Will there be fewer applicants to Harvard, Penn, MIT next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are overestimating how much Ivies need Jewish students (they do not) and underestimating how many Gen Z and Gen Alpha support Palestine.

Including GenZ and GenAlpha Jewish students--it's a big generational divide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

[Anonymous]

The Penn president will likely resign today. All the big donors have said they will open their checkbooks when this occurs (assuming the next one passes their muster…which seems impossible he/she won’t).

If this happens…there will be 180 degree turnaround in the tone of press coverage for Penn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately Ackman went over the line. What could have been a conversation won't be had now. At least not by serious people. Idiot

If you mean dismissing Gay as a "diversity hire" then I agree. If you're trying to get back at Penny Pritzker then just say it out loud.

Are you suggesting a billionaire hedge fund manager and the secretary of commerce have have history and maybe scores to settle? No! No way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

But wasn't it that the question first conflated "intifada" with "genocide" which intifada doesn't mean--it means uprising. Just like claiming that the phrase the "river to the sea" doesn't mean that the students are calling for genocide from the river to the sea. That's why these were "gotcha" question because the presidents are responding to a moments-earlier conflation, while the immediate question is about a hypothetical situation where the students actually called for genocide. I think the presidents didn't perform great because they should have known better about the aims of who they were dealing with and that you have to expect that want matters is the 10 second clip, not the 30 second clip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly believe the Ivy schools were already in decline other than legacy kids who wouldn’t have stood a prayer otherwise. But I do think there are more smart kids today choosing NOT to go to an Ivy and in todays climate will continue to choose a diff path.

Due to costs not politics.

Maybe, but the net result is the same. Also, it’s not so much politics but the fact that the Ivies have become filled with oppressive and dull people, not smart people. I don’t think it’s specific politics so much as a stultifying environment. Smart kids want intellectual freedom and challenges, not dull authoritarianism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

But wasn't it that the question first conflated "intifada" with "genocide" which intifada doesn't mean--it means uprising. Just like claiming that the phrase the "river to the sea" doesn't mean that the students are calling for genocide from the river to the sea. That's why these were "gotcha" question because the presidents are responding to a moments-earlier conflation, while the immediate question is about a hypothetical situation where the students actually called for genocide. I think the presidents didn't perform great because they should have known better about the aims of who they were dealing with and that you have to expect that want matters is the 10 second clip, not the 30 second clip.

All three should have been able to handle that situation and in fact should have expected it. They obviously walked into the hearing without sufficient preparation and with a good deal of arrogance. I think they expected the fawning that is probably their day-to-day experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly believe the Ivy schools were already in decline other than legacy kids who wouldn’t have stood a prayer otherwise. But I do think there are more smart kids today choosing NOT to go to an Ivy and in todays climate will continue to choose a diff path.

Due to costs not politics.

Maybe, but the net result is the same. Also, it’s not so much politics but the fact that the Ivies have become filled with oppressive and dull people, not smart people. I don’t think it’s specific politics so much as a stultifying environment. Smart kids want intellectual freedom and challenges, not dull authoritarianism.

Dude, your refrain about "dull" students at the Ivies isn't really sticking. So many people on DCUM have legacy status or kids currently attending. You won't get much traction calling their kids "dull" smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly believe the Ivy schools were already in decline other than legacy kids who wouldn’t have stood a prayer otherwise. But I do think there are more smart kids today choosing NOT to go to an Ivy and in todays climate will continue to choose a diff path.

Due to costs not politics.

Maybe, but the net result is the same. Also, it’s not so much politics but the fact that the Ivies have become filled with oppressive and dull people, not smart people. I don’t think it’s specific politics so much as a stultifying environment. Smart kids want intellectual freedom and challenges, not dull authoritarianism.

Dude, your refrain about "dull" students at the Ivies isn't really sticking. So many people on DCUM have legacy status or kids currently attending. You won't get much traction calling their kids "dull" smh

Dude, I’m a graduate myself. I know of what I speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

But wasn't it that the question first conflated "intifada" with "genocide" which intifada doesn't mean--it means uprising. Just like claiming that the phrase the "river to the sea" doesn't mean that the students are calling for genocide from the river to the sea. That's why these were "gotcha" question because the presidents are responding to a moments-earlier conflation, while the immediate question is about a hypothetical situation where the students actually called for genocide. I think the presidents didn't perform great because they should have known better about the aims of who they were dealing with and that you have to expect that want matters is the 10 second clip, not the 30 second clip.

All three should have been able to handle that situation and in fact should have expected it. They obviously walked into the hearing without sufficient preparation and with a good deal of arrogance. I think they expected the fawning that is probably their day-to-day experience.

Cue the VAR. Anyone watching more than a few seconds of the hearing has moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

But wasn't it that the question first conflated "intifada" with "genocide" which intifada doesn't mean--it means uprising. Just like claiming that the phrase the "river to the sea" doesn't mean that the students are calling for genocide from the river to the sea. That's why these were "gotcha" question because the presidents are responding to a moments-earlier conflation, while the immediate question is about a hypothetical situation where the students actually called for genocide. I think the presidents didn't perform great because they should have known better about the aims of who they were dealing with and that you have to expect that want matters is the 10 second clip, not the 30 second clip.

There is a very good discussion on Twitter by a free speech advocate, which I believe sums up the situation. These elite universities are protecting what they want to protect, not all ethnic groups or all POVs. When you pick and choose who to protect and who has a right to speak, you get into trouble. Free speech is designed to let all POVs be heard--not just the POVs of who universities or governments want you to hear.

That is a huge condensation of the discussion, but I believe that's the problem here. Moreover, you don't have to look far to see that these students really are calling for death of Jews.

Beyond that, I agree that Gay and Magill went in completely unprepared under the assumption that hiding behind the First Amendment gave them the out. Magill's smirk says it all. All they needed to say was: Yes, if Jewish students get death threats that will be dealt with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they’ll struggle for applicants, you’re underestimating how much young adults are leaning pro Palestine/anti Israel. My neutral, liberal son is having trouble at his LAC. I do think schools like Emory and Michigan, whose presidents unequivocally stood with Israel from the get go will get more Jewish applicants, especially in early decision (I know UM doesn’t have ED).

They definitely won’t struggle for applicants. But the applicants won’t be as good as in years past, and that will eventually harm the schools. I don’t mean just Jewish students choosing not to apply, I mean bright students across the board.

Dp but I agree with first poster, most non Jewish kids can see both sides. No sympathy for Hamas but the longer Israeli attacks on civilians go on, the less support there is for the Netanyahu government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably more than ever! So many people proud of these schools for the excellent way they have handled free speech on a very tough subject! Go MIT PENN HARVARD!!!!

+100 and not caving to money bribes (donations)

I will just repost what I posted earlier in response:
You obviously don't understand what free speech actually means. You should read the definition then listen to what was said. Calls for genocide of an ethnic group is not protected speech. Saying you hate an ethnic group is protected. Telling people to kill them is not.

But wasn't it that the question first conflated "intifada" with "genocide" which intifada doesn't mean--it means uprising. Just like claiming that the phrase the "river to the sea" doesn't mean that the students are calling for genocide from the river to the sea. That's why these were "gotcha" question because the presidents are responding to a moments-earlier conflation, while the immediate question is about a hypothetical situation where the students actually called for genocide. I think the presidents didn't perform great because they should have known better about the aims of who they were dealing with and that you have to expect that want matters is the 10 second clip, not the 30 second clip.

All three should have been able to handle that situation and in fact should have expected it. They obviously walked into the hearing without sufficient preparation and with a good deal of arrogance. I think they expected the fawning that is probably their day-to-day experience.

Cue the VAR. Anyone watching more than a few seconds of the hearing has moved on.

DP. Not me. The presidents handled the testimony badly. No way around that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly believe the Ivy schools were already in decline other than legacy kids who wouldn’t have stood a prayer otherwise. But I do think there are more smart kids today choosing NOT to go to an Ivy and in todays climate will continue to choose a diff path.

Due to costs not politics.

Maybe, but the net result is the same. Also, it’s not so much politics but the fact that the Ivies have become filled with oppressive and dull people, not smart people. I don’t think it’s specific politics so much as a stultifying environment. Smart kids want intellectual freedom and challenges, not dull authoritarianism.

Dude, your refrain about "dull" students at the Ivies isn't really sticking. So many people on DCUM have legacy status or kids currently attending. You won't get much traction calling their kids "dull" smh

Dude, I’m a graduate myself. I know of what I speak.

A lot of us are. And a lot of us took Rhetoric in Law and Politics. Repetition. Repetition. Repetition.

[Anonymous]

No. The mix likely will be different, but the number of applicants is unlikely to drop.