Won't the AA ruling be particularly bad for private school URMs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Tracking kids before their brains are fully developed sounds great to you?

Ah yes, those silly underdeveloped 18 and 19 yo american teen brains. they need a break and lots more time so they can take a test. eventually. some day. and not whine about it.

Maybe do a couple mandatory years of military or govt aid jobs like all the other countries mandate too? will that "fully develop" their brains so we can pay for their college degrees?

any other ways to coddle american kids more than some are already doing? Its becoming a laughing stock in the employment market.

[Anonymous]

I attended a decent flagship state school and always assumed the Asian kids would have been at an institution a couple of tiers up if they were black like me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended a decent flagship state school and always assumed the Asian kids would have been at an institution a couple of tiers up if they were black like me.

I don’t believe the above comment was really made by a Black person, but if it was, most Blacks don’t think like this sellout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No worries. I agree. I wrote that for my Hong King friend.
She stormed a Columbia grad school program when she got waitlisted and they basically confessed it was because she was female Asian and they had too many similar high caliber applicants.

they wouldn’t have confessed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Well head on over there and enjoy that system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a decent flagship state school and always assumed the Asian kids would have been at an institution a couple of tiers up if they were black like me.

I don’t believe the above comment was really made by a Black person, but if it was, most Blacks don’t think like this sellout.

DP. So what if “most” don’t. Sticking with your dumb herd isn’t helping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No worries. I agree. I wrote that for my Hong King friend.
She stormed a Columbia grad school program when she got waitlisted and they basically confessed it was because she was female Asian and they had too many similar high caliber applicants.

they wouldn’t have confessed this.

That's exactly why she called me real-time back then. They DID verbally confess that, then got flustered. female asian, nope.
She wishes she had taped it.

Anyhow, she's moved on and that was back in 2005 or 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Well head on over there and enjoy that system.

Is this that wonderful MAGA mentality? Like it or leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Tracking kids before their brains are fully developed sounds great to you?

OMG this is not how it works. Tracking in most of these countries typically doesn't happen until the teen years. It's over here in the US where tracking is ass backwards, with gifted programs in early elementary school. And the US could stand to do better in offering trade training to kids who actually want practical workforce skills, instead of saying that everyone needs to pay for ridiculously expensive higher education to get a job.

It starts around 11 years old in some places. The high school entrance test determines the high school you attend and this plays into the universities you can ultimately get into. Too many kids, especially boys, are at a disadvantage in these education systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a decent flagship state school and always assumed the Asian kids would have been at an institution a couple of tiers up if they were black like me.

I don’t believe the above comment was really made by a Black person, but if it was, most Blacks don’t think like this sellout.

Seems a high EQ, empathetic comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

To answer the original question: yes, this will be bad for elite private schools. They won’t be able to show off as many Ivy admissions or attract as many Black and Hispanic students. And it may eventually be bad for well-off white and Asian students too, as colleges begin to give more of an admissions bump to low-income students.

That won’t work with the budget or business model. Any budget, any college.

If you’re going to semi-fund other peoples’ college degrees via donations or taxes, you will have to put in place heavy merit tests, ability, and placement processes, like they do in the UK, Asia, Europe and LatAm.

The only way funding other people’s college degrees works is if the grads do well, graduate, get good jobs and careers, are productive citizens, stay in the country, and donate to their alma maters or generate a solid tax base.

In Europe your test scores and schooling performance dictate which majors, track, and level of uni are available for you to even apply for.

So sure it's less costly than the silly sticker prices here, but they want results to get in and they want results 10 years out. Or else they revamp things.
No results, no subsidized degree programme.

DP. This European system starting to sound great to me. More clear and more results-oriented.

Tracking kids before their brains are fully developed sounds great to you?

Ah yes, those silly underdeveloped 18 and 19 yo american teen brains. they need a break and lots more time so they can take a test. eventually. some day. and not whine about it.

Maybe do a couple mandatory years of military or govt aid jobs like all the other countries mandate too? will that "fully develop" their brains so we can pay for their college degrees?

any other ways to coddle american kids more than some are already doing? Its becoming a laughing stock in the employment market.

You seem to be under the misimpression that UK career tracking starts at 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:historically, URM at the Big3 have received a significant college admissions bump. Won't this be particularly bad going forward as these kids won't be identified as minorities based on "low social economic status", zip code or other proxies for race.
Will these schools be able to attract diverse student bodies going forward?I'm thinking not only of Black kids but also all the wealthy Hispanic/Spanish kids (Bank, IMF, diplomat) who attend the Big3 and traditionally got an admissions boost.

No need for your concern trolling OP. Wealthy Black and Brown students who are academic achievers at the Big 3, NYC independents, NE boarding schools, HW, etc will continue to do well in the college admissions game. Especially since they’re the progeny of well-educated, well-heeled, savvy parents who will provide all of the necessary guidance and support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch all the wealthy, entitled, White folks who are celebrating this decision flip all the way out when schools re-imagine their legacy admissions policy. As an URM who went to a top private, let me tell you there were a lot of mediocre students getting into Ivy leagues on the coat tails of their parents. If that stops...my gosh...they will have to COMPETE!!! Let me run and grab my popcorn.

They already have to compete. Just not as hard. John Kerry had to go to law school at BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance they'll end preferential admissions for athletes? (I know. You all are laughing all the way to the bank. But why should your lacrosse player get recruited and get a scholarship while my theatre kid doesn't? Or maybe just my "is a good student but not a gifted lacrosse player" kid?

Because schools care a lot more about their quarterbacks than they do about any science major. The Big10 isn't getting $7 billion dollars so that Fox can air a team of kids who got into Northwestern based on academic merits play a Purdue team of engineering majors.

They may not be as celebrated as the athlete. However, your smart but not athletically gifted kid is important to the school too. Otherwise there’s no academic prestige and the school just becomes a glorified haven for jocks and rich kids.

Which Big 10 and SEC schools have academic prestige?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The decision did allow universities to consider socioeconomic status, which is absolutely their avenue to promote diversity through outreach in lower income communities. The issue here of course is that only so many students could qualify for things like Financial aid before the allotted funds are used up. And where would they get more funding if they increase lower income students who cannot pay in full but cut out legacies and donors?

This is not the case at Harvard, whose endowment is so huge they really don't need to charge undergraduates at all.