High Scoring Low-Income Students Are White and Asian
A 2013 study by Brookings highlights the demographics of low-income, high-achieving students in the U.S., revealing that the majority are White and Asian, yet universities often overlook them due to race-based policies.
Criteria | Details |
---|---|
Family Income | At or below $41,472 |
SAT Percentile | Top 10% |
Self-Reported High School GPA | A- or higher |
Estimated Number of Students | 25,000 – 35,000 |
Race | Percentage |
---|---|
White | 69.4% |
Asian | 15.2% |
Black (non-Hispanic) | 5.7% |
Hispanic | 7.6% |
Native American | 0.7% |
Other | 1.4% |
If universities were not rigging the system to exclude low-income, high-achieving White students, virtually all those positions should go to Whites and Asians based on merit.
Most of these students never go to top colleges, hobbled by income and race quotas, also known as "adversity scores." Universities make little effort to recruit them.
Here’s how Michigan is reverting to the same old racist practices.
The new gimmick is titled "adversity score." This bypasses both ability and merit to favor low-scoring non-Whites. The data is highly subjective and hidden from students and the general public. Criteria that fall along racial lines, such as a high crime rate, single mothers, and location, dominate the decision.
One can bet a poor White student from a rural district will get completely different treatment than a non-White inner-city student operating at a sixth-grade level. If one cannot pass the test, then one should not get the credit.
This "adversity score" nonsense is scored from 0 to 100, where 50 is average, over 50 is disadvantaged, and under 50 is privileged. This is beyond a joke.
This latest iteration of racial gerrymandering is succeeding beyond the liberal racists' wildest dreams:
Previous trends in admissions ... show an increase in economic (meaning non-White) and racial diversity. According to an October report by Public Affairs, 2018 fall enrollment included a greater proportion of economic diversity and underrepresented students with a 14.8 percent increase in underrepresented minorities and a 6 percent increase in freshmen enrollment from those with incomes of $65,000 or less.
Note: The Public Affairs report likely refers to University of Michigan data, given the context of Michigan in this article.
To quote The Harvard Crimson, March 25, 2013:
The new study, which has received widespread attention, suggests that the lack of higher education opportunities for high-achieving, low-income students is more acute than previously believed. "Colleges are missing the mark in looking more exclusively on race and not income and socioeconomic status..."
In 2023, the Supreme Court formally outlawed affirmative action racism. There have been arguments for years to use class, not race, in admissions. Going by class alone would greatly favor poor Whites, not the desired low-achieving non-Asian minorities.
The problem has always been that legacy students get preference. What is left is shifted towards non-Whites and international students. Colleges have pledged to ignore the Supreme Court prohibition against affirmative action racism, and without a doubt, this "adversity score" garbage will get around that prohibition.
Focusing entirely on race pandering, our ruling class divides the public and ignores class differences. Class is the actual source of income disparity. Critical race theory serves the ruling class by steering the conversation away from their power and privilege and onto manufactured identity groups.
From Encyclopedia Britannica on Postmodernism:
Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
This post-modern mindset underpins the "adversity score" and similar policies, prioritizing subjective identity over objective merit, to the detriment of high-achieving, low-income White and Asian students.
- CPS Disparities: Culture & Family, Not Racism | Bristol Blog
- Progressive Identity Politics: Roots and Critiques
- Critiquing Critical Race Theory’s Anti-Reason
- Smartest Countries: PISA & Nobel Prizes | Bristol Blog
- Why Learning Programming and STEM is Difficult: A Cultural and Systemic Failure
- Diversity’s Toll: Educational Failure and Rising Crime at Aurora Central High School
- Lack of Ability is Not Systemic Racism | Bristol Blog
- High Scoring Low-Income Students Are White and Asian | Bristol Blog
- California Educator’s Race-Centric Approach at Oroville High School
- How Intelligence Variations Shape Economic and Social Outcomes | Bristol Blog
- Baltimore Schools: A Case Study in Diversity-Driven Educational and Social Failure | Bristol Blog
- The Role of Western Culture in Pioneering Modern Science and Technology | Bristol Blog
- Educational Failures in Diversity-Driven Systems: From California to Baltimore | Bristol Blog
- How Progressives Ruin Education | Bristol Blog
- Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Success: A Model for Reducing Social Costs
- CPS Disparities: Culture & Family, Not Racism | Bristol Blog
- Michigan Education System Ruined by Diversity Policies - Bristol Blog
- Michigan Muslim-Black Problem in Education - Bristol Blog
- What PISA Scores Reveal About Immigration
- Why Many People Shouldn't Get a 4-Year Degree
Share This Article
References
- Brookings: "The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students" (March 31, 2013)
- The Harvard Crimson: "Study Finds Lack of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students at Selective Colleges" (March 25, 2013)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Supreme Court, 2023)
- Encyclopedia Britannica: Postmodernism