Brutal Admissions Year!

[Anonymous]

There are some fields that where you go undergrad matters. I was looking through where the professors went at the school my son will likely be going to and what shocked me was that practically all of them went, for grad and undergrad, to the same few schools: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, etc.

If you want to go into academia, names matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are some fields that where you go undergrad matters. I was looking through where the professors went at the school my son will likely be going to and what shocked me was that practically all of them went, for grad and undergrad, to the same few schools: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, etc.

If you want to go into academia, names matter.

Fair point! But keep in mind that professors, especially at the better schools, will invariably have a doctorate or at the least a masters degree. So it becomes more important where one does the post-graduate degree.

[Anonymous]

Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

[Anonymous]

That is an easy answer for you But it ignores the unique impact of race in America, even accounting for socio-economic status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is an easy answer for you But it ignores the unique impact of race in America, even accounting for socio-economic status.

You cannot in one breath argue that many/most minority admissions are made to deserving candidates and in the next breath say that one needs to take into account "the unique impact of race in America".

My grandson has African-American antecedents and he just got into a college that he would more than likely not have been offered admission if he had not identified his race as AA. Do I blame him or his parents for taking advantage of the system? No, I don't. But he is not disadvantaged in the slightest. His parents have an income that makes them part of the 1%.

When affirmative action was introduced it was much needed given the historical aspects you mentioned. We still have problems with race but today it is those who are socio-economically disadvantaged who deserve preference. It makes no sense to offer preferences to applicants like my grandson.

You will notice that minorities who are getting preferences will never urge any modification that takes into account socio-economic factors because they want to maintain the racial preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

yes, because these URM kids are still treated differently in the classroom, even if enrolled in high priced private schools. Go look at the private school forum if you doubt

[Anonymous]

If you think an African American who is financially well off is immune from racial prejudice, think again. See numerous accounts of mistreatment of AA students from well off families, including NY Times columnist Charles Blow. But I guess, you are basking in post-racial America. Forgive me if I am not there with you.

[Anonymous]

You are all wrong. If you want to become an academic, get your dissertation published -- preferably by a top-tier press. Bring in grant money. Have your dissertation win a prize. Get some articles published. Present at conferences.

There is no golden ticket. THere is no magic school that will make you successful. It's about character and hard work. It's not about luck.

If you go to an academic conference, you will meet people from many diverse schools who are teaching at many diverse schools. If you go to an alumni reunion at an Ivy League school, you will meet people with broken marriages, broken lives, and drug addictions -- as well as many successful individuals. There is no magic pathway to success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. As parents, we did the not worth the sacrifice, etc. option, but that doesn't erase what peers and the schools themselves are saying. It sunk in to a degree, and my kid will realize we are correct when safely ensconced in the school of her choice. We also emphasized the right to transfer if the school of choice is not to her liking.

I think affirmative action needs to be completely done away with. It's unconstitutional and anyone who truly believes in equality, should support that. We should not be padding scores of X students and subtracting from scores of Y students. More emphasis on charter schools in earlier years, etc. - build the foundation; don't try to fix it at the college level.

Athletics should continue to be rewarded. Athletes put in a lot of time and effort and talent. However, the schools should not dumb down or make up courses aka UNC - instead they should be providing support networks for ALL students - athletes or not - who are at risk.

Do away with the US News report rankings, and others like it. Put more of an emphasis on books like Colleges That Change Lives and other such publications. This will force colleges to change how they do things internally in order to attract students.

For pete's sake, do away with obvious political bias on campus. I'm not talking about student driven, but faculty driven.

Get federal government OUT of the college loan business. That will help lower the cost of colleges - even Biden admits that much.

That's a start anyway.

I disagree with ending affirmative action and the right of private universities to strive for diversity in their student body. I disagree about ending ranking as well. I also disagree with ending the government's role in student loans. And there is no way to end political bias on campus without censoring professors. Intellectuals have always been liberal minded since the creation of academia - get over it.

Doesn't matter how professors FEEL. Teaching students how to squat (aka Columbia) and how to break into the Dean's office (aka Dartmouth) is beyond the pale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. As parents, we did the not worth the sacrifice, etc. option, but that doesn't erase what peers and the schools themselves are saying. It sunk in to a degree, and my kid will realize we are correct when safely ensconced in the school of her choice. We also emphasized the right to transfer if the school of choice is not to her liking.

I think affirmative action needs to be completely done away with. It's unconstitutional and anyone who truly believes in equality, should support that. We should not be padding scores of X students and subtracting from scores of Y students. More emphasis on charter schools in earlier years, etc. - build the foundation; don't try to fix it at the college level.

Athletics should continue to be rewarded. Athletes put in a lot of time and effort and talent. However, the schools should not dumb down or make up courses aka UNC - instead they should be providing support networks for ALL students - athletes or not - who are at risk.

Do away with the US News report rankings, and others like it. Put more of an emphasis on books like Colleges That Change Lives and other such publications. This will force colleges to change how they do things internally in order to attract students.

For pete's sake, do away with obvious political bias on campus. I'm not talking about student driven, but faculty driven.

Get federal government OUT of the college loan business. That will help lower the cost of colleges - even Biden admits that much.

That's a start anyway.

I was the poster who asked for your solutions, OP; and though I do not agree with many of them, I do admire you for having the courage of your convictions, and the belief in your ideas, to post them clearly and openly (or as openly as an anonymous forum will permit) because I know that you will get a lot of flack for doing so.

Thank you. Flack never bothered me. I have thick skin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the person (incorrectly) decrying private colleges' affirmative action policies as unconstitutional and then trampling the First Amendment when it comes to the US News rankings

Re-read the first amendment. Never said FORCE through legislation, the ending of rankings.

It can be done by enough people simply not considering them relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

Exactly!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think an African American who is financially well off is immune from racial prejudice, think again. See numerous accounts of mistreatment of AA students from well off families, including NY Times columnist Charles Blow. But I guess, you are basking in post-racial America. Forgive me if I am not there with you.

So white kids should have to pay for the sins of others' prejudice? Interesting concept. I assume that you don't see the irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is an easy answer for you But it ignores the unique impact of race in America, even accounting for socio-economic status.

You cannot in one breath argue that many/most minority admissions are made to deserving candidates and in the next breath say that one needs to take into account "the unique impact of race in America".

My grandson has African-American antecedents and he just got into a college that he would more than likely not have been offered admission if he had not identified his race as AA. Do I blame him or his parents for taking advantage of the system? No, I don't. But he is not disadvantaged in the slightest. His parents have an income that makes them part of the 1%.

When affirmative action was introduced it was much needed given the historical aspects you mentioned. We still have problems with race but today it is those who are socio-economically disadvantaged who deserve preference. It makes no sense to offer preferences to applicants like my grandson.

You will notice that minorities who are getting preferences will never urge any modification that takes into account socio-economic factors because they want to maintain the racial preference.

Well, sure. When someone is giving you something good, why would you say no, take it away?