Brutal Admissions Year!

[Anonymous]

Diversity matters. Google it in regards to colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's any consolation, it's also been a brutal year for all those poor and minority students. I work for an org that helps low-income students attend college-most of our students are black or latino. We've been hearing from various admissions offices that there is a huge pool this year, and while many of our students would have been likely admits if they could pay, schools don't want to spend a huge amount of aid on one student with a $0 EFC when they could spread that money around and give several students a decent amount of aid. It's tough out there.

Yes, I've heard that as well. I'm just not a believer in affirmative action. I think it is unconstitutional.

But legacy is constitutional? Even if you couldn't have legacy b/c your parents would not have been able to attend b/c the school did not allow minority students at the time? This was my story.

Doesn't matter. Legacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Race is. When you discriminate against white or asian students, it's no different than doing it against black or hispanic, which is something y'all would not support. So why support it for white and asian applicants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^Then start your own college and you can make the rules.

Even private colleges have to make sure they follow the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Then start your own college and you can make the rules.

Even private colleges have to make sure they follow the law.

The law 'worked' when colleges were exclusively white. You do know that there are non-white applicants that are equally or more qualified in grades, scores, ECs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's any consolation, it's also been a brutal year for all those poor and minority students. I work for an org that helps low-income students attend college-most of our students are black or latino. We've been hearing from various admissions offices that there is a huge pool this year, and while many of our students would have been likely admits if they could pay, schools don't want to spend a huge amount of aid on one student with a $0 EFC when they could spread that money around and give several students a decent amount of aid. It's tough out there.

Yes, I've heard that as well. I'm just not a believer in affirmative action. I think it is unconstitutional.

But legacy is constitutional? Even if you couldn't have legacy b/c your parents would not have been able to attend b/c the school did not allow minority students at the time? This was my story.

Doesn't matter. Legacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Race is. When you discriminate against white or asian students, it's no different than doing it against black or hispanic, which is something y'all would not support. So why support it for white and asian applicants?

You sound like the kind of person that if the credentials were blindly identical and your snowflake STILL didn't get in, you would find another excuse for the blame game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^Then start your own college and you can make the rules.

Even private colleges have to make sure they follow the law.

The law 'worked' when colleges were exclusively white. You do know that there are non-white applicants that are equally or more qualified in grades, scores, ECs, etc.

Absolutely! And those individuals should be getting in on merit! The Supreme Court actually tightened Affirmative Action laws after the reverse discrimination lawsuit against U.Texas at Austin. The Obama Administration's response was to send a letter from the Dept. of Education to college admissions departments telling them that they can essentially still discriminate re: race. Pretty uncalled-for in my opinion.

There's a reason the Constitution was amended back then, and rightfully so. However, to do the same now to (especially) Asians and Caucasians is no better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's any consolation, it's also been a brutal year for all those poor and minority students. I work for an org that helps low-income students attend college-most of our students are black or latino. We've been hearing from various admissions offices that there is a huge pool this year, and while many of our students would have been likely admits if they could pay, schools don't want to spend a huge amount of aid on one student with a $0 EFC when they could spread that money around and give several students a decent amount of aid. It's tough out there.

Yes, I've heard that as well. I'm just not a believer in affirmative action. I think it is unconstitutional.

But legacy is constitutional? Even if you couldn't have legacy b/c your parents would not have been able to attend b/c the school did not allow minority students at the time? This was my story.

Doesn't matter. Legacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Race is. When you discriminate against white or asian students, it's no different than doing it against black or hispanic, which is something y'all would not support. So why support it for white and asian applicants?

You sound like the kind of person that if the credentials were blindly identical and your snowflake STILL didn't get in, you would find another excuse for the blame game.

The problem with your statement is I'm not really concerned about status schools. I wanted my DD to go to a school that fit her, and she did find that. It was all the peer pressure she was getting from other students in this area (who were getting it from their parents I'm sure) driving her towards applying to highly competitive schools. I would have been happy with community college for the first two years as an inexpensive way to satisfy core courses. If you look at others on this board, especially the GMU vs UVA thread, and look at how GMU is being trashed, you'll see the common attitudes in this area. My son attends GMU in computer science, and they are giving him a fine education. In the end, the people that are ultimately successful not only have the skill set, but can work with others and communicate effectively. If you want to go into law or medicine, I can see where the big name status schools give an edge. But for the vast majority of people, it's just for the bumper sticker. The only bumper stickers on my car have to do with guitars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid was wait listed at 8 schools and all his classmates with worse grades, less extracurricular got into the schools he applied, you would be fuming, knowing how spoiled you are.

Not the PP you are attacking but why spoiled? That seems like an odd choice of words. If his classmates had worse grades and less of other things schools say are important and got in over her son, wouldn't anger be a normal response? If you were up for a promotion and were the one best qualified and had worked your butt off for it, and your boss took your less qualified co-worker, I would expect you to be angry as well.

Sorry, I was referring to the PPs saying how dare he thought he would get into one of those 8 schools. He is that good: he would be #1 in Sidwell, STA, Maret, GDS.... though not TJ. If he was their own kid, those PPs would be totally pissed.

All his teachers, counselors and principal said they were shell shocked. OP is right, it is scandalous.

You have no way of knowing how this kid would stack up at these privates. None. This is really common with a lot of Asian parents. They come up with some ranking system where their kids come out ahead, and then get bent out of shape when others don't agree with their criteria. Obviously these schools don't see this kid as quite the catch you do. Get over it.

Past performance is a great indication of future performance. What ranking system could Asian parents possibly come up with so their kids come out ahead? Instilling good values and the importance of hard work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are some fields that where you go undergrad matters. I was looking through where the professors went at the school my son will likely be going to and what shocked me was that practically all of them went, for grad and undergrad, to the same few schools: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, etc.

If you want to go into academia, names matter.


Fair point! But keep in mind that professors, especially at the better schools, will invariably have a doctorate or at the least a masters degree. So it becomes more important where one does the post-graduate degree.

I promise you that where you went to graduate school matters to hiring committees filling professor slots, but they do not care, at all (nor are they likely even aware of) about where you went to undergrad. Grad school admissions committees care about where you went to college, but not always in a way that favors Ivies.

One teeny exception is if you are applying for a professor position at a SLAC and you only went to big state schools. I've been told that if that's the case, you need to sell the fact that you "understand" the SLAC philosophy. And, there may be a very small edge to people with Ivy backgrounds if you want to teach at a school like Amherst or Williams, where parents want their precious children taught by "the best." But, that's purely icing -- your grad degree is the only one that really truly matters.

I suspect that undergrad matters in academia primarily because it's schools like Harvard where faculty urge some of their best students to consider academia rather than law or medicine.

So what you get is people who graduate from Ivy who stay within the academia bubble, who then tell us folks living and working in the real world, how the world should work. Kind of funny, if you think about it

[Anonymous]

Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are some fields that where you go undergrad matters. I was looking through where the professors went at the school my son will likely be going to and what shocked me was that practically all of them went, for grad and undergrad, to the same few schools: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, etc.

If you want to go into academia, names matter.


Fair point! But keep in mind that professors, especially at the better schools, will invariably have a doctorate or at the least a masters degree. So it becomes more important where one does the post-graduate degree.

I promise you that where you went to graduate school matters to hiring committees filling professor slots, but they do not care, at all (nor are they likely even aware of) about where you went to undergrad. Grad school admissions committees care about where you went to college, but not always in a way that favors Ivies.

One teeny exception is if you are applying for a professor position at a SLAC and you only went to big state schools. I've been told that if that's the case, you need to sell the fact that you "understand" the SLAC philosophy. And, there may be a very small edge to people with Ivy backgrounds if you want to teach at a school like Amherst or Williams, where parents want their precious children taught by "the best." But, that's purely icing -- your grad degree is the only one that really truly matters.

I suspect that undergrad matters in academia primarily because it's schools like Harvard where faculty urge some of their best students to consider academia rather than law or medicine.

So what you get is people who graduate from Ivy who stay within the academia bubble, who then tell us folks living and working in the real world, how the world should work. Kind of funny, if you think about it

Newsflash: it's all the real world. And very few academics spend their time telling folks like you (or anyone else, for that matter) how the world should work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's any consolation, it's also been a brutal year for all those poor and minority students. I work for an org that helps low-income students attend college-most of our students are black or latino. We've been hearing from various admissions offices that there is a huge pool this year, and while many of our students would have been likely admits if they could pay, schools don't want to spend a huge amount of aid on one student with a $0 EFC when they could spread that money around and give several students a decent amount of aid. It's tough out there.

Yes, I've heard that as well. I'm just not a believer in affirmative action. I think it is unconstitutional.

But legacy is constitutional? Even if you couldn't have legacy b/c your parents would not have been able to attend b/c the school did not allow minority students at the time? This was my story.

Doesn't matter. Legacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Race is. When you discriminate against white or asian students, it's no different than doing it against black or hispanic, which is something y'all would not support. So why support it for white and asian applicants?

You sound like the kind of person that if the credentials were blindly identical and your snowflake STILL didn't get in, you would find another excuse for the blame game.

The problem with your statement is I'm not really concerned about status schools. I wanted my DD to go to a school that fit her, and she did find that. It was all the peer pressure she was getting from other students in this area (who were getting it from their parents I'm sure) driving her towards applying to highly competitive schools. I would have been happy with community college for the first two years as an inexpensive way to satisfy core courses. If you look at others on this board, especially the GMU vs UVA thread, and look at how GMU is being trashed, you'll see the common attitudes in this area. My son attends GMU in computer science, and they are giving him a fine education. In the end, the people that are ultimately successful not only have the skill set, but can work with others and communicate effectively. If you want to go into law or medicine, I can see where the big name status schools give an edge. But for the vast majority of people, it's just for the bumper sticker. The only bumper stickers on my car have to do with guitars

I am sure your son will do great with a degree in computer science from GMU! I would never put any college bumper sticker on my car. Bragging is out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

Because she's not biased? Please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are some fields that where you go undergrad matters. I was looking through where the professors went at the school my son will likely be going to and what shocked me was that practically all of them went, for grad and undergrad, to the same few schools: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, etc.

If you want to go into academia, names matter.


Fair point! But keep in mind that professors, especially at the better schools, will invariably have a doctorate or at the least a masters degree. So it becomes more important where one does the post-graduate degree.

I promise you that where you went to graduate school matters to hiring committees filling professor slots, but they do not care, at all (nor are they likely even aware of) about where you went to undergrad. Grad school admissions committees care about where you went to college, but not always in a way that favors Ivies.

One teeny exception is if you are applying for a professor position at a SLAC and you only went to big state schools. I've been told that if that's the case, you need to sell the fact that you "understand" the SLAC philosophy. And, there may be a very small edge to people with Ivy backgrounds if you want to teach at a school like Amherst or Williams, where parents want their precious children taught by "the best." But, that's purely icing -- your grad degree is the only one that really truly matters.

I suspect that undergrad matters in academia primarily because it's schools like Harvard where faculty urge some of their best students to consider academia rather than law or medicine.

So what you get is people who graduate from Ivy who stay within the academia bubble, who then tell us folks living and working in the real world, how the world should work. Kind of funny, if you think about it

Newsflash: it's all the real world. And very few academics spend their time telling folks like you (or anyone else, for that matter) how the world should work.

Really? See the big ASU flap going on right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if it's any consolation, it's also been a brutal year for all those poor and minority students. I work for an org that helps low-income students attend college-most of our students are black or latino. We've been hearing from various admissions offices that there is a huge pool this year, and while many of our students would have been likely admits if they could pay, schools don't want to spend a huge amount of aid on one student with a $0 EFC when they could spread that money around and give several students a decent amount of aid. It's tough out there.

Yes, I've heard that as well. I'm just not a believer in affirmative action. I think it is unconstitutional.

But legacy is constitutional? Even if you couldn't have legacy b/c your parents would not have been able to attend b/c the school did not allow minority students at the time? This was my story.

Doesn't matter. Legacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Race is. When you discriminate against white or asian students, it's no different than doing it against black or hispanic, which is something y'all would not support. So why support it for white and asian applicants?

You sound like the kind of person that if the credentials were blindly identical and your snowflake STILL didn't get in, you would find another excuse for the blame game.

The problem with your statement is I'm not really concerned about status schools. I wanted my DD to go to a school that fit her, and she did find that. It was all the peer pressure she was getting from other students in this area (who were getting it from their parents I'm sure) driving her towards applying to highly competitive schools. I would have been happy with community college for the first two years as an inexpensive way to satisfy core courses. If you look at others on this board, especially the GMU vs UVA thread, and look at how GMU is being trashed, you'll see the common attitudes in this area. My son attends GMU in computer science, and they are giving him a fine education. In the end, the people that are ultimately successful not only have the skill set, but can work with others and communicate effectively. If you want to go into law or medicine, I can see where the big name status schools give an edge. But for the vast majority of people, it's just for the bumper sticker. The only bumper stickers on my car have to do with guitars

I am sure your son will do great with a degree in computer science from GMU! I would never put any college bumper sticker on my car. Bragging is out.

Thank you - it's a great school. He has a learning disability and their LD dept is second-to-none! He's also got some health issues (fixable) so having a great school close to home is a huge bonus for us.