controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT scores do not measure intelligence or college readiness
I know of some very bright kids who had to go to work during high school years to help support their parents/family
Every kid doesn’t have full support, or safe stable home for the 18 years of life

Despite that some of those have managed to do well later on in life

Learning doesn’t end when you graduate. I am in IT and am constantly studying and acquiring new skills
College was just a foundation that opens the door to the profession, thereafter you have the skills to open a book and self teach yourself what you need to know

While they do not “measure” IQ, as they are not an intelligence test per se, SAT scores are nonetheless highly correlated with IQ. Let’s not imply otherwise.

But also tied with SES and the accumulated educational supports over a lifetime that come with higher SES.

Of course — and so is IQ.

[Anonymous]

Legacy admits bring a toxicity to the student body that no other category of admits does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

Why not? They might "enjoy it."

Interesting. I’ve spoken to many a WW2 vet. Can’t say any claimed to have enjoyed the killing, dirt, cold, lack of food, etc. Any who say they enjoyed it spoke to people in cushy positions.

You're working with very old information. How many Iraq/Afghanistan vets have you spoken to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only things colleges should look at are grades, test scores, And maybe an open ended question exam of some sorts. The brightest should get into the best colleges, and that’s it.
The rest can go to less rigorous ones.

Best colleges will end up 70% Asian 20% white 3% Hispanic 2% black and 5% other like TJ high school and screams of rage about lack of racial equity will ensue.

NP - I am fine with a college being 70%+ Asian if those are the individuals who are most deserving to be there

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admits bring a toxicity to the student body that no other category of admits does.

So true!

[Anonymous]

If you're admitted to a college and have to take remedial reading and writing classes in the pre-freshman summer and go to intensive writing lab freshmen year ... you don't belong in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in admissions stokes animosity on campuses. The affirmative action admits feel stupid and isolated and then they get angry. It’s cruel to admit below bar kids in the first place — they would be far happier at a college with similar acuity peers.

It’s even worse for the minority kids who would have gotten in regardless of affirmative action and yet are still stigmatized by people assuming they are less qualified.

But are colleges really admitting URM with much lower stats? Those stats still have to be reported so I doubt schools are admitting students who are very far below in terms of GPA/SATs.

Yes this is readily available information - the average SAT scores of URMs at most ivies are ~200 points below the overall average.

The SAT is is not the equivalent of being "qualified."

It's one test. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in admissions stokes animosity on campuses. The affirmative action admits feel stupid and isolated and then they get angry. It’s cruel to admit below bar kids in the first place — they would be far happier at a college with similar acuity peers.

It’s even worse for the minority kids who would have gotten in regardless of affirmative action and yet are still stigmatized by people assuming they are less qualified.

But are colleges really admitting URM with much lower stats? Those stats still have to be reported so I doubt schools are admitting students who are very far below in terms of GPA/SATs.

Yes this is readily available information - the average SAT scores of URMs at most ivies are ~200 points below the overall average.

The SAT is is not the equivalent of being "qualified."

It's one test. That's it.

The pp specifically questioned whether URMs were really being admitted with significantly lower SAT stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in admissions stokes animosity on campuses. The affirmative action admits feel stupid and isolated and then they get angry. It’s cruel to admit below bar kids in the first place — they would be far happier at a college with similar acuity peers.

It’s even worse for the minority kids who would have gotten in regardless of affirmative action and yet are still stigmatized by people assuming they are less qualified.

But are colleges really admitting URM with much lower stats? Those stats still have to be reported so I doubt schools are admitting students who are very far below in terms of GPA/SATs.

Yes this is readily available information - the average SAT scores of URMs at most ivies are ~200 points below the overall average.

Where do you find that information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're admitted to a college and have to take remedial reading and writing classes in the pre-freshman summer and go to intensive writing lab freshmen year ... you don't belong in college.

I don't think that a remedial summer program means you shouldn't be in college. It makes a lot more sense than starting college taking those non-credit remedial courses. My neighbor did that and had to take the math course 3 times and the English one twice. By the time he was a sophomore, he only had like 12 credits. He ended up dropping out. This is where the loan crisis lives. I think schools should offer conditional acceptances to students who must pass the remedial summer program.

My son's HS does this with kids who don't meet the required standards for acceptance. They can take a 6-7 week summer program and if they meet some standard, they are offered admission for 9th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

Have you considered that that is exactly the reason why 18 yos are chosen for the task of fighting a war? Brain develops & says holy s**t not doing that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only things colleges should look at are grades, test scores, And maybe an open ended question exam of some sorts. The brightest should get into the best colleges, and that’s it.
The rest can go to less rigorous ones.

Best colleges will end up 70% Asian 20% white 3% Hispanic 2% black and 5% other like TJ high school and screams of rage about lack of racial equity will ensue.

NP - I am fine with a college being 70%+ Asian if those are the individuals who are most deserving to be there

Agree.

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only things colleges should look at are grades, test scores, And maybe an open ended question exam of some sorts. The brightest should get into the best colleges, and that’s it.
The rest can go to less rigorous ones.

Best colleges will end up 70% Asian 20% white 3% Hispanic 2% black and 5% other like TJ high school and screams of rage about lack of racial equity will ensue.

NP - I am fine with a college being 70%+ Asian if those are the individuals who are most deserving to be there

Agree.

Yes

Part of what makes an elite school elite (like Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc.) is who your classmates are and the connections you make through roommates, dinner club, etc. You are attending school with people whose parents or grandparents were president (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Obama, Biden) or billionaire CEOs of companies or entertainment megastars. These are the connections that help make the school elite. If you take away the connected, high profile families and fill the school with kids just based on a test score and grades, the college becomes far less prestigious. I feel like people that want entrance to these schools to be test and GPA only are from other countries that have this sort of university entrance system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only things colleges should look at are grades, test scores, And maybe an open ended question exam of some sorts. The brightest should get into the best colleges, and that’s it.
The rest can go to less rigorous ones.

Best colleges will end up 70% Asian 20% white 3% Hispanic 2% black and 5% other like TJ high school and screams of rage about lack of racial equity will ensue.

NP - I am fine with a college being 70%+ Asian if those are the individuals who are most deserving to be there

Agree.

Yes

Part of what makes an elite school elite (like Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc.) is who your classmates are and the connections you make through roommates, dinner club, etc. You are attending school with people whose parents or grandparents were president (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Obama, Biden) or billionaire CEOs of companies or entertainment megastars. These are the connections that help make the school elite. If you take away the connected, high profile families and fill the school with kids just based on a test score and grades, the college becomes far less prestigious. I feel like people that want entrance to these schools to be test and GPA only are from other countries that have this sort of university entrance system.

Your mean one where college admissions are not based in large part on university finances, such as (a) legacy, (b) big donor/celebrity, (c) revenue sports, etc? Imagine that. While I’m no fan of SAT/ACT (and have said so on this thread), these things are even less to do with the core mission of the university. I for one would be happier if these were not factored in at all. And I say this as someone who is watching a college FB game right now. These D1 guys are really semi-pro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to go in the military, you should be allowed to drink alcohol.

I don't think you should be allowed to go to war zones or fight directly with guns for your country at 18. Brain isn't fully developed yet, and all that. You can go through basic training and work other jobs within the military.

It doesn't work that way, especially in the Marine Corps. Every Marine is a rifleman.

You can learn HOW to use, but I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to go to front lines, to fight, at such a young age.

You are stupid. Every war ever fought, and every war ever won, had armies that predominantly had men age 18-22 in the front lines. Their brains were self-evidently well developed enough for combat. And a lot of those men enjoyed it.

I certainly don’t want my kids doing that but that doesn’t mean “it shouldn’t be allowed”.

Why not? They might "enjoy it."

Interesting. I’ve spoken to many a WW2 vet. Can’t say any claimed to have enjoyed the killing, dirt, cold, lack of food, etc. Any who say they enjoyed it spoke to people in cushy positions.

You're working with very old information. How many Iraq/Afghanistan vets have you spoken to?

Soldiers or intelligence officers? Quite a few.

Standing in long hot lines to do laundry wasn't enjoyable. Killing people with drones wasn't enjoyable either. Sometimes they accidentally killed children--also not enjoyable.