Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You have no answers. Admissions is race blind.

Asians are being used by White Supremacists as an imaginary group being discriminated against. White prep school kids face the same competition as Asians students… but why highlight Asians, it’s political.

What is your evidence for this?

Do you even know who brought this before the supreme court?

Yes, this!

It was Putin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

+1 Huge influence on decisions, regardless of wealth.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the top ranked colleges will make any changes in 2023 admission in view of the SFFA v. Harvard/UNC at Supreme Court? Anyone has any idea?

[Anonymous]

Just bumping this 109-page thread in case anyone had additional thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

so test prep or taking it 5 times has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

so test prep or taking it 5 times has nothing to do with it

Maybe, who cares? Not that much different from the practicing / conditioning / competing that led to them becoming a recruited athlete, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

A score of 32 is the 96th percentile, which is not way, way below anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

so test prep or taking it 5 times has nothing to do with it

This is why I like how Georgetown requires ALL scores. I might be wrong, but I think I had to submit both my SAT scores when I applied way back in the 80s AND there was NO superscore.

[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:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

so test prep or taking it 5 times has nothing to do with it

This is why I like how Georgetown requires ALL scores. I might be wrong, but I think I had to submit both my SAT scores when I applied way back in the 80s AND there was NO superscore.

Why, so they can make sure they only let in the RIGHT people?

[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:Sorry but, if you want to increase the number of certain race at competitive colleges, only way is to make them care more about education, put more efforts, and work harder.

Sorry that's the realtiy, and it should be the way.

If you have to work that hard are you really that smart?

I am smart enough to know that working hard gives me better odds of success then relying on good fortune. I suspect you think you are smarter than that. Or maybe- just maybe, you believe you are entitled to success - lack of hard work notwithstanding

Elite schools are not looking for a hard worker. That is great I’m sure your boss is happy you work hard. Elite school want leaders, innovators, actors, athletes, musicians.

Congrats you are a wiz at studying, your state school will probably give you a scholarship so you’ll stay local and work hard for them until you die of a heart attack.

This is the most pathetic feet-licking by an obviously middle-income do-nothing.

Top schools don't care about athletes or musicians, it's simply an easy way in for wealthy full-pay applicants with low scores. They want "innovators" as in entrepreneurs, which doesn't mean much other than comes from wealth, has wealthy parental networks and can afford to screw around while their entrepreneurship fails. And of course they want leaders, it's 6,000 leaders leading themselves and no one else.

Top schools absolutely do care about athletes and musicians, which is why they aggressively recruit them and then bend admissions standards to admit them. They aren't doing this because these students are "full-pay" lol.

A relative of mine is a recruited athlete at an Ivy (what I would consider a minor sport). She was recruited junior year, and told that admission would be secure if she got at least 32 on ACT. Way, way below the score that would be necessary for a non-athlete.

Way lower than somebody with no other skills … you have to be 1% in something not everything. 32 indicates she can do the work and doesn’t need to test prep and take it 5 times.

?? how do you know she did test prep, took it 5 times and got 32??

Someone scoring a 32 is scoring in the 97th or 98th percentile and can do just fine. As stated in other threads, these schools weren't established to admit only the absolute smartest people possible.

so test prep or taking it 5 times has nothing to do with it

This is why I like how Georgetown requires ALL scores. I might be wrong, but I think I had to submit both my SAT scores when I applied way back in the 80s AND there was NO superscore.

Why, so they can make sure they only let in the RIGHT people?

Like, what is wrong with scoring a progressively higher score? No one said you have to be one and done.