What’s next for UVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what names are being floated as a successor. I’ve heard Cucinelli but he is a politician, not an educator. Are there other names?

I don’t think him not being an educator would be an impediment.

So you’d support a CEO that had never worked for a corporation if your stocks depended on it?

Running a large university is similar to being a CEO. Many academics do, unfortunately, not have that type of experience. Mitch Daniels was not an academic before he became president of Purdue.

Yet most successful college presidents had a career in higher education before becoming a college president. Kind of like most successful principals were first teachers and those that were not are normally resented by teachers.

The significant majority of them are academics. But the entirety of academe has issues with controlling cost. Academis are ill equipped or inclined to deal with that.

For profit colleges are shit, so I’m not sure that what you’re implying is a good thing.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions was banned statewide by a bill signed by Youngkin. A new president at UVA can’t change that.

The forces that pushed Ryan out removed a university president by federal pressure for the first time in the history of the United States. Do you think they care and or can’t use the same pressure to impact policy in VA? Wake up

Of course they can, but why did Youngkin sign it in the first place? Honestly, legacy admission coming back would benefit my kids hugely. But if it means having to attend under the leadership of the Cooch, I think we’d pass.

Another clueless poster. The bump was never that big to begin with, and if you’re in state it was practically nothing. “Hugely?” Um, no.

Not hugely as in, “my kid with a 3.0 is getting in.” But hugely, as in, if it came down to my kid vs another in their class, the kid with two parents, a grandparent, and several uncles and cousins as alums would get the nod.

Legacy is parents. That’s it. Nobody gives a shit about uncles and cousins. UVA is full of students whose cousins didn’t get in. Get a grip. You are waaay overestimating how legacy worked at UVA.

Ok, fine. Then if it came down to my kid vs another in their class with equal stats, the one with two alum parents would be favored. Better?

Uh huh. Sure.

Where are you getting the fanciful idea that two kids exist with identical stats except one is a legacy? They don’t.

We have very good friends who were both UVA grads. Their very smart and perfectly well accomplished in state daughter ended up at Oberlin after not even getting waitlisted. They were furious. And it happened all the time. It’s a large state school where many in state applicants have parents who went there. It’s also much more competitive now than when you got in. You yourself probably wouldn’t get in today.

Thanks for your little anecdote. You obviously know more than me and you’ve totally put me in my place.

You’re welcome.

I’m sorry you don’t have the golden ticket to UVA anymore. But as I said you never really did. You’re just misinformed.

Don’t be sorry. As I said, we wouldn’t even want it under these circumstances. Curious though, if it was never a real advantage, then why did they have to officially end it?

Well, for starters it gave a bigger bump to out of state applicants. It essentially considered them as in state applicants for admissions purposes (although not for tuition purposes), which did make a difference.

As for you not wanting it “under these circumstances,” you’re living under a rock if you think that UVA is uniquely affected by the current crazy administration. It isn’t. Every major university is scrambling to stay on the administration’s good side and making changes big and small. They’re just not as public. And sure UVA is losing its excellent president, but he was leaving next year anyway.

So the Virginia legislature outlawed a legacy bump just to penalize out-of-state alums, while keeping the overall ratio of OOS to in-state students unchanged? Sure, ok.

God you people are obtuse. The Virginia legislature didn’t outlaw legacy just at UVA - it was a universal ban aimed at all VA state colleges. So, no, it wasn’t “just” that.

Right, because the alums of GMU and JMU have been positively up in arms about their kids being shut out. Obtuse, GMAFB.

This is from an almost 20 year old article in UVA Magazine:

Th[e] improvement in the [applicant] pool has meant that one’s legacy status doesn’t carry the weight that it once did for in-state students. For out-of-state students, a legacy status puts them in the in-state pool, where their odds are better.

As the Alumni Association’s liaison for legacy applicants, Cindy Darr Garver (Col ’80) warns alumni of this fact. The University has always embraced the legacy tradition—legacies typically make up 10 to 13 percent of a class—but the increasingly competitive landscape means that alumni shouldn’t assume that their child has a significant advantage in the application process. “Managing expectations is my primary job,” Garver says, and “it gets harder all the time.”

I’m not sure I understand your point here. (I know, I’m dumb/obtuse/whatever—I’ll get that part out of the way for you.)

Just further proof of what I've been saying throughout the thread -- that legacy at UVA for in state students never really gave that big of a bump and it really only mattered for out of state. Posters were calling me out for suggesting this, skeptical that the legislature would have stepped in and banned legacy admissions if this was the only thing really going on.

The law banning legacy admissions was more symbolic than anything. It was passed on the heels of the Supreme Court's decision declaring affirmative action illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitch Daniels - the old guy who stated in his open letter to Purdue that there needs to be more well-off college educated men so women would "marry up" and produce more babies. Yeah.

Republicans are so gross.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacy admissions was banned statewide by a bill signed by Youngkin. A new president at UVA can’t change that.

The forces that pushed Ryan out removed a university president by federal pressure for the first time in the history of the United States. Do you think they care and or can’t use the same pressure to impact policy in VA? Wake up

Of course they can, but why did Youngkin sign it in the first place? Honestly, legacy admission coming back would benefit my kids hugely. But if it means having to attend under the leadership of the Cooch, I think we’d pass.

Another clueless poster. The bump was never that big to begin with, and if you’re in state it was practically nothing. “Hugely?” Um, no.

Not hugely as in, “my kid with a 3.0 is getting in.” But hugely, as in, if it came down to my kid vs another in their class, the kid with two parents, a grandparent, and several uncles and cousins as alums would get the nod.

Legacy is parents. That’s it. Nobody gives a shit about uncles and cousins. UVA is full of students whose cousins didn’t get in. Get a grip. You are waaay overestimating how legacy worked at UVA.

Ok, fine. Then if it came down to my kid vs another in their class with equal stats, the one with two alum parents would be favored. Better?

Uh huh. Sure.

Where are you getting the fanciful idea that two kids exist with identical stats except one is a legacy? They don’t.

We have very good friends who were both UVA grads. Their very smart and perfectly well accomplished in state daughter ended up at Oberlin after not even getting waitlisted. They were furious. And it happened all the time. It’s a large state school where many in state applicants have parents who went there. It’s also much more competitive now than when you got in. You yourself probably wouldn’t get in today.

Thanks for your little anecdote. You obviously know more than me and you’ve totally put me in my place.

You’re welcome.

I’m sorry you don’t have the golden ticket to UVA anymore. But as I said you never really did. You’re just misinformed.

Don’t be sorry. As I said, we wouldn’t even want it under these circumstances. Curious though, if it was never a real advantage, then why did they have to officially end it?

Well, for starters it gave a bigger bump to out of state applicants. It essentially considered them as in state applicants for admissions purposes (although not for tuition purposes), which did make a difference.

As for you not wanting it “under these circumstances,” you’re living under a rock if you think that UVA is uniquely affected by the current crazy administration. It isn’t. Every major university is scrambling to stay on the administration’s good side and making changes big and small. They’re just not as public. And sure UVA is losing its excellent president, but he was leaving next year anyway.

So the Virginia legislature outlawed a legacy bump just to penalize out-of-state alums, while keeping the overall ratio of OOS to in-state students unchanged? Sure, ok.

God you people are obtuse. The Virginia legislature didn’t outlaw legacy just at UVA - it was a universal ban aimed at all VA state colleges. So, no, it wasn’t “just” that.

Right, because the alums of GMU and JMU have been positively up in arms about their kids being shut out. Obtuse, GMAFB.

This is from an almost 20 year old article in UVA Magazine:

Th[e] improvement in the [applicant] pool has meant that one’s legacy status doesn’t carry the weight that it once did for in-state students. For out-of-state students, a legacy status puts them in the in-state pool, where their odds are better.

As the Alumni Association’s liaison for legacy applicants, Cindy Darr Garver (Col ’80) warns alumni of this fact. The University has always embraced the legacy tradition—legacies typically make up 10 to 13 percent of a class—but the increasingly competitive landscape means that alumni shouldn’t assume that their child has a significant advantage in the application process. “Managing expectations is my primary job,” Garver says, and “it gets harder all the time.”

I’m not sure I understand your point here. (I know, I’m dumb/obtuse/whatever—I’ll get that part out of the way for you.)

Just further proof of what I've been saying throughout the thread -- that legacy at UVA for in state students never really gave that big of a bump and it really only mattered for out of state. Posters were calling me out for suggesting this, skeptical that the legislature would have stepped in and banned legacy admissions if this was the only thing really going on.

The law banning legacy admissions was more symbolic than anything. It was passed on the heels of the Supreme Court's decision declaring affirmative action illegal.

In Virginia localities outside of NOVA, it seemed to have mattered, at least anecdotally. Every one of my friends from UVA whose kids went to non-NOVA high schools got in, and every legacy kid at my own kid’s non-NOVA high school has gotten in in the past few years. NOVA’s a different animal of course.

[Anonymous]

Let’s not forget DEI also strives to include people with disabilities, including accomodations for students with ADHD. Will they install wheelchair ramps in new buildings? Will Junior get those extra minutes to take the test because he has dyslexia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget DEI also strives to include people with disabilities, including accomodations for students with ADHD. Will they install wheelchair ramps in new buildings? Will Junior get those extra minutes to take the test because he has dyslexia?

There are still federal disability laws in place, but the Trump admin isn't prioritizing enforcement of those either.

Let's be honest, DEI initiatives usually ignored the disabled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what names are being floated as a successor. I’ve heard Cucinelli but he is a politician, not an educator. Are there other names?

I don’t think him not being an educator would be an impediment.

So you’d support a CEO that had never worked for a corporation if your stocks depended on it?

Running a large university is similar to being a CEO. Many academics do, unfortunately, not have that type of experience. Mitch Daniels was not an academic before he became president of Purdue.

Yet most successful college presidents had a career in higher education before becoming a college president. Kind of like most successful principals were first teachers and those that were not are normally resented by teachers.

The significant majority of them are academics. But the entirety of academe has issues with controlling cost. Academis are ill equipped or inclined to deal with that.

For profit colleges are shit, so I’m not sure that what you’re implying is a good thing.

Controlling cost. Nothing to do with for profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget DEI also strives to include people with disabilities, including accomodations for students with ADHD. Will they install wheelchair ramps in new buildings? Will Junior get those extra minutes to take the test because he has dyslexia?

Wheelchair ramps are ADA, not DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitch Daniels - the old guy who stated in his open letter to Purdue that there needs to be more well-off college educated men so women would "marry up" and produce more babies. Yeah.

Republicans are so gross.

OK. Mitch Daniels is gross. Eat you own dog food with Cuccunelli.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget DEI also strives to include people with disabilities, including accomodations for students with ADHD. Will they install wheelchair ramps in new buildings? Will Junior get those extra minutes to take the test because he has dyslexia?

Wheelchair ramps are ADA, not DEI.

+1
So much ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what names are being floated as a successor. I’ve heard Cucinelli but he is a politician, not an educator. Are there other names?

I don’t think him not being an educator would be an impediment.

So you’d support a CEO that had never worked for a corporation if your stocks depended on it?

Running a large university is similar to being a CEO. Many academics do, unfortunately, not have that type of experience. Mitch Daniels was not an academic before he became president of Purdue.

Yet most successful college presidents had a career in higher education before becoming a college president. Kind of like most successful principals were first teachers and those that were not are normally resented by teachers.

The significant majority of them are academics. But the entirety of academe has issues with controlling cost. Academis are ill equipped or inclined to deal with that.

For profit colleges are shit, so I’m not sure that what you’re implying is a good thing.

Controlling cost. Nothing to do with for profit.

More RWNJ drivel from you. You want to “control cost” for everyone unless it benefits you and your kids. In other words, more cuts for the poors, but not for Chad and Zoe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what names are being floated as a successor. I’ve heard Cucinelli but he is a politician, not an educator. Are there other names?

I don’t think him not being an educator would be an impediment.

So you’d support a CEO that had never worked for a corporation if your stocks depended on it?

Running a large university is similar to being a CEO. Many academics do, unfortunately, not have that type of experience. Mitch Daniels was not an academic before he became president of Purdue.

Yet most successful college presidents had a career in higher education before becoming a college president. Kind of like most successful principals were first teachers and those that were not are normally resented by teachers.

The significant majority of them are academics. But the entirety of academe has issues with controlling cost. Academis are ill equipped or inclined to deal with that.

For profit colleges are shit, so I’m not sure that what you’re implying is a good thing.

Controlling cost. Nothing to do with for profit.

More RWNJ drivel from you. You want to “control cost” for everyone unless it benefits you and your kids. In other words, more cuts for the poors, but not for Chad and Zoe!

No. U.S. higher education is the most expensive in the world, many are questioning its value, and we have a huge issue with loan repayment. There is a cost issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious what names are being floated as a successor. I’ve heard Cucinelli but he is a politician, not an educator. Are there other names?

I don’t think him not being an educator would be an impediment.

So you’d support a CEO that had never worked for a corporation if your stocks depended on it?

Running a large university is similar to being a CEO. Many academics do, unfortunately, not have that type of experience. Mitch Daniels was not an academic before he became president of Purdue.

Yet most successful college presidents had a career in higher education before becoming a college president. Kind of like most successful principals were first teachers and those that were not are normally resented by teachers.

The significant majority of them are academics. But the entirety of academe has issues with controlling cost. Academis are ill equipped or inclined to deal with that.

For profit colleges are shit, so I’m not sure that what you’re implying is a good thing.

Controlling cost. Nothing to do with for profit.

More RWNJ drivel from you. You want to “control cost” for everyone unless it benefits you and your kids. In other words, more cuts for the poors, but not for Chad and Zoe!

No. U.S. higher education is the most expensive in the world, many are questioning its value, and we have a huge issue with loan repayment. There is a cost issue.

That’s because US higher ed was considered the best in the world, at least until now. Tons of rich internationals willing to pay full freight. You’re welcome to opt out if you can’t afford it or don’t see the value, lots of people will take your place. Move along now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitch Daniels - the old guy who stated in his open letter to Purdue that there needs to be more well-off college educated men so women would "marry up" and produce more babies. Yeah.

Republicans are so gross.

OK. Mitch Daniels is gross. Eat you own dog food with Cuccunelli.

Cooch is even worse. Perv wanted to force women to undergo invasive vaginal ultrasounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget DEI also strives to include people with disabilities, including accomodations for students with ADHD. Will they install wheelchair ramps in new buildings? Will Junior get those extra minutes to take the test because he has dyslexia?

Wheelchair ramps are ADA, not DEI.

ADA compliance frequently falls under DEI depts, dumbass.