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

[Anonymous]

I’d also like to have each student submit certificate with fingerprints of “no criminal record.”

No way should the Oakton graduate driver killer have been admitted to any university.
Nor should a student with a DUI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d also like to have each student submit certificate with fingerprints of “no criminal record.”

No way should the Oakton graduate driver killer have been admitted to any university.
Nor should a student with a DUI.

Why would we deny felons from ever getting a university education...Just widening social inequality for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d also like to have each student submit certificate with fingerprints of “no criminal record.”

No way should the Oakton graduate driver killer have been admitted to any university.
Nor should a student with a DUI.

Why would we deny felons from ever getting a university education...Just widening social inequality for no reason.

What kinds of schools want criminals??

[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: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?

DP. It kind of sounds like you don't like the idea of private institutions at all. So, are you saying you want the government to step in and standardize admissions at all schools, or just the elite ones you want your kids to go to? Every school would then be required to admit kids based on your standards? Will that also extend to my hiring practices for my lab in a university as well?


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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SAT needs to go back to being an IQ test and should be the basis of admission along with gpa. No more extracurriculars! They are turning high schoolers into freaks who can do research but can barely process information.

It never was an IQ test. Debunked. Inform yourself.

The old SAT with the analogies section was basically an IQ test. It correlated as well with IQ tests as IQ tests did with other IQ tests. The changes made in the last 15 or so years have made this less and less true. There’s still a pretty good correlation, but it’s not as high as it used to be.

Analogies are the easiest section to coach. The old test had to change its name from "Aptitude " to "Assessment " because it was proven nor to measure IQ. This was in the 70s I think. Not an IQ test. Wasn't then, isn't now. Stop promoting fake news.

It wasn’t an IQ test officially, but kids who scored highly on the old SAT also scored highly on IQ tests. Doesn’t really matter what you call it if they give the same results.

But, they don't. And, your statement is not universally true, much as you'd like it to be.

Also, IQ tests are not definitive measures of intellect either. What is it with the test-obsessed other than the fact that you can prep for it and potentially outscore those with less advantages. Y'all just want a game you think you can win.

Frey and Detterman (2003) analyzed the correlation of SAT scores with intelligence test scores.[20] They found SAT scores to be highly correlated with general mental ability, or g (r=.82 in their sample).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15147489/ : “These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g” where g is “general intelligence”

The validity of IQ is easily the most robust finding from social science research. Massive numbers of studies and data.

You may not like these facts, but they’re pretty well established.

If this we're widely accepted, SAT would not have had to change its name.
Also, this study compares to Raven which is also highly coachable. I taught test prep for years and saw first had that there was not a universal correlation. Of, course, I'm nit completely dismissing it -- as I said, it's one data pont. But, prep (as well as LDs, anxiety, etc) has to be taken into consideration.

I'd agree with that. I think it's a very important data point, but grades and academic rigor are as well. FWIW, SAT scores have been correlated with many different IQ tests. They changed the name more for appearance reasons than anything else. There's a very strong anti-testing portion of academia, and they have a lot of sway. Suggesting that low scoring kids had less aptitude goes very strongly against the blank slate mind-set. I'd also agree that a kid who had great grades, super high rigor and 5's on a lot of AP exams and a low SAT/ACT score would indicate that the scores weren't accurate (for whatever reason). I just haven't run into any of these kids personally.

They changed the name because they couldn't legally use aptitude, not just for appearances (they would and fo want the appearance of aptitude).

I actually know 2 kids who have 4.0 UW from rigorous public magnets, all 5s on many APs, lots of rigor. Could not break a 1480. One definitely has anxiety. I would say both outperform my kid who got a 35 on ACT in coursework. I also know several kids who are prepped out the wazoo. Have been prepping for every magnet test since 3rd grade. Of course they do well. You can't say that just because the former got a 1470 and the latter a 1570 that the latter is smarter or the better student.

No one is claiming extremes here (like the 1600 doesn't merit or the 1200 does), but it is not the direct correlation you want it to be. That's why it needs to be one among many data points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+2 no common app

Back in the middle ages, aka 1990s, we had to hand pick which colleges and fill out each app individually. Handwriting! It was a headache. Hence, you focused on “most likely, 1safety, 1reach.”

Less likelihood that a kid with a 1200 SAT and B average submits to Yale…

That kid isn't getting in anyway, so not a problem for the loaners on this thread.

What would happen if this were the case is that the wealthy would pay someone to fill the redundant info on the various apps, or subscribe to private software which would do that. So they would still apply to a bunch of schools, and the less affluent would have fewer chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

Since you seem really dumb,
the conclusion is the majority of the ALDC kids would have bern replaced by regular more qualified kids if they were ALDC blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

Since you seem really dumb,
the conclusion is the majority of the ALDC kids would have bern replaced by regular more qualified kids if they were ALDC blind.

NO NO NO, that is NOT what it says at all. And it couldn’t as “qualified” is subjective and only determinable by actually AOs at that college who know the institutional priority and needs.

You are yet another buying into the “10 points higher makes you more qualified!” In college admissions, qualified in binary - you are qualified or not. Then they decide which students are better to meet those institutional priorities.

The study literally says 75% of the hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Read it. Read what you posted several times.

Then you can resume the ad hominem attacks on me, which I am fine with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

Since you seem really dumb,
the conclusion is the majority of the ALDC kids would have bern replaced by regular more qualified kids if they were ALDC blind.

NO NO NO, that is NOT what it says at all. And it couldn’t as “qualified” is subjective and only determinable by actually AOs at that college who know the institutional priority and needs.

You are yet another buying into the “10 points higher makes you more qualified!” In college admissions, qualified in binary - you are qualified or not. Then they decide which students are better to meet those institutional priorities.

The study literally says 75% of the hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Read it. Read what you posted several times.

Then you can resume the ad hominem attacks on me, which I am fine with.

Nope, you are simply stupid.
The study shows that if they were ALDC blind, the sane AOs would have not picked those ALDC kids. There's no subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

Since you seem really dumb,
the conclusion is the majority of the ALDC kids would have bern replaced by regular more qualified kids if they were ALDC blind.

NO NO NO, that is NOT what it says at all. And it couldn’t as “qualified” is subjective and only determinable by actually AOs at that college who know the institutional priority and needs.

You are yet another buying into the “10 points higher makes you more qualified!” In college admissions, qualified in binary - you are qualified or not. Then they decide which students are better to meet those institutional priorities.

The study literally says 75% of the hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Read it. Read what you posted several times.

Then you can resume the ad hominem attacks on me, which I am fine with.

Nope, you are simply stupid.
The study shows that if they were ALDC blind, the sane AOs would have not picked those ALDC kids. There's no subjective.

OMG. It says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if the hooks were ignored. Can you not see how obvious that is? And note that the percentage rejected is LOWER than the general population? It does not say they were unqualified. This statistic does not support your point AT ALL, no matter how many times you post it or how many times you insult me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2 no common app

Back in the middle ages, aka 1990s, we had to hand pick which colleges and fill out each app individually. Handwriting! It was a headache. Hence, you focused on “most likely, 1safety, 1reach.”

Less likelihood that a kid with a 1200 SAT and B average submits to Yale…

True!

Also many colleges conducted interviews with applicants. My sibling was an interviewer for years for a VA university.

Alumni interviews are a farce. I know too many who do interviews and they are strongly biased in favor of their own demographic, esp people have or have had their own children in private schools.

[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: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.

Call me a pragmatist but if someone donates a billion to a school which allows a significant number of highly qualified but financially strapped kids to attend, then I won't really complain about their kid having a better shot at it than my kid. I certainly cannot afford to pay for any kids to attend college other than my own.

Also legacy kids at top colleges tend to also have higher GPAs and test scores so even if they get in at a higher rate it is not necessarily due to bias. My alma mater, which is a T10, has gotten rid of legacy preference, but I'm still willing to bet that legacy kids are admitted at a higher rate than non-legacy. I have no idea if my kid could get in now vs 20 years ago, but if she doesn't get in I'm also willing to bet that she does not need a degree from an elite school to be successful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361
"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."

You lost your bet.

What? 75% of one group of students Would have been rejected at a college with a 95% rejection Rate If they didn’t have the thing that set them apart from the other students? Unpossible!

I'm not sure if it's your reading skill or reasoning skill.
Maybe both.

Ha, no, sorry buddy… your post exact stated that 75% of the students would have been rejected without the hook, and the rejection rate at Harvard is 95%…

So the genius conclusion is the majority of hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Exactly the same as the other non-hooked kids.

That’s some genius insight right there! lol. And you know that, which is why you responded with ad hominem instead of substance.

Since you seem really dumb,
the conclusion is the majority of the ALDC kids would have bern replaced by regular more qualified kids if they were ALDC blind.

NO NO NO, that is NOT what it says at all. And it couldn’t as “qualified” is subjective and only determinable by actually AOs at that college who know the institutional priority and needs.

You are yet another buying into the “10 points higher makes you more qualified!” In college admissions, qualified in binary - you are qualified or not. Then they decide which students are better to meet those institutional priorities.

The study literally says 75% of the hooked kids would have been rejected if they weren’t hooked. Read it. Read what you posted several times.

Then you can resume the ad hominem attacks on me, which I am fine with.

Nope, you are simply stupid.
The study shows that if they were ALDC blind, the sane AOs would have not picked those ALDC kids. There's no subjective.

OMG. It says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if the hooks were ignored. Can you not see how obvious that is? And note that the percentage rejected is LOWER than the general population? It does not say they were unqualified. This statistic does not support your point AT ALL, no matter how many times you post it or how many times you insult me.

But those kids were accepted, you can’t compare that 75% to the acceptance rate. They already got in. What this means is the hooked applicant rate should have been 25% of the actual rate. Not sure why this is hard for you.