From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 07:20:21 MDT
Brian Phillips wrote:
>
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >>
> >> Rather, count, for instance, the middle and upper class black kids who
> >> get free rides to colleges based on their race while poor white kids
> >> just as capable are rejected specifically because they are white.
> >>
> Alright. Since the thread doesn't seem to be going away.
> It's a statistical fact that the mean for persons who identify as
> African-American on most (arguably virtually all) standardized
> tests are aproximately one standard deviation below those
> the mean of those who identify as white. Similarly East Asians
> (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) tend to do slightly better than white.
> Everyone who has looked into this knows who is at the top of
> the standardized test heap :) The reasons for this are factually
> obscure. We don't know "why" this is so..but statistically it
> is remarkably sure.
> This "discrepancy" in test scores persists even after adjustment
> for social status and parental income etc. Look at the mean
> of middle class Black kids vs. mean middle class white kids.
> Aproximately one standard deviation. Like clockwork.
> For those who are in the extremely high percentiles on tests like
> the SATs or GREs or the like and are white it is unlikely affirmative
> action will negatively affect their collegiate admissions opportunities.
You erroneously assume that a person who is admitted to a college can
afford to go there. Being admitted and being able to pay for it are two
entirely different things. Another thing that financial aid offices
generally do NOT account for is the impact of the number of children in
a family on income, and thus is weighted toward families with few kids.
> Individuals who are marginal or borderline candidates for admissions
> are the ones who are most affected by affirmative action. The number
> of seats in a given class is limited. The ethnic admissions generally tend
> to bump off marginal (white) candidates.
Except, of course, in the case of geography. If an admissions department
has a policy against having too many students from the same geographic
area, then even highly ranked white candidates will get bumped, because
rural areas, covering more square miles, are generally more populated by
whites. Geographic restrictions abound in college admissions.
In my case, I live 4 miles down the road from Dartmouth College. It is
historical fact that Dartmouth never accepts more than one student from
my high school in any given year, no matter how highly ranked applicants
are, and generally the top 20% of the class always applies to Dartmouth,
so its rather evident that the admissions rate to applicant pool of
applicants from our high school is biased by a factor of more than two
to one versus the nationwide Dartmouth applicant pool. In no instance I
am aware of has any Lebanon High School student recieved financial aid
to attend Dartmouth.
Now, I've detailed how geographic discrmination like this can result in
racial discrimination. I don't generally consider this, myself, to be
'intentional'. However, the sociology and political science people at
Dartmouth are the major proponents claiming that this sort of behavior
IS racism, at least when it is practiced against blacks, yet they
practice it themselves against whites in their own admissions policies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:37 MST