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

[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: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.

No, it does not mean that, does not say that, and your logic is not there.

It literally says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if hooks didn’t count. This is pretty funny to me.

[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: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.

No, it does not mean that, does not say that, and your logic is not there.

It literally says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if hooks didn’t count. This is pretty funny to me.

“ 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.”

Admitted does not mean applied. This literally says that the rate should have been 25% of the actual rate. If you still can’t understand this, I’m just going to have to assume you’re stupid.

[Anonymous]

Lot of hooked ivy grads on this thread demonstrating why they needed the hooks.

[Anonymous]

ALDC grads are trying really hard here LOL

[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.

With the "unpossible" , I would say it is reading, writing and reasoning.

[Anonymous]

This isn't hard.

Grades, weighting for course difficulty, SAT scores and set a certain threshold..then randomly pick from the pool.

Fairest way possible. No watering down crap. Complete Identity agnostic.

[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.

With the "unpossible" , I would say it is reading, writing and reasoning.

It's both a legitimate word and a long time internet meme. Google it.

You people think you are all so smart. You're not. You can't admit the weakness of your argument so you go to ad hominem attack - and then even THOSE are faulty.

Maybe.... stop?

[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: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.

No, it does not mean that, does not say that, and your logic is not there.

It literally says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if hooks didn’t count. This is pretty funny to me.

“ 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.”

Admitted does not mean applied. This literally says that the rate should have been 25% of the actual rate. If you still can’t understand this, I’m just going to have to assume you’re stupid.

I DO understand it for the fifth time. I DO agree that they are saying the rate would have been 25% without the hook. That EXACTLY my point.

It's like saying "0% of lottery winners would have won if they didn't have the winning ticket" is some kind of statistical proof of something.

Yes, kids with hooks get in at a higher rate than those without. That's what hooks are. Without the hooks those kids are just like the thousands of other normal qualified kids that get rejected. It doesn't mean they are not qualified for admission. These colleges reject MANY other qualified students. Gosh you should know this.

[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: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.

No, it does not mean that, does not say that, and your logic is not there.

It literally says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if hooks didn’t count. This is pretty funny to me.

“ 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.”

Admitted does not mean applied. This literally says that the rate should have been 25% of the actual rate. If you still can’t understand this, I’m just going to have to assume you’re stupid.

I DO understand it for the fifth time. I DO agree that they are saying the rate would have been 25% without the hook. That EXACTLY my point.

It's like saying "0% of lottery winners would have won if they didn't have the winning ticket" is some kind of statistical proof of something.

Yes, kids with hooks get in at a higher rate than those without. That's what hooks are. Without the hooks those kids are just like the thousands of other normal qualified kids that get rejected. It doesn't mean they are not qualified for admission. These colleges reject MANY other qualified students. Gosh you should know this.

Colleges reject students because there are more qualified students.
If they were ALDC blind, those ALDC kids admitted would have been replaced by more qualified students.
That's what it says. It's not too complicated.
Your ALDC a$$ is really stupid LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Also not in favor of doing away with athletics. Did anyone suggest that?

Agree with doing away with treating athletes as a special class of applicant.

The suggestion was that the only defenders of athletic recruitment are parents of athletes. I am a fan because I believe the caliber of athletics contributed to my experience as a student. You don’t get the same level of skill without recruitment.

So no one suggested doing away with athletics.

Did you even read what I wrote?

[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: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.

No, it does not mean that, does not say that, and your logic is not there.

It literally says 75% of the hooked applicants would have been rejected if hooks didn’t count. This is pretty funny to me.

“ 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.”

Admitted does not mean applied. This literally says that the rate should have been 25% of the actual rate. If you still can’t understand this, I’m just going to have to assume you’re stupid.

I DO understand it for the fifth time. I DO agree that they are saying the rate would have been 25% without the hook. That EXACTLY my point.

It's like saying "0% of lottery winners would have won if they didn't have the winning ticket" is some kind of statistical proof of something.

Yes, kids with hooks get in at a higher rate than those without. That's what hooks are. Without the hooks those kids are just like the thousands of other normal qualified kids that get rejected. It doesn't mean they are not qualified for admission. These colleges reject MANY other qualified students. Gosh you should know this.

Colleges reject students because there are more qualified students.
.

This is incorrect. Colleges reject plenty of qualified students. Any elite college adcom will tell you this. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you read one of the many books written by former adcoms, or visit one and ask them the question. Learn how admissions is done. They build a class.

There is no ranking of students by this "qualified" category - not how it works. The fact that you don't know this indicates your level of knowledge on this subject is poor.

If they were ALDC blind, those ALDC kids admitted would have been replaced by more qualified students.
That's what it says. It's not too complicated.

No, it is not at all what it says, this has been explained. No matter how many times you repeat it. You are just flat out WRONG.

Your ALDC a$$ is really stupid LOL

I think the level of ad hominem you resort to indicates that somewhere you know you are incorrect. Also I have no relation to any hooked students, ever, so you are wrong there.

[Anonymous]

DP but the ALDCs tying themselves into knots to claim that “yes, we swear, we really are all qualified to attend” is quite amusing.

[Anonymous]

They should not admit anyone.

If a 2% admit rate gives extreme prestige, imagine a 0% rate!

[Anonymous]

PP who recommended a no criminal record certification - and yes, it’s shameful that a student who graduates from FCPS with a DWI on his record can gain admission to a VA college without any consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP but the ALDCs tying themselves into knots to claim that “yes, we swear, we really are all qualified to attend” is quite amusing.

Hey, comrade, guess what? The admissions officers say they are and the graduation rates indicate the admissions officers are correct.

I have no dog in this fight other than the belief that private colleges should admit whom they wish for whatever reason as long as they don’t violate laws. You, however have a political agenda, which is obvious.

Good thing is neither opinion matters. Better thing is the people running admissions at colleges know what they are doing better than either of us.