Where did your 33/34 ACT, 3.9 UW GPA get in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the colleges, including Harvard, don't give a shit about the true purpose of affirmative action and their ethical and moral role in making it a success for the greater good of the society. They all want easy way out to check the box and tout the number admitted. They don't care if the student and the family are wealthy and recent immigrants from Africa or the student is from a wealthy, well educated, wellconnected black family. In fact, the colleges prefer it that way so that they don't need to provide academic support services, if needed by the true affirmative action admits. If the colleges really care about it, with their filthy rich tax-exempt endowments they would adopt some school districts in poor neighborhoods and promote Pre-K to 12 schooling and after-school enrichment and use those school districts as pipelines into their Freshman admissions and to show case them as models for success.

The law should be changed for affirmative action to be available to children born only in the U.S. and parental income less than median income of U.S. households ($60K to $75K). There should be birth place and income verification before affirmative action admission is awarded.

Again: Its. Not. Affirmative. Action.

And, for the record, Harvard and other elite colleges do consider family income when admitting, and the Harvard lawsuit showed being poor was an ADVANTAGE in admissions, particularly when coming off the waitlist (where the opposite is true at most colleges which have far smaller endowments).

I said the law should be changed as to how Affirmative Action is defined. It should be restricted to a child born in the U.S. only (of the same races currently recognized as URM) and the household income should be no more than the U.S. median (currently between $65K and $75K).

What does Harvard and other elite colleges considering family income when admitting have to do with what I am proposing. Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth, parental education and occupation, and student's birthplace. There colleges will not be able to ignore the wrath of true Social Justice Warriors (hopefully SJWs are not from privileged families).

"Harvard and other elite colleges will be ashamed if they ever publish and reveal the true picture of their affirmative action admits in terms of family income and wealth,"

No they wouldn't because they do not have any "affirmative action admits".

Ivy affirmative action: first and foremost legacies and athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my kid attends a top local private and I can tell you that the kids I know who are hooked and are applying early to the place where they have a leg up (ie legacy) also are the full package. They have top grades and scores etc. Don't assume that their only advantage is the legacy.

Wow. Your snowflake really deserved it then!!! Silly poster. Do you not realize that their full package was statistically slightly less of a full package??? Their were thousands more that were as good or better without the hook.

I didn't say it was my kid or whether they were admitted. I said that the kids I'm referencing would be competitive under any circumstances. Legacy just makes them harder to beat. I'm not saying that's fair, or that they won't edge out someone equally qualified, just challenging the assumption that legacy applicants are less qualified than other applicants.

Imagine Olympic track officials allowing Usain Bolt to compete in a Formula One car against others who run on their feet and when others say its unfair, then the officials replying "Usain Bolt would be competitive under any circumstances. Formula One car just makes him harder to beat. That is how effingly crazy Harvard and other elite schools continue to turbo charge some applications with preferences such as Lagacy, Donor, Politically connected, Athletes, Faculty and Staff children, etc.

[Anonymous]

anyone have any actual answers for the OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:anyone have any actual answers for the OP?

Carleton, Bates, Grinnell, W&M, Pomona and a few other less selective LACs. Rejected from Williams and Swarthmore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:anyone have any actual answers for the OP?

Carleton, Bates, Grinnell, W&M, Pomona and a few other less selective LACs. Rejected from Williams and Swarthmore.

Interesting you would put Pomona less selective. My kid at a top area private has similar stats with tough courses and very good ECs and thinks she won't get in at Pomona unless she ED2s. ED1 was to an ivy so is already working on RDs and possible ED2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:anyone have any actual answers for the OP?

Carleton, Bates, Grinnell, W&M, Pomona and a few other less selective LACs. Rejected from Williams and Swarthmore.

Interesting you would put Pomona less selective. My kid at a top area private has similar stats with tough courses and very good ECs and thinks she won't get in at Pomona unless she ED2s. ED1 was to an ivy so is already working on RDs and possible ED2.

At our DC private, Pomona is probably the hardest SLAC to get into.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the PP was calling Pomona “less selective”. She named a few selective schools DC got into, and then added that DC got into a few other unnamed schools that were less selective.

[Anonymous]

Huh? I thought the Ivies don't have ED I/ED II. HYP are SCEA while the rest are simply ED, no I or II.

[Anonymous]

Accepted- Barnard, Tufts, USC, UVA. Miami- WL Columbia and Brown. Rejected- UPenn. Selected Barnard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I thought the Ivies don't have ED I/ED II. HYP are SCEA while the rest are simply ED, no I or II.

I interpreted the PP to be referring to ED as "ED1" in contrast to ED2 elsewhere. So you are technically correct (The best kind of correct!) but the intent of the statement was factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? I thought the Ivies don't have ED I/ED II. HYP are SCEA while the rest are simply ED, no I or II.

You are correct. My kid did ED 1 ivy and is considering RD other ivies if she doesn't get in. If you are referencing my ED 2 comment, it was in reference to Pomona. Telling her to apply to other ivies and go there as opposed to Pomona ED 2. I said RD Pomona if interested but not ED 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Accepted- Barnard, Tufts, USC, UVA. Miami- WL Columbia and Brown. Rejected- UPenn. Selected Barnard.

Is she happy at Barnard? My DD is currently deciding whether or not to apply - she doesn't particularly want to go to a women's college, but she's heard it doesn't seem so much like one. Is that true?

[Anonymous]

DD got into UPenn with a 34 ACT. She's a junior now and wishes she had gone to school on the west coast like mom suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the PP was calling Pomona “less selective”. She named a few selective schools DC got into, and then added that DC got into a few other unnamed schools that were less selective.

Yes you understood what I meant. Would have been a good post to add an oxford comma to.

[Anonymous]

PP, would you mind sharing why your daughter isn’t liking Penn?