No, test optional isn’t the reason your kid didn’t get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Well said!

Some economists may tell you that it is suboptimal to keep investing in a small set of wealthy educated families generation after generation. And that by swapping out some of the "old school" families for some new ones at these elite schools that you succeed in creating a broader set of elite-educated families in the overall population while also injecting excellence into other (great!) schools by adding all those ("displaced") students of wealthy educated families to the community. Most economists will tell you that the "displaced" students have had 18 years of investment poured upon them by their elite families and that THAT matters more than anything else in their long run success. These kids will succeed no matter where they go, as long as they take advantage of opportunities.

And likewise, so will 95% of those kids applying to T25 schools that don't get in. If they are that smart and motivated, they will go far in life. Just go to #26 where you did get in and shine. Stop being upset you were rejected at a highly rejective school where 90-95% are rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

A student like you describe would only be rejected from a tiny handful of universities. You seem to view admission to those as a brass ring for a job well done. But I’m pretty confident that same student, if they didn’t feel put upon by not getting into their “dream school” would excel at Michigan State or Ohio State or University of Arizona. If they are truly as exceptional and gifted as you think they are, there is probably nothing that student couldn’t accomplish from these schools that they could from one on the highly rejective ones. What you really seem to want is access into the exclusive club that gets what 95% of applicants can’t have, even if you don’t know if it’s inherently better or not. All over the world countries have exception universities that are not so small as ours are. The scarcity of supply is false. These schools could easily add more seats. Alumni don’t want the schools to broaden access because they want the insularity.

No, they cannot easily "add more seats". At most ivy's kids live on campus all 4 years. Add 500 students per year and you have a huge housing issue. Not to mention classes will be larger, less advising, classes more difficult to get into, etc... an entire list of issues if the infrastructure is not in place. So it won't solve the problem (500 at each is still a dent and most will still get rejected) and doing so with out infratsturce would degrade the experience just look at non T25 schools who have done it recently (Northeastern is one example---grown 3-4K students in last few years without any infrastructure in place---many parents and students are not happy. Many kids cannot land coops, because more students looking coupled with the bad economy is not a good thing, kids cannot get into classes because so many students and they are all registering for classes in case they don't get a coop---which many wont' so they wont be dropping out of the classes to make more space...it's not a good situation when you add students without an infrastructure plan put in place first).

You’re right, only in America are we not smart enough to figure out to do this.

Figure out what? You don't just build 3 new dorms overnight...it requires millions, space and planning. Not to mention, the allure of the elite schools (and many others) is their size....Harvard wouldn't be Harvard if they had 12K+ undergrads.

Plus it is NOT needed. Your snowflake can attend one of several schools ranked ~30-75 that they likely got into and get an amazing education if they change their attitude (and don't spend 4 years moping that they didn't get into T25 school and their life is over). Just look around you at your jobs----majority of people did NOT attend T25 school. Yet somehow they are in the same job as you, in fact they might even be your boss. Fact is plenty of people are successful (most in fact) who did not attend an elite university for undergrad.

[Anonymous]

My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

You’re forgetting that those countries have very low tuition for domestic students & equalizing measures in k-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Top students in my neck of the woods are not getting shut out of great schools. Just on my block alone there is a future Hopkins, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Stanford, UChicago, and Columbia graduate. Guess what all the students are UMC Indian and Nigerians. All of these young people are at the top of their game. My next door neighbors' kid was accepted into 5 Ivies, and he is Asian.

Your racism and classism are showing. Maybe admission counselors knew not to admit your kid due to your bigotry. Turn off Fox News and get over yourself! Top universities in this country still over admit wealthy, white legacy students, however you want to use poor students and URMs as your punching bag as to why your child was rejected.

So, when things don't go your child's way you teach him or her to blame URMs and impoverished people? What a sick soul you are. I hope you reflect on your anger and cease with the venom that you are spewing.

If the biggest obstacle in your child's life is a college rejection, then that child has lived a charmed life. Bitterness, jealousy, and envy are unattractive traits that you should not pass on to your children.

It is a fallacy that top universities in the United States are not accepting top students. The issue is that more top students are applying to the same selective universities. These universities have limited spots and do not have the space or resources to accept every top student that applies. Also, diversity means geography, language, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Diversity does not equate to low performing. If anything, most students from diverse backgrounds that I encounter are phenomenal students of the highest caliber. Some universities want a diverse student body of top students but cannot accept them all. Most who apply will be rejected.

It is basic math. With limited seats and applications that triple the number of seats that a university could accept, rejections will increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

Ummmmm....the NBA is a for profit business to entertain. If the fans will pay to watch, no one cares about the race of any player.

If basketball fans don’t care about players’ races or skin colors, why should colleges and employers care? The very fact that you care about their races proves you are a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

You’re forgetting that those countries have very low tuition for domestic students & equalizing measures in k-12.

In humanities and liberal arts there’s a lot of fluffiness. Check US News Global Engineering rankings. US is not that dominant. MIT is only the world’s #4. Look at how many of the world’s top 25 and top 25 are non-US (and non-Western). Crazy to think about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

You’re forgetting that those countries have very low tuition for domestic students & equalizing measures in k-12.

In humanities and liberal arts there’s a lot of fluffiness. Check US News Global Engineering rankings. US is not that dominant. MIT is only the world’s #4. Look at how many of the world’s top 25 and top 25 are non-US (and non-Western). Crazy to think about it.

I meant top 25 and top 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s what happen when schools seek out diversity instead of the best and brightest. Educators only way to close the education gap is to drop the ceiling to the floor.

So admissions become a game of craps.

Racist. Diversity and “best and brightest” aren’t mutually exclusive. They did choose the best and brightest. Obviously the rejects aren’t considered to be among that group.

Facts are not racist. "Diversity" means getting the best from the diversity pool-- not the best overall pool.

I go further and say that "diversity" as it's currently used is RACIST, against Asians. I fully support doing away with affirmative action because of this. You cannot spend decades lying about wanting to welcome all races, only to dismiss achievers of Asian descent and hold them to higher standards than the rest, and materially impact their chances of attaining their full potential due to discrimination in higher education and jobs.

Asians have long supported liberal and progressive policies, but as a voting block, inasmuch as any large and disparate group can be, they do not approve of ALL the left's agenda. Be careful not to take such voting groups for granted all the damm time.

This is going a bit far. When we visited admitted student days at diverse schools - there were FAR more Asians than there were white males. No complaints here....but get real.

Why don’t you complain that there are far more Blacks than Whites and Asians in NBA?

I said I'm not complaining at all - not sure where you are coming from?

This same statement gets made week after week on several threads. Weirdly, sometimes even when the context doesn't call for it. I'm starting to think its from a troll farm script?

You have lost me? I'm saying that at the most diverse admitted student days, Asians were very well represented. They were far more represented than white males. This is not a complaint - but a statement for people saying Asians are being discriminated against. I am not speaking to all schools - but the ones that clearly cared about admitting a diverse group of students. I was impressed by these schools. I liked what I saw.

I'll add that I am not using "diverse" as a substitute code word for any specific group (like a specific race) nor am I using it as a "code" to imply diverse students are less qualified. I am using it in the real sense...a group of students who were truly a mix in many ways - skin color, state/country, gender identity, faith and very likely in ways that I can't "see" (but probably showed in their applications) like interests, beliefs, dreams, backgrounds, majors. So I don't get where your hostility and troll labels are coming from? I feel like you are talking past me and pointing to something entirely different than what I am saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

You’re forgetting that those countries have very low tuition for domestic students & equalizing measures in k-12.

In humanities and liberal arts there’s a lot of fluffiness. Check US News Global Engineering rankings. US is not that dominant. MIT is only the world’s #4. Look at how many of the world’s top 25 and top 25 are non-US (and non-Western). Crazy to think about it.

I meant top 25 and top 50.

Look at US News Best Global Engineering rankings. That really scares me. I don’t care if Chinese universities rank the best in the world in history or anthropology or LBGTQ studies. Those graduates can’t design weapons to kill us. But engineering graduates do.

[Anonymous]

UToronto is not very selective but a lot of kids drop out or find it brutally difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Well said!

Some economists may tell you that it is suboptimal to keep investing in a small set of wealthy educated families generation after generation. And that by swapping out some of the "old school" families for some new ones at these elite schools that you succeed in creating a broader set of elite-educated families in the overall population while also injecting excellence into other (great!) schools by adding all those ("displaced") students of wealthy educated families to the community. Most economists will tell you that the "displaced" students have had 18 years of investment poured upon them by their elite families and that THAT matters more than anything else in their long run success. These kids will succeed no matter where they go, as long as they take advantage of opportunities.

And likewise, so will 95% of those kids applying to T25 schools that don't get in. If they are that smart and motivated, they will go far in life. Just go to #26 where you did get in and shine. Stop being upset you were rejected at a highly rejective school where 90-95% are rejected.

You do you realize these are exactly the same "displaced" people I was referring to, right? Or are you just agreeing with me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction is that colleges in other countries (in Europe? Canada? Australia?) will take the places of US colleges in world rankings within the next decade or so. The colleges where performance is still the measure for getting in and they can keep academic standards high and therefore graduation prospects really good will become much more in demand. High performing kids will be applying elsewhere, not here.

Soooo - colleges are not ranked based on the students that attend but on the faculty who teach there. Your argument makes no sense, especially when one of the changing factors is that US schools are taking more and more international students. A great example of this is in graduate school - where most top US STEM programs have fewer than 50% of their graduate students as US citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good kids are getting rejected from top schools, because top schools no longer care about academic excellence as much as they care about "Diversity"
There are very few students who meet ALL of the following criteria
1) Top 1-3% of graduating class
2) 1550 in SATor 35 ACT or higher in test scores
3) National AP scholar.
4) 750 or higher in 2 Subject Tests

These are truly gifted students. All of them could easily be accommodated in the top 15 schools, many times over, but most don't get in, because top schools are obsessed with diversity.

This is a tragedy for this country in the long run, because as any economist will tell you, we are grossly misallocating some of the best resources of our academic institutions on some very questionable talent, instead of focusing them on talent that can benefit the most from them and consequently turbocharge the US economy into the next generation.

But eh. Becoming fat, dumb and careless is probably necessary for the baton to pass from the US to some other nation. That's the way history has worked

Huh? Are these students just going to not go to college and drop out of the potential work force because they haven't been admitted to a top college?
Lol.
No, they're going to go to other colleges, get educated and they'll do well and learn what they need to learn at the schools they attend. Then they will go on to succeed in the workforce.

You are posting as if their life and their future contribution to society will END if they don't attend a top 15 university.
This thinking is SO WARPED.

No. I am saying that the country's best educational resources should be opened up to the most academically gifted students first. Then to others as space permits because that is better for the country in the long run. Of course these students will do well even if they go to podunk state, but forcing then to go there just because some clueless administrators value "diversity" and want to inefficiently expend a country's scarce resource on less academically gifted students to virtue signal and feel righteous is a terrible social policy

It has literally never been the case that university acceptances followed this algorithm. And you take it as an article faith that the most rejective schools provide the “best academic resources”. But you don’t actually know that they do. You have no basis of comparison aside from vague notions of reputation and what you think will impress your neighbors. Certainly a large number of factors used in USNWR have only a tangential relationship to quality of education. Endowment MIGHT lead to better education, but money has to actually be spent on teaching facilities and professors. The new volleyball arena or residence hall with on site fluff and fold don’t move the needle much.

People need to realize a really bright and motivated kid can still have pretty much any future they want at most any of universities ranked 1-200. Unless that future thing you really want is access to the Yale Club. It’s an old boys network by another name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BUT---Test Optional IS the reason your kid got in.

Even with all of that prep they still couldn't get competitive scores and NEVER would have applied, much less gotten in.

Which is why they are so defensive Oh--act and sat are so subjective blah, blah,,,,yet I paid for tutors and test preps and Susie still couldn't crack 50% at top 50 schools.

Actually, the defensive people are the ones insisting scores equate to intellect because they are the ones who have invested in enrichment, whether test specific or no. They want a recipe for admissions, and TO interferes with that.

+1

+2 nails it. They programmed their kid’s whole life based on what they thought was a recipe for success (although the original article demonstrates how it never really was) and are mad that it got disrupted. Never mind the disruption is beneficial. Just not to them.