NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of private, well endowed schools will end up using other measures that give moderately diverse classes. I do think there won't nessesarily more white kids at ivies, but more asians. But I think public schools will end up with a major decrease in URMs. UC and UofM have far fewer URMs compared to their state population.

Maybe we'll see more colleges offering the opportunity to upload an optional video (while not definitive, a visual representation of possible race).

Also, I feel like I saw something, just in passing, about uploading a photo to the Common App? I couldn't find it when I poked around a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

You're describing a cleptocracy.

.

I think you need to look up the definition of cleptocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Women (as a group/on average) benefit from test optional more than men as female high school students tend to have higher grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

Asians and South Asians cheat on standardized tests? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

You're describing a cleptocracy.

.

I think you need to look up the definition of cleptocracy.

and the spelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

There is intense academic pressure and competition at these schools. Sorry but there is not much sitting around hob nobbing with nepo kids. Prepare to work.

I went to two and we worked but mostly hob nobbed. Met my husband, my best friend and a kid who introduced me to his dad who got me my first job. Networking is why you go to Ivys and no offense but Asian Americans will be left out. They do better at schools like MIT.

[Anonymous]

The legacy program is un-American and should go. The self-proclaimed elites of this country can send their kids abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

Asians and South Asians cheat on standardized tests? Really?

A simple Google search will pull up numerous examples. There are numerous examples of cheating in China (more than one scandal). There are several articles about cheating on all parts of applications on a wide scale by Chinese applicants. India had to use extreme measures and jam internet signals for the Indian equivalent so the A levels last year. Several years ago, parents were scaling a school building to help kids cheat. This is what happens when everything comes down to a high stakes test. I think people get so desperate that they do things they otherwise would not.


I wouldn't call it "merit" when there is wide scale cheating.

(I'm not saying Asian Americans are cheating before someone thinks that. I'm just backing up the point that other countries' systems also have their flaws.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of private, well endowed schools will end up using other measures that give moderately diverse classes. I do think there won't nessesarily more white kids at ivies, but more asians. But I think public schools will end up with a major decrease in URMs. UC and UofM have far fewer URMs compared to their state population.

Maybe we'll see more colleges offering the opportunity to upload an optional video (while not definitive, a visual representation of possible race).

Also, I feel like I saw something, just in passing, about uploading a photo to the Common App? I couldn't find it when I poked around a bit.

I'm all for that my kid is gorgeous and gets mistaken for every race under the sun. That's that Sicilian in her. Bring on the photo requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

There is intense academic pressure and competition at these schools. Sorry but there is not much sitting around hob nobbing with nepo kids. Prepare to work.

I went to two and we worked but mostly hob nobbed. Met my husband, my best friend and a kid who introduced me to his dad who got me my first job. Networking is why you go to Ivys and no offense but Asian Americans will be left out. They do better at schools like MIT.

Racist to say you think Asians can’t network. Lovely education you got there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

Curious which countries you are referring that have meritocratic methods?

China, Japan, and South Korea. And those kids literally kill themselves if they don’t gain admission. Suicide and depression rates among teens are off the chart in those countries. It’s collective trauma.

Cheating on tests in these countries is rampant, and politically-connected and wealthy families can very easily buy their way into the top universities. I figured these would be examples of the countries offered...add India as another country where the admissions process is a mess.

Asians and South Asians cheat on standardized tests? Really?

Uh, yes! Some do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

They will find a team. It will be amateurs, which is appropriate. Professional athletes should go to the professional leagues.

[Anonymous]

Colleges should let all the URM in soon, the decision is coming out any day now. It only goes into effect upon decision day. Now would be a good time to let URM in through the flood gates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Because they are being actively discriminated against when admissions is viewed from a merit point of view. They have higher test scores and GPAs and activities but are not getting in “due to personality”. You know this from the Harvard suit. It’s identical to when Harvard discriminated against Jews

The SC can’t force GPAs and SAT scores to be the only requirements for admission. It’s going to be incredible to hear the triggered teeth gnashing in 5 years when Harvard’s demographic profile hasn’t budged

You are obtuse if you allude to GPA and SAT scores. Harvard was using bogus personality scores. Well harvard can try and the lawsuits will keep coming.

Guess what? Harvard will continue to use personality scores; they will just eliminate race and gender from the scoring criteria. And instead they will substitute things that are proxies for socioeconomic status: private vs. public school, zip code or voting precinct, wealth or education level of guardians, first generation, etc. The most elite schools will find ways to keep their student body diverse.

That’s why the other half of the case is more important. Public schools won’t have the resources to follow suit, and most of the good ones outside of the UC system and Washington are in red or purple states where there will be pressure to follow the law

This is a joke, right? Most of the good ones are in blue states. And where do you think companies will go to hire? The diverse colleges or redneck ones????

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

There is intense academic pressure and competition at these schools. Sorry but there is not much sitting around hob nobbing with nepo kids. Prepare to work.

I went to two and we worked but mostly hob nobbed. Met my husband, my best friend and a kid who introduced me to his dad who got me my first job. Networking is why you go to Ivys and no offense but Asian Americans will be left out. They do better at schools like MIT.

----
Asians now have a big enough cohort at top colleges that they can network among themselves as well. Silicon Valley and Wall Street now have enough Asians that our kids don't have to depend on racists like you.