College Acceptance

[El Nino]

That doesn't follow, since colleges don't tell you why they rejected you.

What I mean is, are there any statistics that show a significant drop in college degrees among non-minorities in areas that use affirmative action?

 

[asianaussie]

I was using the term harm loosely. Obviously it is not physical violence. You are still negatively affecting people's lives though. Perhaps a better word would be unfairness. But either way it is equivalent to having white only water fountains (not in magnitude of unfairness, but certainly they are pointed in the same direction).

Using that term loosely isn't really good when a good portion of your argument is based around 'harm being caused by inequality'. I'll just take it as 'unfairness'. If you think the world is fair, think again. It'll never be fair, and while encouraging unfairness is clearly wrong, unfairness in favour of those who are already in a problematic situation is a viable method of helping those who aren't experiencing the best of times.

What I want is for you to lay out a distinction between white only water fountains and racial admissions policies, explaining why the first is wrong, and why those reasons don't apply to racial admissions. It looks to me like you are saying that it is the intent that matters. So then past racism would have been ok if its purpose (however you determine that) was to help out whites, rather than hold down minorities?

White-only water fountains were based on the assumption that blacks were inferior and would contaminate what white people believed was theirs by virtue of their skin colour. Say what you will, this is the mindset that allowed Rosa Parks to be held up as the catalyst of protest, created such an outcry when mere consideration of black rights was put forward, and caused so much rioting and violence in the States during the middle of the 20th century.

You keep asking me if I would approve of white water fountains if they were to help whites. The answer is no, because they completely exclude others from that particular source of water. Ignoring that, you know the intent behind white water fountains, and you understand the intent behind these racial policies: they are not comparable unless you use a twisted mindset.

Racial admission policies are not like that. If the college barred whites from entering certain courses completely, then yes, you would have your point, but they don't. These policies are, if you will, only one line at a public drinking fountain, with a large number of other lines available to join.

I bring up these "outliers" to demonstrate the unfairness and the silliness of judging people by their skin color. Your supposed reason for affirmative action is to eliminate unfairness, but what exactly is unfair to the rich person who happens to have a certain skin color?

Romantic as it is to try and be fair to everybody, that's just not practical. While there are some methods to do so, none of those have much chance at revolutionising the way minorities are viewed or minority quality of life/status in society. The unfairness demonstrated is barely significant in contrast to the possible benefit it can bring, and (playing devil's advocate for a sentence) an already-well-off Aborigine finding a good job and position could even be viewed as a role-model for others, despite him getting in unfairly.

If there are certain "white only" scholarship options, then I wouldn't support those either. Could you give an example of these scholarship options along with the reason that they aren't open to Aborigines? I'm a bit doubtful that there is really a policy of "no Aboriginies" on that many things. And why can't Aboriginies request special exam conditions?

Apologies, I was unclear. I did not mean for anyone to infer there were 'white-only' scholarship options. In that context I was referring purely to the outreach and bond programs, both of which aimed to connect the majority with Aboriginal and remote rural communities in Australia, involving sending students on internships and the like to remote settlements to raise awareness and the like. It's hardly white-only, but the intent isn't to send Aboriginals back (though I'm not actually sure if they're exempt from it, perhaps I gave that example in haste).

The international students from Asia thing sounds different, by the way, because it looks like it refers to people who live in Asia, not just people who are of the Asian "race", which is a very different situation. Basically, if a "non-Asian" person who happens to live in Asia could get accepted for those, then I have no problem with it.

Of course there are non-asian international students. International schools are everywhere, and being raised in that area qualifies you for these benefits, not your alleles or the colour of your skin.

Not really sure what you're going for with the Charity example, but it seems absurdly speculative and disconnected from reality to say that numerous fraud charities will suddenly appear (I mean, why haven't they already?) I think it's reasonable to say that Charity can be bad for the recipient, but it's at least a case by case issue.

Of course it's disconnected from reality, there's no evidence, and I myself stated it was just conjecture. It's just like how there isn't evidence for affirmative action truly causing harm to anybody.

If we want to talk about speculation, here's some:
If we continue to openly support race-based discrimination, then the spectre of racism will never completely disappear. I instead envision a world where people don't even consider other people's race when they meet them (just like you don't categorize people by their eye colors). You won't see a black person, or white person, or a whatever person, you'll just see a person. If we continue to view people through the lens of race then we will never move past it.

I appreciate the channeling of Dr. King, I hold him in the highest esteem. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to try and poke you off that particular pedestal. You can't expect this view to happen without some form of action. It takes extreme action to cause a racist to internally accept minorities. There have been studies on reduction of prejudice that just didn't work in the long run, including desegregated housing and super-ordinate goal achievement. You have to take some form of action - expecting everyone to drop their bias so suddenly is nothing short of naive, with a large number of magnitude-increasing adjectives preceding it.

 

[ballin4life]

The world isn't fair, and I acknowledge this. But two wrongs don't make a right. You want to purposefully introduce additional unfairness. And again, not all minorities are "in a problematic situation", and there are plenty of non-minorities who are in those problematic situations.

Ok, on the white only water fountains. Let's say now that instead of "completely exclud[ing] others from that particular source of water", that the city issues a permit to use it. You have to apply for a permit, and white people get an 80% chance, whereas nonwhite people get a 20% chance. The stated reason for this is that white people need more water, because they are worse athletes. Is it ok now?

Racial admissions policies are barring certain people from entering courses simply because of their race.

You say there is no evidence for affirmative action harming anyone, but by definition, you are not accepting some people (which is a negative outcome for them) simply because of their skin color. If this is not the case, then affirmative action is unnecessary, as all the minority candidates that get in would get in without affirmative action.

Racism will decrease over time if we stop referring to race all the time. That's what I am going for.

Finally, could you perhaps explain why racism is wrong in general, which you presumably believe?

 

[asianaussie]

Racism is wrong because it has no reasoned basis and the apparent social cause is completely ego-centric or driven from frustration/stereotyping. The problem most people highlight is that it leads to intentional mistreatment or suppression of rights for those victimised by racism. In summary: it is demeaning, unnecessary and causes intentional pain.

I still don't see the link between colleges, whose courses are open to all, including minorities but have an alternate and additional pathway for racial minorities to enter, and your white water fountain comparison, which is not initially open to all and prevents blacks from the mainstream chance of getting access to it.

Racial admissions policies do not close off any courses to other people, it merely makes it easier for those of the specified race to enter the course.

I cannot attack a first-principle: arguing that forcing 'harm' onto people, no matter what the outcome, won't come out well, but I will end this particular point by saying that your proposition is impractical. Introduction of new concepts is easy to spread. The term 'googled' is an example. Elimination of a concept will only disappear if there is no reminder of it, and it is dropped completely. Because the concept of race is still very much integral to our society (this debate wouldn't be around without it), it won't be easy to simply 'stop mentioning race'. How will you publicise this notion? How will you stop racists attacking that possibility? I'm going to keep attacking the impracticality element until you show me that it is, in fact, doable on the large scale or concede that overly passive methods aren't going to work.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok, so racism is wrong when it leads to "intentional mistreatment or suppression of rights". These words are a little vague, but I don't really see how you have a right to use a given water fountain. Also, is it not "demeaning" to tell a student "Well, you're a great student and all, but you have less chance of getting into the college you want, because of the color of your skin"?

The water fountain requires a permit to be used (like a college - not just anyone can walk in and start taking a class), and you have to apply to get a permit (like a college). The extra boost white people get when they apply for a permit is their additional pathway (if it isn't, then what do you mean by an additional pathway?). And what do you mean by "prevents blacks from the mainstream chance of getting access to it"? They have a 20% chance to get it, that's not totally preventing them from using it.

Making it easier for one race to enter the courses is the same as making it harder for other races to enter the courses. So it is closing off courses to some people.

It will take time for it to happen, sure, since race is such a big deal in society today. But remember that people (at least in America) used to be racist against the Irish, for example. I've heard a few stories where rich people in the South would hire the Irish to do the most difficult labor because they were less valuable than the slaves. Here's a good picture:

This image shows how people thought of both Irish and Black people as "monkeys", as less than human.

How often do you hear about racism towards the Irish today? It is possible for racism to decrease over time, but constantly mentioning it and considering it a fundamental part of one's identity will impede that progress.

 

[asianaussie]

These additional pathways are for a previously-set number of places, which may or may not be filled, and in the case of the latter, will be laid out for other applicants. Aborigines have an increased chance of getting through, BUT that chance is not mutually exclusive with the majority's chance of getting through. The only chance that the two don't share is the additional pathway.

If I was an Aborigine, and I applied for college, I would apply through the normal system, then tick the box that says 'I'm eligible for w/e the extra pathway is called'.

If I was not Aboriginal, an international student, or w/e, I would just plain apply.

The extra pathway in no way 'harms' those who don't have it. In fact, taking your logic, every majority student who made it in is harming a minority by taking up a place that a minority student could be in.

About the Irish, you hear plenty of racism towards them, just nothing overly derogatory. It's generally got something to do with their accent, potatoes, or lower intelligence, and even if it is just joking, it's still what you would call racist. Our class read a Brian Friel play a couple weeks back, and everyone read in a poor Irish accent and replaced key words with 'potatoes' and 'Guinness'. If a backwater place like Australia, arguably one of the most multiculturally accepting on the planet, has this sort of playful racism going about, I don't see how it wouldn't exist in other countries.

 

[ballin4life]

Your chances of getting in are reduced unless you are a certain race, something that you have no control over. That's what I find to be bad about it.

If majority students were getting in because they are the majority, then that is bad. If they are getting in because they are better applicants then that's fine. So every majority student who makes it in is not necessarily harming a minority student, if we presume that they got in because they really were the better applicant.

What's your opinion of the fact that, in America at least, being Asian reduces your chances of getting in to places? I mean, Asians were horribly discriminated against for many years. But now, Asian students are discriminated against in admissions, in that a brilliant Asian student is less likely to get in somewhere than a less brilliant person of another race.

Going from drawing pictures comparing the Irish to monkeys to just making fun of accents (which happens with everyone's accent but one's own) is a huge step forward. Affirmative action contributes to racism by diminishing the accomplishments of minorities and taking on a worldview that stratifies people by race.

 

[asianaussie]

That's clearly prejudiced, and I would almost go as far as to say it is baseless. I don't know about the educational and social status of Asians in America, but would I be right in saying that, if there were no discriminatory admissions, a greater percentage of Asians out of the Asian population would be getting in as compared to a percentage of the white majority? If so, I can see the reasoning behind that, the same reason co-ed schools offer girls' scholarships with less strict criteria - to ensure that there isn't overrepresentation of any given demographic.

I still don't think views of equality alone will do much to change anything. The Irish have been heavily victimised in the latter half of the 20th century, but I'm not sure whether that links with the reduction of prejudice against them.

 

[ballin4life]

Do co-ed schools really offer more scholarships to girls? That definitely used to be the case, but I'm pretty sure that girls are usually better qualified to get into college, and they are accepted at a much higher rate. I was reading an article that said colleges were actually starting to have a policy of "affirmative action" for men (which I don't agree with, although I might be a bit biased on that one )

I believe this is the one:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

 

[asianaussie]

Not just colleges, actually, high schools as well.

Females are slightly over-represented in many art courses, last I heard (though I don't actually have evidence to back this up >_>).

 

[Savon]

The issue with college acceptance is an interesting one, however as a minority I will explain why I am not totally against it. We have to keep in mind that a disproportionate amount of minority groups in the United States do not go to college.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2330/Poverty-Education.html goes into detail about this.
I am going to be using African-Americans as my example. Historically due to laws that limited educational opportunities African-Americans often found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty which lead to a lack of education which lead to more poverty leading to more noneducational. Imagine this being passed on generation to generation however.

The ripples are still felt to this very day. My point is that from an individual standpoint these scholarship opportunities that are offered to minorities may seem unfair, but not so much from a grand view on a national level.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, but the answer to those racial policies is to eliminate them, not to introduce new racial policies.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

We have to keep in mind that a disproportionate amount of minority groups in the United States do not go to college.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2330/Poverty-Education.html goes into detail about this.

The link focuses on socioeconomic factors as being the cause of poor academic results. The link points out that the rate of poverty is two to three times higher in hispanics/blacks compared to non-hispanic whites. Note that the emphasis in on poverty, a socioeconomic condition, rather than race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity is simply one of many indicators for poverty. According to the theme of the article, race/ethnicity shouldn't be the main criteria to which we categorize individuals.

I am going to be using African-Americans as my example. Historically due to laws that limited educational opportunities African-Americans often found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty which lead to a lack of education which lead to more poverty leading to more noneducational. Imagine this being passed on generation to generation however.

Historically laws have been passed that empower educational opportunities for African Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave rise to The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission as well as legal basis for subsequent court cases regarding equality and nondiscrimination for "minority groups." Whether or not poverty was the result of a lack of education remains to be seen, as an expansive education does not necessitate monetary wealth, nor does affluence necessitate an extensive education. Strong correlation patterns do exist, but should not be replaced as historical fact.

The ripples are still felt to this very day. My point is that from an individual standpoint these scholarship opportunities that are offered to minorities may seem unfair, but not so much from a grand view on a national level.

It is a national issue, especially due to the fact that the Federal Government provides quite a number of provisions: Pell, SMART, ACG, and TEACH. The following article emphasizes the calculated loss of having students drop out of their first year of college after funds have been appropriated. The issue ties back to the admissions process as it elucidates that the issue of college acceptance and subsequent funding aren't necessarily "individual" affairs. Many students receive funding from the state and their "individual" actions affect taxpayers.

"Federal and state governments distributed more than $6 billion of taxpayers' money to universities and colleges toward a four-year education for students who left college after their first year in school, according to an October 2010 report released by the American Institutes for Research."

"When students enroll in a college or university and drop out before the second year, they have invested time and money only to see their hopes and dreams of a college degree dashed," according to the report. "These costs can be heartbreaking for students and their families, but the financial costs to states are enormous."

In New Jersey, $1.4 billion from the state government and $1.5 billion in grants from the federal government went to supporting students who did not return for their sophomore year.

 

[El Nino]

The issue with college acceptance is an interesting one, however as a minority I will explain why I am not totally against it. We have to keep in mind that a disproportionate amount of minority groups in the United States do not go to college.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2330/Poverty-Education.html goes into detail about this.
I am going to be using African-Americans as my example. Historically due to laws that limited educational opportunities African-Americans often found themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty which lead to a lack of education which lead to more poverty leading to more noneducational. Imagine this being passed on generation to generation however.

The ripples are still felt to this very day. My point is that from an individual standpoint these scholarship opportunities that are offered to minorities may seem unfair, but not so much from a grand view on a national level.

I'm a minority too, and I'm sympathetic to what these programs are trying to accomplish, but a part of me feels like I've been conned by the government into believing that affirmative action is the only way to do it.

Here's a question for anyone in this thread to consider: Why do these programs target race rather than poverty?

Yes, but the answer to those racial policies is to eliminate them, not to introduce new racial policies.

This is a question for those who oppose affirmative action: Would any of you support a program that gives opportunities to disadvantaged people of any race, even if the majority of people who qualify just so happen to be minorities or members of one group specifically?

 

[asianaussie]

Spoiler

guess i'm halfway towards switching sides now lol

It targets race because it's far simpler, gives the school a more multicultural following to boast about, and doesn't require extensive background checks and reliance on personal accounts to determine 'poverty'. Additionally, race is often a passable (not accurate, but passable) reflection of socioeconomic status. There will always be a general condition of wealth, etc in a minority - Asian migrants to Australia, for example, tend to have significant financial backing, while Aboriginals have not been treated kindly by the system and belong to a significantly lower socioeconomic bracket on the whole.

There are certain programs that support general disadvantage. Financial, lifestyle-changing or highly stressful/distress-causing issues are inquired about in college applications (at least the ones I've seen), and relevant considerations will be made, but these are not truly widespread due to, among other things, time constraints - the request I made due to a back injury requested a 500+ word account of the injury, two witness signatures, one notable referencial signature and a doctor's certificate. This is a condition that has definite evidence behind it, so proof of poverty or disadvantage would be even harder to give evidence for.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It targets race because it's far simpler, gives the school a more multicultural following to boast about, and doesn't require extensive background checks and reliance on personal accounts to determine 'poverty'.

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) requires that students submit financial information regarding income, household size, number of students from household attending college, and assets in order to determine whether parents will be capable of contributing to their child's education. It does not ask any questions pertaining to the student's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or religion.

The FAFSA cross-checks information with IRS tax forms (1040A and 1040EZ) in order to establish that the information is candid. According to FAFSA, "If you get federal student aid based on incorrect information, you will have to pay it back. You may also have to pay fines and fees. If you purposely give false or misleading information on your application, you may be fined $20,000, sent to prison, or both."

Why do these programs target race rather than poverty?

Certain programs are available that target ascribed characteristics: ethnicity, gender, and race. Other programs target achieved characteristics: academic merit, activities, and accomplishments. Another portion of programs target income distribution: individual income, spouse income, family income, ect. Many private programs that use race as a selection criteria usually state that their policy is diversity. Certain programs attempt to add-depth by explaining that minorities are able to provide greater service to a minority community.

 

[ballin4life]

This is a question for those who oppose affirmative action: Would any of you support a program that gives opportunities to disadvantaged people of any race, even if the majority of people who qualify just so happen to be minorities or members of one group specifically?

It's way way better than stratifying people by race. I don't 100% support a blanket policy of "let's give poorer people a boost" but it is about a million times better than having a racist admissions policy.

Ideally, I'd want the main portion of admissions to be blind to socioeconomic factors, but then students are encouraged to write essays about how they have overcome poverty etc. That way, they are getting a boost, but it's a boost they deserve because overcoming poverty demonstrates strength of character.

 

[asianaussie]

So you return to a 'survival of the fittest' type regime where, from the poor, only those who have perservered and overcome the stigma of poverty can get in?

Sometimes socioeconomic factors can utterly destroy one's hopes of entering a college. Being blind to them is the same as writing off poverty as non-existent, and expecting people to overcome poverty (no mean feat) is unrealistic and won't give many people a chance at a decent education. Not everybody has strength of character - some people just want to do their scientific research without interference, and don't have the mindset to deal with social situations. What about those unable to plead their cases due to dysfunctional disorders in addition to poverty?

Perhaps you're saying that colleges should be shut off from those who can't prove absolute worthiness with an entrance test?

 

[ballin4life]

I'm confused. If you've really overcome so much to apply to college, then why can't you write an essay about it?

 

[1048576]

I think ballin's ideal is for those of us to give a leg up only to the poor people who were actually negatively affected in their academic pursuits by being poor. He's using a heuristic by assuming (reasonably) that poor people who were affected by poverty would write more convincing admissions essays (that they're hard working, smart, motivated, etc...) than poor people who are not affected by poverty and rich people who had it easy.

I agree with that sentiment, but I think it's pretty impractical to actually apply it, for a few reasons (essays are subjective, affirmative action applies to more than college admissions, not all colleges/scholarships require subjective criteria.) I wouldn't mind affirmative action for the poor.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Sorry if I'm being extremely late to this, but here are my two cents.

The whole thing with having a different nationality or ethnicity / minorities (myself being a minority) is a hook for a main reason (and sometimes the only reason) - to make colleges look better. Why do you think that when you apply to college, they ask for your best SAT scores, even though they could derive from different SAT dates? While doing so in turn helps you yourself as an applicant, it also increases the averages of the colleges. If they accept you, your superscores will increase the average scores of their Freshmen pool, which in turn makes the college "smarter". This in turn leads to these colleges being rated or reviewed better, which leads to more students wanting to apply to their school the following year. With more applicants, the collge gets more money from the Senior applications.

That's the deal with minorities. Colleges want to look great, and a method of looking great is to be as diverse as possible. If they accept a fair amount of minorities, the campus will be more diverse, once again leading to higher ratings and reviews. More higher ratings increases the chance of getting more applicants the following year, etc. etc. This isn't necessarily to say that if you're an underaverage White student you're being cut out, but it's that generally the "middle class" example used in the OP if shafted for an underrepresented minority simply because the college wants to be as diverse as possible.

Another example is found in engineering schools. In general, most engineering schools have much more males than females, simply because most women do not go into engineering. If these colleges were to receive a high number of female applicants into their engineering program and subsequently accepted them, they could say, "Look at us, we have a lot more women engineers than all these other schools. Why would you want to apply somewhere else where you're not as well represented?" This essentially gives women a nice hook if they're planning to become engineers. (This also explains the pressure some father figures have on their daughters to become engineers)

There's a lot more stuff to say on the matter (such as drafting for sports, etc.) but I wanted to get the above out there.

It's all about the college itself, not necessarily the hooks.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't have too much of an issue with that, but I would probably disagree that skin color automatically constitutes diversity (upper middle class minorities aren't really much different from upper middle class white people IMO). Colleges don't go for a diversity of hair colors, for example. I can see why you would want diversity in the sense of having international students though.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I don't have too much of an issue with that, but I would probably disagree that skin color automatically constitutes diversity (upper middle class minorities aren't really much different from upper middle class white people IMO). Colleges don't go for a diversity of hair colors, for example. I can see why you would want diversity in the sense of having international students though.

Well yeah, I agree with that too, but I was just responding to 1W@'s OP post.

Colleges simply want the diversity of ethnicities. I cannot imagine a sort of admission system where different hair colors were something which provided any sort of hook.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The whole thing with having a different nationality or ethnicity / minorities (myself being a minority) is a hook for a main reason (and sometimes the only reason) - to make colleges look better.

Not in all cases. There are circumstances where minorities have been accepted at the stake of purely academic merit. According to the 2009 MSAR, Howard Medical School has a matriculating GPA of 3.5 and an MCAT score of 31. These scores are relatively low in comparison to other US schools which usually have a matriculating GPA of a 3.8 and an MCAT score of a 35. Howard Medical School intentionally favors black applicants, often constituting 70-80% of a graduating class. It would be appreciated if you could detail the criteria that is used in order to determine the desired "look" that colleges desire as it is hard to discern.

Why do you think that when you apply to college, they ask for your best SAT scores, even though they could derive from different SAT dates?

Not all schools take your best SAT scores. According to this thread on College Confidential, the following list was compiled from US News, Cornell Daily Sun, Yale Daily News, and other various news sources. Many colleges state that "Score Choice" would encourage students to take the SAT tests more often, therefore discriminating against students of poorer socioeconomic background who cannot afford to take tests multiple times and therefore have a lowered chance of presenting the best face forward.

Stanford, Cornell, Pomona, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, Yale, All UC Schools, Georgetown, Colgate, University of Maryland - College Park, Syracuse University, Rice, Tufts, Wesleyan, Harvey Mudd, Barnard, Scripps, George Washington, Columbia, and Carnegie Mellon

While doing so in turn helps you yourself as an applicant, it also increases the averages of the colleges. If they accept you, your superscores will increase the average scores of their Freshmen pool, which in turn makes the college "smarter".

SAT averages would be increased, if your statement is true, but that does not necessarily lead to the institution being considered "smarter" by the educated populace.

This in turn leads to these colleges being rated or reviewed better, which leads to more students wanting to apply to their school the following year. With more applicants, the collge gets more money from the Senior applications.

(*) The funding from high school applications is negligible compared to total funding that the University receives from alumni, private enterprises i.e. University of Michigan has benefited from automobile companies, and other supporters that often make substantial contributions in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That's the deal with minorities. Colleges want to look great, and a method of looking great is to be as diverse as possible. If they accept a fair amount of minorities, the campus will be more diverse, once again leading to higher ratings and reviews. More higher ratings increases the chance of getting more applicants the following year, etc. etc. This isn't necessarily to say that if you're an underaverage White student you're being cut out, but it's that generally the "middle class" example used in the OP if shafted for an underrepresented minority simply because the college wants to be as diverse as possible.

Basically: Minorities = Diversity --> Better Reviews --> More Applicants --> More Money. Refer back to (*)

Another example is found in engineering schools. In general, most engineering schools have much more males than females, simply because most women do not go into engineering. If these colleges were to receive a high number of female applicants into their engineering program and subsequently accepted them, they could say, "Look at us, we have a lot more women engineers than all these other schools. Why would you want to apply somewhere else where you're not as well represented?" This essentially gives women a nice hook if they're planning to become engineers. (This also explains the pressure some father figures have on their daughters to become engineers)

I doubt inadequate representation is the primary factor that makes women feel adverse towards taking up a major in engineering. I also doubt that adequate representation will overcome the primary factor that makes women feel adverse towards taking up a major in engineering.

There's a lot more stuff to say on the matter (such as drafting for sports, etc.) but I wanted to get the above out there. It's all about the college itself, not necessarily the hooks.

Assuming all the above points are not "hooks" in the, "We accept students for aesthetic purposes so we can get lots of money." The thread, before you posted has been about justifying a moral purpose as to why students of different racial backgrounds are accepted. The explanation you have provided has already assumed to an extent that there is no moral aspect to consider and that colleges are simply interested in the end resulting being income and money. Whether or not affirmative action acceptances actually play a significant role in terms of accruing income for an institution remains to be seen as the majority of funding comes from private backers, grant proposals, and federal research rather than fees for student applications.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Not in all cases. There are circumstances where minorities have been accepted at the stake of purely academic merit. According to the 2009 MSAR, Howard Medical School has a matriculating GPA of 3.5 and an MCAT score of 31. These scores are relatively low in comparison to other US schools which usually have a matriculating GPA of a 3.8 and an MCAT score of a 35. Howard Medical School intentionally favors black applicants, often constituting 70-80% of a graduating class. It would be appreciated if you could detail the criteria that is used in order to determine the desired "look" that colleges desire as it is hard to discern.

Please understand I'm merely playing on the grounds of what I have seen and what I have learned. Being a high school Senior, most of what I learn is from college preparation / admissions guidance people, and etc. online. I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, I'm merely answering 1W@'s supposed question on college acceptance.

Not all schools take your best SAT scores. According to this thread on College Confidential, the following list was compiled from US News, Cornell Daily Sun, Yale Daily News, and other various news sources. Many colleges state that "Score Choice" would encourage students to take the SAT tests more often, therefore discriminating against students of poorer socioeconomic background who cannot afford to take tests multiple times and therefore have a lowered chance of presenting the best face forward.

I understand that. At the same time, most of these schools are extremely tough schools when it comes to admissions, so they naturally will expect their top prospective students with amazing SAT scores anyway, so someone who's taken the SAT three times with a super-composite of say 1350 would be "on the same field" if not lower than someone who's taken the SAT once and scored a 1350. Aside from that, these are only (most of) the top schools in the nation, and not everyone is aiming for the Ivies so they will appreciate having to submit a superscore, and the colleges will appreciate it, too.

Also, just because you're able to take the SAT multiple times does not mean you will be guaranteed to score higher with each (or any) successive attempt. I know that from personal experience. I don't think taking the SAT multiple times gives you an advantage over lower class students (myself being lower class). It justs shows you try, while at the very least the lower class students "can't".

SAT averages would be increased, if your statement is true, but that does not necessarily lead to the institution being considered "smarter" by the educated populace.

(*) The funding from high school applications is negligible compared to total funding that the University receives from alumni, private enterprises i.e. University of Michigan has benefited from automobile companies, and other supporters that often make substantial contributions in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars.[/quote]

I'm not saying that having a set of high superscores immediately constitutes the university "smarter" or richer, but it is definitely a factor in how colleges are reviewed, etc. Imagine if a school like Boston University suddenly jumped with their middle 50% SAT to around 2200-2300.

Assuming all the above points are not "hooks" in the, "We accept students for aesthetic purposes so we can get lots of money." The thread, before you posted has been about justifying a moral purpose as to why students of different racial backgrounds are accepted. The explanation you have provided has already assumed to an extent that there is no moral aspect to consider and that colleges are simply interested in the end resulting being income and money. Whether or not affirmative action acceptances actually play a significant role in terms of accruing income for an institution remains to be seen as the majority of funding comes from private backers, grant proposals, and federal research rather than fees for student applications.

They all tie in together, simply as you have already stated. I was merely answering the question on that portion, not on the acceptance and funding of colleges / universities as a whole.

Just trying to answer what I can before (oh irony) the SAT Subject Tests.

 

[ballin4life]

As an SAT tutor, I think I'm qualified to say that taking the SAT multiple times is a huge benefit. Most students don't prepare enough and need at least one "practice run" to get used to the test format.

Being able to afford SAT classes and private tutoring is extremely helpful as well.

These sorts of advantages are why I'm not as against a policy that is favorable to lower income students. However, there is a fine line there, as not all rich students got tons of SAT prep. Even poorer students can improve their SAT scores by buying one of the many books on the market and actually putting in the time studying and practicing.

I also think that you should be able to refuse to tell colleges your income/wealth for privacy reasons.

 

[th3kuzinator]

As an SAT tutor, I think I'm qualified to say that taking the SAT multiple times is a huge benefit. Most students don't prepare enough and need at least one "practice run" to get used to the test format.

Being able to afford SAT classes and private tutoring is extremely helpful as well.

These sorts of advantages are why I'm not as against a policy that is favorable to lower income students. However, there is a fine line there, as not all rich students got tons of SAT prep. Even poorer students can improve their SAT scores by buying one of the many books on the market and actually putting in the time studying and practicing.

At the same time though, a rich family with a child who can afford daily SAT lessons will probably score higher than a poorer family who cannot afford them if both kids had the same amount of determination.

A student who only has a SAT book will need to devote more time and effort to understand the concepts than a student who has had a private tutor along the way. There is a famous tutor in NYC who, iirc, starts tutoring the student at around 4th grade and has around a 98% success record for 2400s.

Stuff like that is 1. absolutely ridiculous and 2. certainly advantageous

I also think that you should be able to refuse to tell colleges your income/wealth for privacy reasons.

I just finished applying for college this week (early decision to Colgate :D) and on no part of the common app did they ask me to list my families' income and wealth.

If they did, I would suspect they would only need it from those applying for financial aid so that they could determine the correct monetary value allotted to such a family.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

As an SAT tutor, I think I'm qualified to say that taking the SAT multiple times is a huge benefit. Most students don't prepare enough and need at least one "practice run" to get used to the test format.

Being able to afford SAT classes and private tutoring is extremely helpful as well.

These sorts of advantages are why I'm not as against a policy that is favorable to lower income students. However, there is a fine line there, as not all rich students got tons of SAT prep. Even poorer students can improve their SAT scores by buying one of the many books on the market and actually putting in the time studying and practicing.

I agree. However, again, sometimes there are cases where mass studying doesn't work. As I've already stated, I come from a low income family, and have had no opportunity to have tutoring of any sorts. However, I had Princeton Review, Barron's, and Collegeboard's books, and compared to the March SAT, which I studied very little for I scored roughly the same. Sometimes it is just hard for people who aren't good test-takers. This is definitely a possibility.

And I took so many practice tests my brains probably fell out. :3

I also think that you should be able to refuse to tell colleges your income/wealth for privacy reasons.

Most applications don't require you list your family income. The only time I can think of where family income is needed is when you're applying for financial aid, if any. This (privacy on family income) would be more of a benefit to middle-high class families since any financial aid would no longer be based on how much they already own, or something along those lines.

But don't do that, since I'm low income and I need all the financial aid I can get.

 

[ballin4life]

At the same time though, a rich family with a child who can afford daily SAT lessons will probably score higher than a poorer family who cannot afford them if both kids had the same amount of determination.

A student who only has a SAT book will need to devote more time and effort to understand the concepts than a student who has had a private tutor along the way. There is a famous tutor in NYC who, iirc, starts tutoring the student at around 4th grade and has around a 98% success record for 2400s.

Stuff like that is 1. absolutely ridiculous and 2. certainly advantageous

I just finished applying for college this week (early decision to Colgate :D) and on no part of the common app did they ask me to list my families' income and wealth.

If they did, I would suspect they would only need it from those applying for financial aid so that they could determine the correct monetary value allotted to such a family.

Yes, I said that being able to have private tutoring is an advantage. It also makes you a better student (I'm sure those kids that have been tutored since 4th grade deserve what they get on the SAT). It's too bad that poorer students don't have these opportunities, but I don't see what you can do about it. Remember also that most rich students still do not have SAT tutors. And what about the middle class? Some families prioritize academics and hire tutors, even if they can't afford it as easily as the rich can.

Overall, there are too many variables to have a drastic policy. As I said, I might be in favor of a small amount of admission support for lower income students.

Also, I've always thought high schools should teach an SAT class where students just do SAT practice all year. Wouldn't that boost the school's prestige when suddenly their average SAT score jumps up?

I agree. However, again, sometimes there are cases where mass studying doesn't work. As I've already stated, I come from a low income family, and have had no opportunity to have tutoring of any sorts. However, I had Princeton Review, Barron's, and Collegeboard's books, and compared to the March SAT, which I studied very little for I scored roughly the same. Sometimes it is just hard for people who aren't good test-takers. This is definitely a possibility.

And I took so many practice tests my brains probably fell out. :3



Most applications don't require you list your family income. The only time I can think of where family income is needed is when you're applying for financial aid, if any. This (privacy on family income) would be more of a benefit to middle-high class families since any financial aid would no longer be based on how much they already own, or something along those lines.

But don't do that, since I'm low income and I need all the financial aid I can get.

You took tons of practice tests and didn't see any improvement over the course of practice tests?

As I said, having a private tutor is a huge advantage. But I know that I scored quite well on the SAT by studying from a book (well enough to become an SAT tutor, at least). The biggest problem with that approach for most students is that they need the extra motivation of having a tutor come over. Otherwise it is too easy for them to get distracted from their SAT studying. Overall, having a tutor is extremely helpful, but it is certainly possible for most students to improve their scores through self study.

I'd also like to point out that being a good test-taker is pretty highly correlated with success in college, which is what the SAT claims to measure. In my high school, homework was usually 50+% of our grades, whereas in college it is usually 80% tests and 20% homework (which I don't always agree with). So, in general, high school rewards being a diligent worker whereas college rewards being a good test-taker.

To both: I'm not saying that colleges currently require info on your income. I'm saying that if you were to replace affirmative action with an income based scheme then I wouldn't want it to be mandatory to reveal your income level.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

You took tons of practice tests and didn't see any improvement over the course of practice tests?

I scored 1850 on the March SAT. Then for the June and October SAT I took a lot of practice tests, essentially every test possible, scoring ranges of 1880 to 1980, even scoring a 2060 once. However, my June and October scores did not change much. My October scores mirrored my March scores exactly except for +20 in Critical Reading.

Then again, my high school is very, very low tier where the average SAT is around 1350-1450. But I studied a lot and that didn't change much.

I know at least a group of 15-20 people who also suffered from the same effect. If a couple of those kinds of people like us exist then there are almost definitely more like us out there.

I'd also like to point out that being a good test-taker is pretty highly correlated with success in college, which is what the SAT claims to measure. In my high school, homework was usually 50+% of our grades, whereas in college it is usually 80% tests and 20% homework (which I don't always agree with). So, in general, high school rewards being a diligent worker whereas college rewards being a good test-taker.

But does that account for a difference between tests and standardized tests? In my example, I scored decently but not amazingly on the SAT, even though I studied a lot. However, I'm a top 10% student, taking 4 AP courses, with a high GPA, especially in the sciences. I don't know if testing well on exams such as the SAT and ACT will accurately measure out student capability as well as colleges think they do. There was a study at a college in the northeast U.S. (Bates, I think) where they tracked two groups of students. Group A had students who scored upwards of 150+ points higher than the students in Group B, yet the difference in the college GPA of these students was something minisicule. I believe colleges should think about that.
The unfortunate thing is that no matter how hard anybody tries colleges will never remove the SAT as a segment of a student's application simply because the SAT is making too much money. Oh well.

To both: I'm not saying that colleges currently require info on your income. I'm saying that if you were to replace affirmative action with an income based scheme then I wouldn't want it to be mandatory to reveal your income level.

Oh okay. I just misunderstodd your statement. Sorry about that.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Also, I've always thought high schools should teach an SAT class where students just do SAT practice all year. Wouldn't that boost the school's prestige when suddenly their average SAT score jumps up?

Our school (independent) has a class specifically for SAT prep all of junior year. It did not help that our teacher was on maternity leave for around 1/2 the year :|

Regardless, that class actually did help improve my score quite a bit and, with the help from the tutors I was able to afford, I got a pretty high score.

Maybe I am only considering my local area, but for the most part, SAT performance usually corresponds to family wealth.

Also, as a side note, would anyone like to debate and juxtapose the structure of education in the US vs that of Europe or the East? The order and age level at which student are taught different facilities has interested me for some time now.

 

[ballin4life]

I scored 1850 on the March SAT. Then for the June and October SAT I took a lot of practice tests, essentially every test possible, scoring ranges of 1880 to 1980, even scoring a 2060 once. However, my June and October scores did not change much. My October scores mirrored my March scores exactly except for +20 in Critical Reading.

Then again, my high school is very, very low tier where the average SAT is around 1350-1450. But I studied a lot and that didn't change much.

I know at least a group of 15-20 people who also suffered from the same effect. If a couple of those kinds of people like us exist then there are almost definitely more like us out there.



But does that account for a difference between tests and standardized tests? In my example, I scored decently but not amazingly on the SAT, even though I studied a lot. However, I'm a top 10% student, taking 4 AP courses, with a high GPA, especially in the sciences. I don't know if testing well on exams such as the SAT and ACT will accurately measure out student capability as well as colleges think they do. There was a study at a college in the northeast U.S. (Bates, I think) where they tracked two groups of students. Group A had students who scored upwards of 150+ points higher than the students in Group B, yet the difference in the college GPA of these students was something minisicule. I believe colleges should think about that.
The unfortunate thing is that no matter how hard anybody tries colleges will never remove the SAT as a segment of a student's application simply because the SAT is making too much money. Oh well.



Oh okay. I just misunderstodd your statement. Sorry about that.

In your opinion, what is the difference between tests and standardized tests?

I don't know how well the SAT actually predicts college success, but I'd want to closely examine a study that claims that higher scores don't result in higher college GPAs. For example, if you looked at 2300 scorers vs 2150 scorers, I think it's possible that the 2300 scorers might have lower GPAs because they will be at the most difficult schools.

There is actually a movement to remove SAT scores from consideration in college applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_colleges_in_the_United_States#SAT_optional_movement

I still think it's safe to say that studying will improve SAT scores for most people. The Writing section is about 70% based on knowing grammar rules, at least 70% of the Math questions is pretty simple if you study all the right math concepts, and about 25% of the Reading is related to vocabulary. These are massive oversimplifications, but certainly studying can improve each of these areas.

 

[ballin4life]

Our school (independent) has a class specifically for SAT prep all of junior year. It did not help that our teacher was on maternity leave for around 1/2 the year :|

Regardless, that class actually did help improve my score quite a bit and, with the help from the tutors I was able to afford, I got a pretty high score.

Maybe I am only considering my local area, but for the most part, SAT performance usually corresponds to family wealth.

Also, as a side note, would anyone like to debate and juxtapose the structure of education in the US vs that of Europe or the East? The order and age level at which student are taught different facilities has interested me for some time now.

That seems like it would be extremely helpful. Most private SAT classes are about 30 hours total. Having 150 hours in school seems like it would be huge.

SAT performance probably does correlate with family wealth, but I'm sure GPA correlates with family wealth as well (and that's not all due to tutors).

I'm curious what you mean by "different facilities".

 

[Terywj [태리]]

In your opinion, what is the difference between tests and standardized tests?

I don't know how well the SAT actually predicts college success, but I'd want to closely examine a study that claims that higher scores don't result in higher college GPAs. For example, if you looked at 2300 scorers vs 2150 scorers, I think it's possible that the 2300 scorers might have lower GPAs because they will be at the most difficult schools.

There is actually a movement to remove SAT scores from consideration in college applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_colleges_in_the_United_States#SAT_optional_movement

I still think it's safe to say that studying will improve SAT scores for most people. The Writing section is about 70% based on knowing grammar rules, at least 70% of the Math questions is pretty simple if you study all the right math concepts, and about 25% of the Reading is related to vocabulary. These are massive oversimplifications, but certainly studying can improve each of these areas.

I cannot say for sure what the difference between "school testing" and standardized testing is, but the evidence in many people (myself included) who look at their AP Calculus exam of 90, then look at their SAT Math of 640 and wonder why one was so much lower than the other when the SAT Math should be the easier "test" to accomplish a higher score in. I think it might be in the sense that "school testing" is material that has been presented to you previously by a teacher? Whereas the SAT material is given but not gone over, only students who take the time and invest in intensive studying, etc.

I believe so. The study at Bates was all Bates students, which makes sense since comparing different groups of SAT scoring students at different colleges would be setting different levels.

I had heard about the movement to lower the significance of SAT in applications (haven't most of the UC schools gotten rid of them?), but my personal opinion is that ETS, Collegeboard, and all those guys will probably not want to see it removed simply because it's making so much money. I quote Bill Mayher from The College Admissions Mystique: "I don't believe that standardized testing as provided by Collegeboard or the American College Testing Program - no matter how potent the arguments against it - will soon disappear as a major factor in college admissions. It's simply too big of a business. With annual revenues in excess of $200,000,000, cheif-executive salaries in the $350,000 range...the Collegeboard / ETS complex should prove to be about as durable an institution as the military-industrial complex."

 

[th3kuzinator]

That seems like it would be extremely helpful. Most private SAT classes are about 30 hours total. Having 150 hours in school seems like it would be huge.

SAT performance probably does correlate with family wealth, but I'm sure GPA correlates with family wealth as well (and that's not all due to tutors).

I'm curious what you mean by "different facilities".

Upon reflection, facilities was probably the wrong word to use.

I simply meant at what age children are taught different areas of academics.

ie grades k-4 in the US are more Reading Writing and Arithmetic based while school abroad usually take the younger years to develop a second or even third language which I highly support. There is this one student in my school who knows 7 different languages and he is only 17 (this blows my mind).

I am semi-fluent in Spanish which is about it. I wish I had learned more languages at a younger age.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Upon reflection, facilities was probably the wrong word to use.

I simply meant at what age children are taught different areas of academics.

ie grades k-4 in the US are more Reading Writing and Arithmetic based while school abroad usually take the younger years to develop a second or even third language which I highly support. There is this one student in my school who knows 7 different languages and he is only 17 (this blows my mind).

I am semi-fluent in Spanish which is about it. I wish I had learned more languages at a younger age.

Yes! I'd love to do this. Being Chinese, but never having experienced the East Asian school system, I think we could have a topic on perhaps foreign language in America and how it should be enhanced?

I know 6 languages, but two of which are conversational. I should stop getting off topic now and wait for Ballin4life to respond.

 

[ballin4life]

The UCs (California) definitely look at SAT scores.

Did you look at any of the questions you were getting wrong? I mean, the AP Calculus test is different from the SAT Math, but the most common source of mistakes on the SAT math is Algebra errors, which would also hurt you a ton on AP Calculus. By 90 you mean 90%, right? IIRC, to get a 5 on AP Calculus you only need to get about 70% correct. You are right that, on the surface, it doesn't all add up there.

 

[th3kuzinator]

The UCs (California) definitely look at SAT scores.

Did you look at any of the questions you were getting wrong? I mean, the AP Calculus test is different from the SAT Math, but the most common source of mistakes on the SAT math is Algebra errors, which would also hurt you a ton on AP Calculus. By 90 you mean 90%, right? IIRC, to get a 5 on AP Calculus you only need to get about 70% correct. You are right that, on the surface, it doesn't all add up there.

I took both tests last year. The types of algebra mistakes to be made on the SAT are nothing like the types of algebra used on the AP calc test. AP calc actually tests your knowledge of the calculus concepts and expects you to be able to use algebra along the way. The SAT math it just a tricky puzzle, where the questions are worded in such a way that it is easy to misinterpret something and mess up your reasoning for the entire question.

SAT math score: 700
AP Calc score: 5

I am a good math student. I dont like SAT math and what the SATs say they evaluate you for. I am planning on doing Calc 3 my freshman year of college yet I have trouble with SAT math.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I don't know how well the SAT actually predicts college success, but I'd want to closely examine a study that claims that higher scores don't result in higher college GPAs. For example, if you looked at 2300 scorers vs 2150 scorers, I think it's possible that the 2300 scorers might have lower GPAs because they will be at the most difficult schools.

Here's another quote from Mayher from the same book listed previously: "Bowdoin and Bates finds its nonsubmitters functioning just as well as its submitters, and follow-up research at Bates reveals that nonsubmitters, even though have SAT scores over 160 points lower than submitters earn grades that are only five one-hundreths of a point lower - 2.84 vs. 2.89. So much for the necessity of SAT as a predictor of college performance."

That's a heavy blow, if you ask me. But again, the same factor from before is present. ETS / Collegeboard are making too much money.

 

[ballin4life]

I took both tests last year. The types of algebra mistakes to be made on the SAT are nothing like the types of algebra used on the AP calc test. AP calc actually tests your knowledge of the calculus concepts and expects you to be able to use algebra along the way. The SAT math it just a tricky puzzle, where the questions are worded in such a way that it is easy to misinterpret something and mess up your reasoning for the entire question.

SAT math score: 700
AP Calc score: 5

I am a good math student. I dont like SAT math and what the SATs say they evaluate you for. I am planning on doing Calc 3 my freshman year of college yet I have trouble with SAT math.

If you're making algebra mistakes on the SAT math, that will definitely carry over into AP calculus. I agree that the SAT has more "puzzle" type questions than AP calculus, but overall at least 80% of the questions on the SAT are straightforward (there will be 1-3 tricky ones at the end of each section).

Also just wondering, what is in Calc 3? Sorry, I'm a math major so I'm curious

Here's another quote from Mayher from the same book listed previously: "Bowdoin and Bates finds its nonsubmitters functioning just as well as its submitters, and follow-up research at Bates reveals that nonsubmitters, even though have SAT scores over 160 points lower than submitters earn grades that are only five one-hundreths of a point lower - 2.84 vs. 2.89. So much for the necessity of SAT as a predictor of college performance."

That's a heavy blow, if you ask me. But again, the same factor from before is present. ETS / Collegeboard are making too much money.

Does it list the actual average SAT scores of the two groups? For example, I'd expect a bigger difference in GPA between 1650 and 1800 than 1350 and 1500.

Honestly though, I agree that the emphasis placed on the SAT is silly. The fact that a four hour test counts for almost as much as the hundreds of hours that go into your GPA is ridiculous (not to mention that it counts for way more than the hundreds of hours spent on extracurriculars).