NY Times on new application essays dabbling in so-called "identities"

[Anonymous]

One of my wife's essays in the 90s was about being a Korean immigrant living in a hood neighborhood.

Was that wrong of her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

I don’t care what their requirements are, but they should clearly identity them on their website and adhere to them. They are purposely opaque. They want to poach the rich, and use those students pay for the poor. There is no opportunity for the bright engaging MC/UMC students. That’s fine, they’ll go elsewhere and hopefully do well. But be honest! “We don’t want you, we want the rich and the poor.” People will get it & move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

The first filter should be academic. Select all the 4.0, 1600s first. They apply your filters - Black, poor, whatever but be clear about what they are. Not some opaque mumbo, jumbo BS. People get pissed off when academically inferior (yes, inferior) candidates get selected in the name of equity, which BTW, follows that candidate (and others that look like them) for the rest of their lives. That's theft and is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

The first filter should be academic. Select all the 4.0, 1600s first. They apply your filters - Black, poor, whatever but be clear about what they are. Not some opaque mumbo, jumbo BS. People get pissed off when academically inferior (yes, inferior) candidates get selected in the name of equity, which BTW, follows that candidate (and others that look like them) for the rest of their lives. That's theft and is BS.

4.0/1600s would more than fill the class. And leave out many people who are creative, entrepreneurial, won top awards in favor of people who get a perfect score on a test that measures upt to HS geometry. Recipe for a school of people who toe the line and work to the measure not who contribute to society in interesting ways.

[Anonymous]

I understand many countries have a "this test determines your whole future" culture. That is never going to take root in America. Our culture is not about perfect execution. It is about never quitting.

A 4.0 / 1600 filter is a non-starter. Might work in Germany or China and that is fine for them.

Not going to work here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand many countries have a "this test determines your whole future" culture. That is never going to take root in America. Our culture is not about perfect execution. It is about never quitting.

A 4.0 / 1600 filter is a non-starter. Might work in Germany or China and that is fine for them.

Not going to work here.

Yes! That's why colleges love to read about kids in difficult situations. It speaks to the American character.

Just look at all of our superhero stories. Captain America wasn't born strong. He was born weak and built himself to be better.

That kind of thinking is baked into the American ideal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand many countries have a "this test determines your whole future" culture. That is never going to take root in America. Our culture is not about perfect execution. It is about never quitting.

A 4.0 / 1600 filter is a non-starter. Might work in Germany or China and that is fine for them.

Not going to work here.

Yes! That's why colleges love to read about kids in difficult situations. It speaks to the American character.

Just look at all of our superhero stories. Captain America wasn't born strong. He was born weak and built himself to be better.

That kind of thinking is baked into the American ideal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

The first filter should be academic. Select all the 4.0, 1600s first. They apply your filters - Black, poor, whatever but be clear about what they are. Not some opaque mumbo, jumbo BS. People get pissed off when academically inferior (yes, inferior) candidates get selected in the name of equity, which BTW, follows that candidate (and others that look like them) for the rest of their lives. That's theft and is BS.

4.0/1600s would more than fill the class. And leave out many people who are creative, entrepreneurial, won top awards in favor of people who get a perfect score on a test that measures upt to HS geometry. Recipe for a school of people who toe the line and work to the measure not who contribute to society in interesting ways.

You wouldn't an entire school of 4.0/1600s. That is in no way preparing students for the real world.

You need a reasonable mix of people in terms academics and experience. The secret sauce to a great university is developing and assembling an interesting or compelling cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand many countries have a "this test determines your whole future" culture. That is never going to take root in America. Our culture is not about perfect execution. It is about never quitting.

A 4.0 / 1600 filter is a non-starter. Might work in Germany or China and that is fine for them.

Not going to work here.

Yes! That's why colleges love to read about kids in difficult situations. It speaks to the American character.

Just look at all of our superhero stories. Captain America wasn't born strong. He was born weak and built himself to be better.

That kind of thinking is baked into the American ideal

Captain America was magically zapped to be stronger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

The first filter should be academic. Select all the 4.0, 1600s first. They apply your filters - Black, poor, whatever but be clear about what they are. Not some opaque mumbo, jumbo BS. People get pissed off when academically inferior (yes, inferior) candidates get selected in the name of equity, which BTW, follows that candidate (and others that look like them) for the rest of their lives. That's theft and is BS.

Life isn't fair, snowflake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those that think life experience should not matter.

How should elite colleges select among students that meet thei admissions criteria.

For example, 100,000 students apply to Harvard and Harvard can admit 3,000 students total. How should it select the 1 in 10 that will receive a yes? What is the right criteria?

Can it care about gender ratio? Can it want broad geographic representation? Can it care about different life experiences? How should it consider the different opportunities to excel that it’s applicants experienced? Is this just a numbers game?

The first filter should be academic. Select all the 4.0, 1600s first. They apply your filters - Black, poor, whatever but be clear about what they are. Not some opaque mumbo, jumbo BS. People get pissed off when academically inferior (yes, inferior) candidates get selected in the name of equity, which BTW, follows that candidate (and others that look like them) for the rest of their lives. That's theft and is BS.

Goodness. Anyone with a brain knows that someone with a 4.0, 1600 SAT isn't necessarily a preferable candidate to someone with a 3.9, 1590 SAT, or even a 3.8, 1500 SAT. That's how a robot would choose, not a human being capable of real discernment. Especially because: what if the 3.9 candidate had way more rigorous coursework than the 4.0 student? What if the 3.9 candidate achieved that GPA and SAT score while working 20 hours a week to help the family? What if the 3.8 GPA student had received the lower grade(s) freshman year while experiencing a medical or family crisis, then rebounded to 4.0 the rest of high school, showing resiliency?

You see, it's just dumb to have some kind of strict, robotic assessment that doesn't take anything else into consideration. Anyone who knows anything realizes that looking only at numbers does not give you the whole picture. Some of the smartest, most capable people I've known were not straight-A students, but were amazing students.

No one, I mean NO ONE, is entitled to a spot at one of the highly selective schools. That, my friend, is BS. You didn't get into Harvard? Tough luck. Neither do 99% of Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand many countries have a "this test determines your whole future" culture. That is never going to take root in America. Our culture is not about perfect execution. It is about never quitting.

A 4.0 / 1600 filter is a non-starter. Might work in Germany or China and that is fine for them.

Not going to work here.

Yes! That's why colleges love to read about kids in difficult situations. It speaks to the American character.

Just look at all of our superhero stories. Captain America wasn't born strong. He was born weak and built himself to be better.

That kind of thinking is baked into the American ideal

Captain America was magically zapped to be stronger.

Bruh - don't even dream you can school me on the Captain America backstory. Dude suffered from multiple illnesses. Was an orphan. Tried to enlist and got rejected over and over and over again. Tried changing his name, addresses, the whole nine. He just never quit. Then he got recruited into a test program on a trial basis where he was expected to flunk out. But because he never quit and showed that he was administered the serum.

Then after that things got harder.

Classic American story about coming up from nothing and never giving up.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t seem to follow that if you think that life experience (race) shouldn’t matter, that you think some people are guaranteed a spot. I smell a straw man.

[Anonymous]

This is fun. I'm here for it!

Turning Bruce Wayne into Batman was cool but he was already a billionaire with a safety net the size of planet Earth.

Superman was just born with certain advantages.

But Captain America is the model for regular people that just won't quit.

And with friends like Bucky who needs enemies?!?!?

[Anonymous]

The pendulum swinging should be unfortunate extreme steps on the way to a desired outcome. You’re making a pendulum swing the desired outcome.