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

[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.

Maybe but it’s ironic you’d post this when arguing that speech should be punished under codes of conduct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dull / Bright / Dull / Bright / Dull / Bright / Dull / Bright / Dull / Bright /

Yes, already! We see it. Exposition done. Go ahead and build on it

[Anonymous]

[google]

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.

Just because you’re dull and dimwitted doesn’t mean we should assume your classmates were

[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.

At least one of them is probably going to lose her job but I guess that does qualify as moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[google]

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.

Just because you’re dull and dimwitted doesn’t mean we should assume your classmates were

It’s not me you need to worry about. It’s all the hiring managers who now think Ivy grads are dull little authoritarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will there be fewer applicants to these universities next year because of the failure of their presidents to provide clear responses against anti-semitism in congressional testimony this week? Each president embarrassed herself and her institution, although the Harvard president was particularly noteworthy.

We will not be applying to any of those because of allowing anti semiotic language to be allowed and some actions ie: assaulting Jewish students at Harvard - kid allowed to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not for MIT.

I think some students and families will reconsider Penn. Many actually. This has been a disaster for Penn.

Harvard gets the brass ring students. It's been like that for a while. The goal is Harvard. That's all that matters. The nuances of genocide is not going to dissuade them. There are tons of amoral high stats well-connected kids who will take that apex degree.

For every Jewish kid that wavers about Penn, there are about 5 Asian kids with identical stats dying to get in

Jews aren’t going to turn down Penn for Alabama

More like 55 for every one, but yeah.

[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.

Maybe but it’s ironic you’d post this when arguing that speech should be punished under codes of conduct

I don’t actually think it should be punished. However, if they want to enforce oppressive code of conduct rules, then they need to be consistent, which they aren’t.

In other words, you cannot expel a student who says something like transwomen aren’t women but praise and protect a student who calls for Jewish genocide. That’s completely inconsistent application of the rules.

I would encourage a dismantling of the rules that oppress challenging speech on campus entirely. But if they are going down the speech oppression route, they need to be consistent.

[Anonymous]

No. The education the congresswoman received at Harvard appeared to serve her well. This is a sickening political theater. I agree the educators could be prepared better to play in a political theater. But they are educators and not used to mostly useless grandstanding hearings. But they didn't yield under pressure. I commend them for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problems these schools have is that they’re starting to be primarily associated with dim students. For many years their trade-off was that they’d allow in smart students that they didn’t actually want (of all backgrounds) provided that they could continue to admit the dim ideologues. It worked for awhile. The smart students would go on to become successful donors while the schools could still boast about the dim ideologues they admitted. But issues started to pop up: the smart students started challenging the dim ideologues. This was unacceptable and so the schools implemented strict speech limits, to spare the feelings of the dim ideologues. But that meant the smart students started to quietly look elsewhere.

That was already happening, but recent events have sped it up. I have heard more alumni of all backgrounds express disgust at MIT than I’ve heard before in my life. And they aren’t Jewish, they’re just disgusted at what has happened to MIT, which used to be a place for the best and brightest, but now just wants the dim ideologues. It is sad to watch.

Best response on this thread. They'll still get all the apps they need from all the name chasers and the diehard Ivy or bust alumni. Those same alumni will pound their chests and howl that they are hallowed institutions above reproach, dripping with prestige and the golden ticket to life. No, the mask has been torn off. They are just like a Ferrari, overpriced, wrought with problems, and driven by spoiled whiners that pose as someone they’re not. The hard-working well-adjusted kids that are raised right see through it and prefer the Porsche…attainable, reliable, amazing driving character and every bit as fast. These “elite” schools aren’t the only way to achieve success in life, it’s a mirage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The education the congresswoman received at Harvard appeared to serve her well. This is a sickening political theater. I agree the educators could be prepared better to play in a political theater. But they are educators and not used to mostly useless grandstanding hearings. But they didn't yield under pressure. I commend them for that.

They certainly didn’t come across as very competent educators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. The education the congresswoman received at Harvard appeared to serve her well. This is a sickening political theater. I agree the educators could be prepared better to play in a political theater. But they are educators and not used to mostly useless grandstanding hearings. But they didn't yield under pressure. I commend them for that.

I honestly don't understand this. Why can't they simply say that if a Jewish student is threatened with bodily harm that this would be dealt with. This is harassment and bullying and not protected under the First Amendment. It was just an easy thing to say. And no, I am not Jewish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The education the congresswoman received at Harvard appeared to serve her well. This is a sickening political theater. I agree the educators could be prepared better to play in a political theater. But they are educators and not used to mostly useless grandstanding hearings. But they didn't yield under pressure. I commend them for that.

They certainly didn’t come across as very competent educators.

They came across as arrogant and misguided elite who think they had the answers and didn't. Cue: Magill's groveling post testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not for MIT.

I think some students and families will reconsider Penn. Many actually. This has been a disaster for Penn.

Harvard gets the brass ring students. It's been like that for a while. The goal is Harvard. That's all that matters. The nuances of genocide is not going to dissuade them. There are tons of amoral high stats well-connected kids who will take that apex degree.

For every Jewish kid that wavers about Penn, there are about 5 Asian kids with identical stats dying to get in

Jews aren’t going to turn down Penn for Alabama

More like 55 for every one, but yeah.

Exactly right. The Ivies will continue to attract top students and maybe now more AAPI will be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. The education the congresswoman received at Harvard appeared to serve her well. This is a sickening political theater. I agree the educators could be prepared better to play in a political theater. But they are educators and not used to mostly useless grandstanding hearings. But they didn't yield under pressure. I commend them for that.

They certainly didn’t come across as very competent educators.

They came across as arrogant and misguided elite who think they had the answers and didn't. Cue: Magill's groveling post testimony.

She’s rightfully worried about her job. She’s done such a terrible job lately that she should be worried.

But yes, all three came across as arrogant and out of touch. Certainly not good educators.