In your opinion, how should the elite colleges decide conduct admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

+1

The research colleges do would cost the government 10x+ more if done in industry. Masters and PHD students are "extremely cheap high quality labor".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

This may be the dumbest thing ever said on DCUM. The contributions of higher education to the US economy are exceptionally positive. Around 4 million people in the US are employed in higher education. Over the last twenty years, universities have contributed over 380,000 new patents. US higher education attracts a substantial number of foreign students who pay around $36 billion into the US economy on an annual basis. College graduates are twice as likely to own their business as noncollege graduates.

Lol just like for any other countries.
They don't charge shit ton of money like US colleges
I expect much better from US colleges.

Yeah instead colleges in Europe are "cheaper" but that's largely funded by 50-60% tax rate, even for "middle class". So sure, you making $200K can now pay 100K+ in taxes.

No thanks, I'll take our system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM's defense of athletic recruitment reminds us all that it is not about making a fair system for education sake, but about how Lily at Sidwell can backdoor her way into a college.

I’m not an athlete at all, but as a Carolina grad, I absolutely loved having a college experience that embraced basketball games and the rivalry with Duke. It was a blast! Not on board with doing away with athletics. I admire those who attain the collegiate level even if I never could do it (or would want to).

For D1 programs, I understand, because it takes up so few seats. Where it makes no sense is D3 programs where they lose millions and game attendance is poor. I'd honestly negotiate it for basketball (Davidson) or football, but Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash should not have recruitment

I don't know why it's so hard for haters to understand is that the reason for athletic recruitment is not entirely about money, and to the extent it is about money, it is not all about ticket sales. Winning teams increase alumni donations regardless of whether actual attendance at the games is poor, and it is alumni who protest when colleges try to get rid of "niche" sports or move them to club status.

But ultimately you might as well shut up about what elite colleges "should do" about Golf/Crew/Lacrosse/Squash because they are never going to listen to you.

Of course they won’t listen. This thread is about what people would like; not what they think colleges would actually do.

And it is all about money. Ticket sales, tv rights, merch. And donations. All about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

WTF why don't you keep up?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/05/28/california-moves-a-step-closer-to-banning-legacy-admission-preferences/

It's already happening.
Tax payers can demand as long as the college benefits from tax payers money.
Law makers listen to the voters. Government research funding can also go to hundreds of other colleges that comply.

Forfeit all the benefits then they can do whatever they want. I wouldn't care at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

This may be the dumbest thing ever said on DCUM. The contributions of higher education to the US economy are exceptionally positive. Around 4 million people in the US are employed in higher education. Over the last twenty years, universities have contributed over 380,000 new patents. US higher education attracts a substantial number of foreign students who pay around $36 billion into the US economy on an annual basis. College graduates are twice as likely to own their business as noncollege graduates.

Lol just like for any other countries.
They don't charge shit ton of money like US colleges
I expect much better from US colleges.

Yeah instead colleges in Europe are "cheaper" but that's largely funded by 50-60% tax rate, even for "middle class". So sure, you making $200K can now pay 100K+ in taxes.

No thanks, I'll take our system.

Well that’s not the whole story. Looking at taxes without factoring in what you don’t have to pay for in high tax places is over simplified.


Say you make $200K in the US. You pay $60,000 in income taxes, plus another $10,000 in fica/social security. That doesn’t include state taxes. You probably pay $30,000 per year for family healthcare insurance premiums (with a high deductible). So you’ve paid $100,000 in taxes and healthcare premiums. And for this you get the privilege of paying between $25,000 and $60,000 per year for tuition in college.

In much of Europe you might pay $100,000 in taxes, but the healthcare would be free and college would be $5000-$10000. And you would not have to spend tens or hundreds of thousands creating a curated CV for the kid to get accepted. Sure the European system isn’t perfect - they track far too early for my liking - but on a value basis I’d take theirs over ours.

[Anonymous]

Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

WTF why don't you keep up?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/05/28/california-moves-a-step-closer-to-banning-legacy-admission-preferences/

It's already happening.
Tax payers can demand as long as the college benefits from tax payers money.
Law makers listen to the voters. Government research funding can also go to hundreds of other colleges that comply.

Forfeit all the benefits then they can do whatever they want. I wouldn't care at that point.

Again you did not answer the questions.

And you know what the result will be of this, right? No more Pell grants accepted at private colleges. This, BTW, is the actual goal of many of the activist legislators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

WTF why don't you keep up?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/05/28/california-moves-a-step-closer-to-banning-legacy-admission-preferences/

It's already happening.
Tax payers can demand as long as the college benefits from tax payers money.
Law makers listen to the voters. Government research funding can also go to hundreds of other colleges that comply.

Forfeit all the benefits then they can do whatever they want. I wouldn't care at that point.

Again you did not answer the questions.

And you know what the result will be of this, right? No more Pell grants accepted at private colleges. This, BTW, is the actual goal of many of the activist legislators.

LOL what answer? What part of 'it's actually happening' didn't you get it?
You didn't even know what's happening around you and talking garbage.
The result will be that colleges, both public and private, have more fair admissions practice. That's the goal.
Like you said the private colleges have freedom, just not on my tax money.
How old are you? Why are you against progress? Your kid got in backdoor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

Why should a unique sports talent be more highly valued than a unique talent in all other areas? Where are your pre-reads for pianists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges should admit based on academic merit, exactly the same as in the rest of the world.

No more sports or legacy or skin color bs.

The athletes and legacies have the merit (for the most part). All these students have the merit, but most of the ones getting have something else too -- awards, unique talent/EC, athletic skill, connections or legacy. The last 2 are the ones that seem a shame, but those people probably pay for my kid's financial aid....

It's likely that some rich old dude, whose kids graduated decades ago, with millions to spare is paying your kids financial aid, not the legacy who are just paying 90k for the year. One of the worst hype complexes we give legacy students is that their meager 90k and occasional 50k gift to the university is subsidizing financial aid. Most legacies contribute very little overall to the college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

WTF why don't you keep up?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/05/28/california-moves-a-step-closer-to-banning-legacy-admission-preferences/

It's already happening.
Tax payers can demand as long as the college benefits from tax payers money.
Law makers listen to the voters. Government research funding can also go to hundreds of other colleges that comply.

Forfeit all the benefits then they can do whatever they want. I wouldn't care at that point.

Again you did not answer the questions.

And you know what the result will be of this, right? No more Pell grants accepted at private colleges. This, BTW, is the actual goal of many of the activist legislators.

LOL what answer? What part of 'it's actually happening' didn't you get it?
You didn't even know what's happening around you and talking garbage.
The result will be that colleges, both public and private, have more fair admissions practice. That's the goal.
Like you said the private colleges have freedom, just not on my tax money.
How old are you? Why are you against progress? Your kid got in backdoor?

No, but thanks for all the unwarranted aspersions.

I think private colleges should be able to accept whoever they want however they want as long as they don’t violate the law.

What will happen if this type of legislation prevails is that elite colleges won’t accept Pell grants anymore. I think that would be a TRAGEDY. And all because you don’t think they can pick a legacy over 95 other equally qualified students (And yes they are all equally qualified and capable of doing the work, an admission is not a reward for your SAT score).

I DISLIKE legacy admissions personally, but if the college thinks it is important for their fundraising so they can have larger endowments and give MORE money to needy students, I think that is the most admirable of goals. I think the people running the colleges know what is best for them, and I believe they are, for the most part, ethical people.

You, however, would prefer to put all that at risk to increase your kid’s odds from 5% to % 5 1/2%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who is fine with the way it is?

+1

I wish corporate recruitment and promotion could be this well defined.

Corporates pay tax and pay my salary.
Colleges take my money and tax payers money.

I expect much better from colleges.

How do colleges take taxpayers money? And don’t say through research grants because that shows you have no idea what research grants are and how they work and what you have to do to get them..

If a college has a student gets Pell grant, that's federal tax money.

If a student receives a pell grant and chooses the college to spend it at you think that creates sons sense of obligation for the college?

by that logic, every supermarket in the United States takes taxpayer money. do you think you get to tell them how to operate also ? and yes, it’s exactly the same thing

You would prefer it if the college then chose not to accept students who needed Pell grants?

If the college wants the student, the cost should be covered by its endowment, otherwise it's taking tax payers money.

You did not answer any of the questions.

The Pell grant is given to the student. Not the college. Hence the supermarket analogy you conveniently ignore. Because of course it defeats your desired narrative that because you pay taxes you get to tell private colleges how to do things, which is preposterous.

WTF why don't you keep up?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/05/28/california-moves-a-step-closer-to-banning-legacy-admission-preferences/

It's already happening.
Tax payers can demand as long as the college benefits from tax payers money.
Law makers listen to the voters. Government research funding can also go to hundreds of other colleges that comply.

Forfeit all the benefits then they can do whatever they want. I wouldn't care at that point.

Again you did not answer the questions.

And you know what the result will be of this, right? No more Pell grants accepted at private colleges. This, BTW, is the actual goal of many of the activist legislators.

LOL what answer? What part of 'it's actually happening' didn't you get it?
You didn't even know what's happening around you and talking garbage.
The result will be that colleges, both public and private, have more fair admissions practice. That's the goal.
Like you said the private colleges have freedom, just not on my tax money.
How old are you? Why are you against progress? Your kid got in backdoor?

No, but thanks for all the unwarranted aspersions.

I think private colleges should be able to accept whoever they want however they want as long as they don’t violate the law.

What will happen if this type of legislation prevails is that elite colleges won’t accept Pell grants anymore. I think that would be a TRAGEDY. And all because you don’t think they can pick a legacy over 95 other equally qualified students (And yes they are all equally qualified and capable of doing the work, an admission is not a reward for your SAT score).

I DISLIKE legacy admissions personally, but if the college thinks it is important for their fundraising so they can have larger endowments and give MORE money to needy students, I think that is the most admirable of goals. I think the people running the colleges know what is best for them, and I believe they are, for the most part, ethical people.

You, however, would prefer to put all that at risk to increase your kid’s odds from 5% to % 5 1/2%.

Colleges thought discriminating Jews and later Asians were best for them.
It's not about my kid or your kid. My kids are all in colleges.

Education system is a pillar and backbone of the society.
People should have trust in the system that they will get fair and equal opportunities. This is crucial for a healthy and thriving society. It's much more important and provide bigger benefit in a larger scale.
There will be plenty of great schools available for needy students.

Again, "The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
You just keep pretending dumb or are actually clueless.

Again private schools will still have freedom to do what's best for them, but not when benefiting from tax payers money. There might be some schools decline Pell grant students and accept just rich kids.
That's fine if they think that's what's best for them. There will be plenty of other great schools for needy students.
You seem to have the mind of slaves and like to bend over to the rich private schools.