Poor whites and poor Asians aren’t living in the same communities as upper middle class blacks. These poor students live in dire poverty. They live with uncertainty every day of their lives. They are the ones who have to supplement their family incomes. They are subject to pressures that upper middle class black students are not subject to. Wealthy students don’t have to worry that the next day they might not have shelter. They don’t have to worry that they might not have food tonight. They don’t have to work to supplement their parents’ incomes. They live comfortably.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, you and I both know that Jesus was not black. You yourself even admitted that Jesus was not “sub-Saharan.” He was dark skinned, yes, but he was not black. It is redundant to refer to him as “White Jesus.” It is also redundant to refer to Santa as “White Santa.” The concept of Santa originated in Western Europe, not Africa.</p>
<p>You seem to suggest that there is a dearth of black heroes in America. When I was in second grade, I learned about tall tales. One of the heroes was John Henry. Though it was over a decade ago, I recall all of us thought he was cool because he beat a supposedly superior machine. None of us cared at the time, but for your information, the machine was operated by whites.</p>
<p>The following year, I began to enjoy playing baseball. I read books from the library, which featured the greats of the twentieth century, like Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and Hank Aaron. I even learned about other great players like Cool Papa Bell. Babe Ruth and Roger Maris may have held the home run records, but Bell was cooler. He was the master of “outfield” homeruns.</p>
<p>Ever since the untimely death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he has been enshrined as an American hero. Every year, we celebrate his legacy. After I studied U.S. History two years ago, I began a habit of reading his speeches on his day.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, there is no shortage of black American heroes and icons. If you want to ignore John Henry, Hank Aaron, and Dr. King, that’s your prerogative. Have fun.</p>
<p>I am confident that in today’s politically correct environment, it is impossible for books that describe “mere handfuls of noble whites throttle tens of thousands of dark-skinned human corruptions” to be placed on school shelves. I can only think of The 300, the comic by Frank Miller, as a book that could possibly satisfy your description. I have read Book Seven in The Histories by Herodotus, and it does not describe “dark-skinned human corruptions.”</p>
<p>Given the vocal nature of the NAACP, I contest your notion that our culture produces films that show “mere handfuls of whites throttling apparent millions of dark-skinned humans.” You may be referring to The Birth of a Nation, which was produced ninety years ago, before you and I were born. Today, we credit D.W. Griffith for his bold cinematography and we censure him for his film’s racist undertones. We do not praise them, Drosselmeier; this is not the 1950s.</p>
<p>That you continue referring to “mere handfuls of whites” shows that you are oblivious to actors like Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. The Bad Boys series shows the opposite, which you neglect to mention, namely, “mere handfuls of blacks throttling apparent millions of light-skinned humans.”</p>
<p>You suggest that Asians are able to insulate themselves from the pressures that face blacks. I assure you, I have been told numerous times that I am not a genuine American. In fact, I was not able to reconcile my dual heritage until I was sixteen. Some Asians abandon their parents’ heritage. Others keep it and let it blend with their American heritage. It is a struggle, please do not trivialize it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not cited by me, not cited by many others who have studied this issue & looked at different studies over a number of years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many others. Very interesting.</p>
<p>Why did Professors Alon and Tienda, the authors of THIS paper, choose to cite Espenshade and Chung?</p>
<p>On page 498, as siserune has mentioned, Alon and Tienda stated in a footnote, Our results corroborate those of Espenshade, Chung, and Walling (2004).</p>
<p>Using a Galileo search, I found the 2004 paper from the three professors, Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities. The result from that paper was Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes (emphasis added).</p>
<p>Why did Professors Douglas Massey and Margarita Mooney cite the same paper by the same professors?</p>
<p>On page 102 of their paper, The Effects of Americas Three Affirmative Action Programs on Academic Performance, which was published in the February 2007 volume of Social Problems, they mentioned the study from Espenshade et al. without once stating that it was specious or had been refuted.</p>
<p>Im a bit disappointed that for so long, supporters of affirmative action posted the Kidder study as an adequate response to Espenshade et al. (2004, 2005).</p>
<p>You guys are just going to have to find another paper that actually answers Espenshade et al.s findings. Hint: a paper that uses law school data to refute a paper that uses undergraduate data isnt sufficient.</p>
<p>Relative to your Post 75, siserune, I think you misunderstood me (earlier). I have some concerns about this study, which I've referred to, if only obliquely. I tend not to form an opinion about a study (including the E&C one) until I've learned more about it -- including its design. I did the same for the other one you like to bring up. It's important first to get the facts, and sometimes it's helpful to listen to feedback from other posters first. For example, one of your recent posts on this is interesting, and I was about to comment on that.</p>
<p>I was going to combine your comment about 'disadvantage' in your last post, with mythmom's more precisely stated point #1 in hers, with Drosselmeier's broad (but sometimes oblique) similar references in his long post. (He's made similar admissions on previous threads.) I agree with you that in some sense some of these aspects can be separate issues. For example, just taking one of your points, which proposes separating out some of these issues.</p>
<p>If the entire college system were to go SAT-optional, blacks would still be at a significant disadvantage. Really, the two most helpful ways to 'position' a student or 'advantage' a student for selective college acceptance are:
(1) a family and/or group 'culture of education'
(2) level of parental education, because this extends the education beyond the classroom, saturating the student with possibilities, stimulating the brain of the student, reinforcing directly, indirectly, and in multivariant ways the classroom learning, and nurturing the student's interest in further academic study. Having an in-home role model doesn't hurt, either - the parent who enjoys being 'the perennial student,' the parent who reads widely, regardless of his or her own previous level of education, the parent who shows interest in educational t.v., etc.</p>
<p>The above 2 are more important than the 3rd helpful ingredient, which is,</p>
<p>(3) quality of k-12 education. </p>
<p>Blacks have suffered and still suffer from deficiencies in all the above 3, as a whole. (Many exceptions can be noted, Drosselmeier and other posters on CC being among those, but these trends remain problematic for the U.S. black population as a whole, and more so for urban blacks in large metro regions, as well as rural black families from the south.)</p>
<p>Immigrant Asian families (including from East Asia and South Asia) often do not have #3, but since the vast majority have #1, and a significant number have #1 and #2 combined, these trump #3 in providing an advantage.</p>
<p>It is rare to become qualified enough for the academic standards of a selective U with none of the above 3 elements. This is why when private & public colleges see such a student, they are interested in admitting him/her. It shows exceptional ambition and determination.They are not just interested if that student is an ethnic minority; they are also interested if such a student is Caucasian, and there are some. But a larger population with these 3 missing elements is black. I know this is a sidebar to the study, and to AA. I just want to mention it because there is still misunderstanding about the rationale for this kind of admission vs. the separate and additional rationale for AA admission. The rationale is not pity, nor is it a reward for 'victimhood' if that student also happens to be a minority. The rationale is, 'What a find; let's grab him. He has the elements for success at our U.'</p>
<p>But back to my point, I will agree that there is a limit to how restructuring admissions for or against any particular aspect (including testing, including AA) will significantly boost admit rates for URM's, without points 1 and 2 also changing. I've never denied this. 'Correction' after the fact only goes so far, to change trends for an entire group.</p>
<p>The matter others have brought up about application rates is a separate but important factor when it comes to representation. That may be partly related to #1 above (or, family, geography, employment being more important than #1), but I'm not a minority, so others may have a more intimate perspective on that. I doubt that it can all be blamed on lack of recruitment/outreach, given the significant although not universal presence of the latter.</p>
<p>One of the issues that minorities (esp. blacks) have brought up in the past is the presence on campus of other minorities. (Critical mass.) There is some evidence that for many (maybe not all) blacks, isolation is a negative --not just for graduation rates, which the research has shown -- but also for motivation to apply to a particular college. I will tell you right upfront that this is conscious admissions policy in many private high schools: they do not admit one or two black students; they will work extremely hard to try to get that number closer to 10 at a small school (particularly a very rich school), and at 25-50 at a larger private.</p>
<p>Final remark:
A noncontextualized evaluation of testing, in the admissions process, is no more meaningful than a noncontextualized evaluation of a GPA. Every admissions evaluation should be full-file review, even <em>separate</em> from any consideration for race, for SES, for home support, etc. Comparing data points is a shallow exercise in the larger picture of the demands of a selective university and the programs therein. The 'weighting' should be in respect to the whole file: Are the various elements that this student presents more, most, or least indicative of success <em>here</em>; more, most or least indicative of fit <em>here</em>, etc.</p>
<p>Curioser, you were comparing only two applicants - one white and one black - and saying that admissions (I assume you were referring to AdOfficer when you said "you") would pick the African-American every time. My point is that you have to put it in context. Let's say that a small college accepts only 500 students per year. If you have 1000 white applicants and 10 black applicants, all with identical applications, then, yes, all the blacks would be chosen because they represent a difference from the majority. However, you would still be admitting 490 whites.</p>
<p>epiphany: Thanks for taking the time and trouble to so fully detail what I, also, believe.</p>
<p>Higherlead: Social and cultural well being of a society is just as important as economic well being. The cotton gin brought about huge economic expansion for the south, but also brought about a racist tiered system that crippled the south in other ways. Yes, it is now recovering. </p>
<p>The movie Grand Canyon does an excellent job of demonstating that a society that leaves a group of its members in disadvantaged circumstances, no matter how affluent the top, is disfunctional and unwholesome.</p>
<p>here's the funniest thing about this post about me...</p>
<p>people are being criticized for "playing the victim" when they defend the position that having black skin in this country is a disadvantage, yet when non-black parents, students, and individuals cry afoul re: affirmative action, they are not criticized as "playing the victim". how democratic of us. </p>
<p>guys, regardless of what study you show me - for or against affirmative action - the major thing that many of you and these studies ignore continues to be glaring to me: we are talking about a MINUTE group of students for whom affirmative action is "helping". DIGEST THIS FACT. black students in particular do not apply to schools where affirmative action is used in nearly the same numbers as white and asian american students. in fact, in many schools and communities, they are ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED from doing so while their white and asian american peers are EXPECTED to. i've read application essays about it! how is this "fair" guys???? how do students achieve when the expectation placed on them is below their true abilities? regardless of economic status, white and asian american students have very different expectations placed on them by their families, communities, counselors, peers, and teachers than do black students. you only have to walk through a public school in this country and listen to conversations in classrooms and offices and understand this. </p>
<p>fabrizio...again, reread my post (as i have suggested you do in past threads)...you've again taken my words out of context. i did not say that students who are not adequately prepared by their schools to handle the rigors of elite colleges are admitted to these schools. i said these students are at a disadvantage in the admissions process because they aren't prepared...AND THEY DON'T GET IT. NO ONE IS ADMITTED TO THESE SCHOOLS WHO CAN'T DO THE WORK. i did state that poorer students with ADEQUATE preparation - though not excellent preparation - who exhibit drive and motivation are being given "bumps" in the admissions process at these schools. why? because they haven't had the educational advantages others have had to achieve or experience as much, yet we are confident they could contribute to our communities and grow. and many of these students ARE WHITE. and btw, my opening remarks in post #42 are rhetorical...you should know me better than that by now! </p>
<p>folks keep on coming back to the Espenshade and Chung piece. here's how educational research works: people do research about a phenomenom they are interested in - sometimes they have ulterior motives, sometimes they are just curious, sometimes they know what the "results" are going to tell them before they even run their simulations or research. however, they do the work and then write about it. usually, if it is shocking or controversial, it gets published quickly and the public, the media, and academia freak out about the findings. and more folks write about it and use it as fact and don't refute it. usually a year or two goes by before we get a serious critique of the methodology and work, primarily because others are busy doing their own research and work. regardless, EVERY PIECE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH HAS HOLES IN IT and we should ALL be careful and open-minded consumers of educational research. there are too many variables that those who do educational research cannot control for and this work (e and c's), like all others, has this problem. just keep this in mind when quoting research or trying to make a point - especially if you yourself have not done research on education or have had limited access to it.</p>
<p>cruiser - here's my honest answer to your question, which, as many have pointed out, has its limitations. NO. admissions does not work the way you suggest, nor do those of us making admissions decisions have as limited a view of our applicants - as individuals and as a pool - as you suggest. i have denied plenty of black students with identical quantifiable parts of their applications as white students i have admitted. it is all about what a student has achieved given the opportunities they have had MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.</p>
<p>Using the 1000 applicant example, a black applicant would have a 100% chance of admission regardless of merit, while a white applicant would have less than a 50-50 chance. I prefer admission based on merit. I could even go along with a similar percentage of each race being accepted, but I can't agree with admitted or denying students based on their skin color.</p>
<p>"100% chance of admission regardless of merit,"</p>
<p>LKF725, please don't twist my words. I clearly stated (the impossible) "identical applications." In my purely hypothetical case, everyone was exactly the same in terms of qualifications on paper. No URM gets into a top school who is not qualified. As a professor, I have URMS, Asians, and whites in my classes; the top, middle, and the bottom of the class are occupied by all groups fairly evenly, although, in sheer numbers, there are more white students at the bottom third of the class. Does this mean that whites are less qualified? Not at all. As a group, the students are equally qualified. They would all be at the top of the class in a lesser university -- and I include the URMs in that generalization.</p>
<p>I really don't get why people cannot understand that race can be a disadvantage in American society, and that, because of historical prejudice, some cultural groups have many more hurdles to overcome to reach the same level as other, more "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) groups. While disadvantaged economics is definitely one type of hurdle, it's not the only one. </p>
<p>And to say it one more time, another way: students are not "admitted or denied based on their skin color." They are admitted or denied <em>despite</em> their skin color. A black kid of ANY economic background who gets, say, 2200 on his SATs has had to push through many more obstacles, including the prejudice and expectations of his own community and school in many cases, than a white kid getting perfect scores. This statement does not in any way dismiss the accomplishments of the white kid, but it says a heckuva lot about the character of the black one.</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are talking about a MINUTE group of students for whom affirmative action is "helping".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And? So what?</p>
<p>In the words of Dr. King, An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. No matter how minute this group is, it remains that they are being treated unequally.</p>
<p>I take it your last clause in post 89, if you yourself have not done research on education or have had limited access to it, was directed especially toward me. I dont need a Ph.D. in a social science discipline to know that there are severe problems with using law school data to refute a paper based on undergraduate data. That is no different from comparing an apple to an orange.</p>
<p>I kindly request an explanation as to how Kidders paper is a satisfactory response to Espenshade and Chungs paper.</p>
<p>I also kindly request an explanation as to why a high school diploma used to mean something but now doesnt.</p>
<p>Im embarrassed that I was duped for so long into thinking that Espenshade and Chungs work had been refuted when it had not been.</p>
<p>Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. Has it been adequately refuted? Good God no.</p>
<p>They are admitted or denied <em>despite</em> their skin color.</p>
<p>Oh, really? Despite their skin color </p>
<p> then why is there such staunch opposition from groups like BAMN and the NAACP toward Mr. Ward Connerlys civil rights initiatives?</p>
<p>Based on what you wrote, students are admitted or denied <em>regardless</em> [of] their skin color.</p>
<p>All Mr. Connerly is doing is explicitly making sure that this happens by amending state constitutions as follows:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting (emphasis added).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given that BAMN and NAACP are virulently against Mr. Connerlys initiatives, which abolish the use of race in public university admissions, it appears that students are not admitted or denied <em>despite</em> their skin color.</p>
<p>to canuckguy...
karabel's work is incredible, but it doesn't completely address issues for low income students. the work that mini has mentioned (winston and hill) does not actually say that low income students are gaining access to elite higher education. what it does say is that there are "high achieving" low income students out there (bottom 20% of the american income distribution) in greater numbers than most think. in addition, they do point out that these students are clearly under-represented in our elite colleges (well, at least the ones they used in their study). however, there is a severe limitation to this study - namely that they use sat scores to define "high achieving." they do mention (if i remember correctly) that this is certainly not the best definition of "high achieving" and that the sat, as many of us are aware, has its limitations and biases. but because it is a supposed "constant" measure of achievement, it is used. </p>
<p>lkf725 and everyone else using the word "merit"....
canuckguy posted this quote from jerome karabel: the ideal of a meritocracy...is inherently unattainable,
This makes sense when one considers the educational inequalities that exist in this country - if we choose to acknowledge them - which are a symptomatic of even greater inequalities and problems in this country. however, i'm not sure that everyone would read this quote that way because many people do not acknowledge or want to acknowledge the inequalities that exist in our society. i think a lot of people understand "merit" on very, very personal terms and are able to turn around and say "those who 'merit' a spot somewhere aren't getting it because someone who does not 'merit' the spot got in instead because of affirmative action" without thinking of the larger picture, not to mention that admissions really does not work this way. we look at applicants both as individuals and within the context of the whole applicant pool - to assume that a particular student "merits" a spot somewhere and is entitled to that recognition without considering the collective pool of applicants - which individual students and parents aren't able to do - is setting that student up for disappointment and ignoring the social role of our higher education institutions. BASING A SYSTEM ON MERIT ONLY WORKS WHEN EVERYONE IN THE SYSTEM HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE!!!!!!!!!!! </p>
<p>until every student in this country - regardless of race, gender, sexuality, economic status, etc..., - has exactly the same opportunities to succeed, awarding students based on "merit" can't happen. this is hard to swallow - especially for parents who have tried to give their children every advantage possible to succeed. but, as some have mentioned and i have (ad nausea in other posts), colleges and universities don't exist just for you or your kid...they exist for the betterment of society through expanding knowledge and access to it. we are only as good as the sum of our parts - having a fractured society where the advantaged continue to be advantaged and the disadvantaged become MORE disadvantaged as their lives progress does not make society better. it isn't just about the individual...</p>
<p>fab...
every group, "minute" or not, gets its "bumps," including many white and asian american students...i've made this point already. however, on the whole, there are far more many white students in higher education and continuing to ignore their current and historical advantage in our society while ignoring the impediments others face is irresponsible if we are TRULY interesting in being "fair."</p>
<p>my quote about high school graduation actually "meaning" something in the past refers to the fact that we are now dumbing down curriculums in elementary and high schools to get kids to graduation. a high school diploma used to signal that you, the student, had a set of qualifications following academic training that made you ready to tackle certain jobs, situations, etc..., and gave you a certain set of basic skills. today, a high school diploma does not necessarily mean the same thing - there is too much variation across schools. we know that a high school diploma from one place does not mean the same thing as a high school diploma from some place else. we know that graduation requirements vary from state to state. we know that "competency" in a specific subject at one high school may not be "competency" at another. and grade inflation is rampant in our high schools (and colleges...).</p>
<p>there is a growing problem in this country with high school curriculums - including "college prep" and "advanced placement" curriculums - becoming less and less aligned with college curriculums and expectations. this is why many colleges and universities have discontinued awarding credit of ap scores...a 5 on a test does not necessarily mean you actually have mastered the materials of the college class that ap is supposedly corresponding to. more and more students are entering college without the preparation necessary to succeed - at all levels. we are finding this is particularly pronounced at state institutions, including flagships, and nonselective schools (the VAST majority of schools in this country), where students at a single institution can vary greatly with respect to ability and preparation. the proliferation of "remedial" english and math classes at many schools, for example, is a symptom of this problem. and while we may not be able to see this problem from the top of the prestige ladder, it is more than clear at the bottom of it. </p>
<p>i wasn't directing my "research" comments to you specifically, btw...nor did i specifically critique espenshade and chung or support kidder or anyone else's works in this thread (go back and read again) - i simply mentioned that many are throwing out "evidence" from this study or that study without considering other works as well. basing your arguments on one piece or research is not adequate, whichever side of an argument you find yourself on. and i'm sorry, but i will go on record as saying that unless you (meaning anyone) have done some significant educational research in the past and have advanced training in it, it is especially not a good idea to make an argument using only one study to back yourself up...it is never a good idea to only have one gospel when it comes to research.
btw, i haven't had time to read kidder's work yet...i'll get back to you when i do :).</p>
<p>i would like to use one of your statements though: "That is no different from comparing an apple to an orange." THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE IN ADMISSIONS DO NOT DO...yet ideas about "merit" try to do exactly this...see my post below addressing "merit"...</p>
<p>Momwaitngfornew,</p>
<p>Yes exactly! You would be "prefering" those candidates simply because they were black and for no other reason, exactly my point and what Ad officer claims he does not do.</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>As far as quantifying the admissions advantage, I believe Espenshade and Chung are the only ones to write on the issue.</p>
<p>Dr. Sanders research, which was also cited by Professors Massey and Mooney in their The Effects paper without any caveat, focuses on the negative effects of affirmative action at the law school level.</p>
<p>Ad Officer. </p>
<p>The politics of victimization is all about using ones atatus as a "victim" to claim advantages over others. That process makes a victim of all who don't play the game. I'm sure your arguements quiclkly silence those few folks left in the academic community who have not already caved to politcal correctness. But no matter how you twist it you can't turn a 200 point plus advantage into something that it is not. It is racial preferences. I sometimes feel like I'm trapped inside of Orwell's "1984" during these debates trying to work my way around "newspeak."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I sometimes feel like I'm trapped inside of Orwell's "1984" during these debates trying to work my way around "newspeak."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find this a recurring problem.</p>
<p>No where it is more evident than in the use of racial preferences.</p>
<p>Many affirmative action supporters claim that affirmative action is not racial preference. What's more, they claim that affirmative action has nothing to do with racial preference. But, they are staunchly against initiatives that seek to remove racial preference.</p>
<p>One would think that if the two were completely unrelated, then the removal of racial preferences would have no impact on affirmative action.</p>
<p>Being fat is a huge disadvantage in life. Many fat people are fat because of a genetic predispositon to gain weight. How many points do we add to their SAT's and GPA"s.</p>