
OP is really trying to milk that stat from the 1990s! In my mind's eye they are doing one of those dances too. |
Completely agree with this assessment. Add in the known adverse affects of facing income @ $220k (see recent article in NYT I think) and most upper middle class, bright kids are going to lower ranked schools. Add in the excessive rise in college tuition and you see why so many kids who forty, thirty or even twenty years ago would have been Ivy contenders are now “chasing merit” at no name schools. |
+1 Most aggrieved DCUM posters "forget" about this part when invoking "URMs", "DEI" and such. |
What you seem to miss is “qualified” and “statistics” are not mutually dependent. You’re choosing what “statistics” are relevant. But those “statistics” aren’t actually criteria for “qualification.” You just want them to be. Everyone else has agreed there is a better set of criteria that is best to decide who is “qualified.” Only you think test scores and grades are the most important. No one else shares that view —there are many other elements that are better measures of “qualification” but you for some reason are clinging to outdated measures that have been determined to be unsuitable. |
Take the time to study the origins of standardized testing and the SAT. Racist from the outset. Questions where blacks scored higher than whites where thrown out, etc. There is no "merit" in standardized testing. |
If grades and test scores are just random stats or noise, what the heck else is there to go on? |
Must be engineered to benefit Asians then. Crazy how Asians have clearly hijacked the testing services. |
+1 |
NP. For a long time there was a correlation between *presumption of intelligence* and college attended. Sometimes that intelligence was real, other times (I’m lookin at you, Jared Kushner) it wasn't, and also many highly intelligent people were left out of the equation entirely. But (a) fewer people questioned the correlation; (b) for a particular set of kids — those most likely to be known to DCUM — if they were very intelligent, it could be presumed that they would end up at an elite school, and (c) one could assume that a degree from an elite institution, in any major, would be sufficient to generate prosperity.
Points b and c fueled point a. The cycle went largely undisturbed for generations. There are some underlying assumptions in OP’s post with which I don’t agree, but I do agree that things are changing. The staggering cost of college, combined with economic uncertainties post-college, is now forcing UMC families to make the same sorts of calculations about the value proposition of elite schools that MC and lower income families always had to. People who a generation ago would have assumed that highly intelligent kids can’t be found at state schools or lesser-known privates (or that they were rare) seem newly open to the idea that terrific, very smart kids can be found at a wide range of schools. My kids are 5 years apart, and I really see a difference even since my elder was going through the process — it’s like a whole subset of society started crying uncle on costs. Thing is, there were always really intelligent kids at a range of schools. It’s just more apparent to UMC families now. |
Guess you're not familiar with Asian "cram schools." Engrained in the culture. Doesn't negate the racist origins of standardized testing in the U.S. |
Just because your kid got rejected doesn’t mean the colleges are slipping or losing value. The world doesn’t revolve around you. |
Yes math and English is very racist, and you shouldn't prepare and study for tests, midterms, finals, etc. I know that the origins of Holistic BS was to suppress Jewish numbers. |
Way to completely miss the point of the discussion. |
I think a lot more things are apparent to the UMC now. |
Caring much about education is engrained in the Asian culture. |