Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sony thing not using the BLS is instantly invalid? I ask this because if I am not mistaken you have criticized the BLS too on unemployment.
The BLS is also the source for the link you posted, so there's a real conundrum here. Either the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is lying, or your source is.
The BLS is also the source for the link you posted, so there's a real conundrum here. Either the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality is lying, or your source is.
Did Stanford drill down or just look at the average like my source did.
Did Stanford drill down or just look at the average like my source did.
Regardless....
It offended every free black American! I would feel less than a person if my own government confirmed, I could never make it in life without them keeping me enslaved to the government. So why try and make it.
Today, Blacks in high places, are not required to be the best they can. They are required to be black.
That is what affirmative action has brought us. Look at the President and his racist wife, for proof of this.
Affirmative Action, made it all the way to the Whitehouse requirements.
What is the corresponding SAT scores for each race of those same incoming freshman at Berkeley in 2015?
Note the percentage attending does not reveal how many were accepted, yet chose to go elsewhere.
If we are to look at discrimination based on race using only the SAT as a metric, we need to look at percentage applying that meets the SAT standard vs. the percentage that were accepted for the same group of students, for the same year, at the same school.
The percentage of any race that applies, qualifies, and attends a particular selective school relative to their total numbers in the general population is irrelevant. There are too many disparate variables that may or may not have any bearing on the issue at hand: age, IQ, percentage that pursues a college education, etc.
Also note: The UC system, including Berkeley, does not have AA in 2015.
Yes, it does have AA.
I've already explained that.
It doesn't use obvious quotas, but there are other ways to discriminate against whites in favor of non-whites.
And UC never stopped doing that.
You're smart enough to figure this all out -- based on my post and a little bit of google research -- but choose not to.
Can't help you, I'm afraid.
The numbers speak for themselves. Not just for Berkeley, but nationally.
Asian SAT scores are hardly better than white SAT scores. But Asians have been WAY over-represented relative to their percentage of the population at our elite universities, while whites have been grossly underrepresented.
I don't buy the "Whites are dummies 'stealing' college places from Asian 'geniuses'" complaints by Asians and other people who hate whites.
When Asians go to college, guess whose achievements they are mostly studying?
The achievements of whites -- who are just as smart now as they ever were.
Last edited by dechatelet; 12-17-2015 at 05:12 AM..
The numbers speak for themselves. Not just for Berkeley, but nationally.
Asian SAT scores are hardly better than white SAT scores. But Asians have been WAY over-represented relative to their percentage of the population at our elite universities, while whites have been grossly underrepresented.
Except they are better, and the difference is greater at the high end of scores. If one group of four students scores 1750, 1800, 1800, 1850 and another group scores 1100, 1400, 2300, and 2400, the latter group is going to put more students in Berkeley despite identical average test scores.
Except they are better, and the difference is greater at the high end of scores. If one group of four students scores 1750, 1800, 1800, 1850 and another group scores 1100, 1400, 2300, and 2400, the latter group is going to put more students in Berkeley despite identical average test scores.
And that is one reason why you can not extrapolate percent of one race attending a school (Berkeley) to their expected percentage in the total population (all races). And if a larger percentage of Asian students score 2300 and 2400 relative to the total Asian population, even more Asians will qualify for Berkeley relative to Whites.
For example: You have a population of 100 people comprised of 80 who are White and 20 who are Asian. Of those 80 Whites, only 10 score 2300 and 2400 on the SAT. But of those 20 Asians, 15 score 2300 and 2400 on the SAT. Who is going to have more people qualify based on SAT scores, both as a percentage of the total Asian + White population and also as a percentage of the total Asian population?
I suspect the bimodal nature of the Asian SAT scores is related to demographics. Asians are not one monolithic group with identical immigration histories. Asians as a group are not necessarily "smarter", but rather may have more people skewed towards the higher end, perhaps reflecting a more homogenous group as measured by SES and IQ. This could be due to a selection bias based on their immigration history, while the lower end is more heterogenous based on the immigrant pool as measured by immigration history.
Just as I believe that Whites based upon the example above are not "dumber" per se, but rather their population as a whole is more heterogenous and encompasses a broader range of people with varying abilities.
You know, at the end of the day colleges are supposed let you in based on GPA, SAT score, and maybe some intangibles such as playing the cello or shooting a foul shot.
Would it be so bad if we just stuck to those standards? Justice Sotomayer probably was not Princeton material, but she would have easily been admitted to places like Brandeis, NYU, UVa, etc. Would that have been so bad? Would that have been an injustice?
If someone's best shot is Long Beach State, why pretend they deserve Berkeley? Is attending Long Beach State so bad? It is accredited. People go there, graduate, and get jobs.
What is so unjust about standards and requirements?
I suspect the bimodal nature of the Asian SAT scores is related to demographics. Asians are not one monolithic group with identical immigration histories.
That's what I think too; and also the reason that Hispanics are becoming bimodal. Also, I think Asians and now possibly Hispanics are more likely to push underprepared students to take the admissions tests anyways, creating the lower modes and lowering mean scores. I am not as familiar with different Asian cultures and their approach to education, but several Hispanic cultures strongly push attending any college, resulting in enormous enrollment at community colleges and Hispanic serving institutions (which are also mostly community colleges and Cal State schools). This large population of 2-year college students are going to contribute to building that lower mode.
(You don't have to take the SAT for 2-year schools, but it replaces the placement tests and can be useful for articulated transfer to a 4-year school. So, many 2-year students take it anyway.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
