controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Someone specifically said SLACS were full of white UMC athletes. I gave you SLACS.

My state school: most coming straight out of full time tennis academies ($$$) and from Italy and Spain.

Discussion is now about tennis.

How cute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That men are more inclined to want to study STEM and women are more inclined to study liberal arts, and that’s okay. I know this is controversial but I’m old and have known lots of adults and lots of children.

So, actually everyone knows this. What you are not addressing is why that is. Just because you know a lot of people, doesn't explain what the tendencies are attributed to.

I guess you're trying to say that girls just like to read! And boys like to build things! That's just what they like, yeah!

Because there is no such thing as patriarchy and historical disadvantage.

Yeah, we don't agree.

It’s true we don’t agree, because in my opinion the real issue of patriarchy and historical disadvantage is that the things women like to study are paid less. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with men and women wanting to study different things. What sucks is that men set the pay scales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Do keep up. Recruited athletes, not gen pop

Recruited athletes or not, UMC whites are doing quite well in college admissions.

The" UMC whites college applicants have it bad" schtick is laughable.

[Anonymous]

I saw this online but agree 100%:

If the highest paid staff at your school is a basketball or football coach, then it’s not a university, it’s a sports franchise with a side hustle in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Do keep up. Recruited athletes, not gen pop

Recruited athletes or not, UMC whites are doing quite well in college admissions.

The" UMC whites college applicants have it bad" schtick is laughable.

This conversation is regarding only “selective” schools. Yes. Do keep up is right. The most selective he schools are for the richest people in the world and URMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Do keep up. Recruited athletes, not gen pop

Recruited athletes or not, UMC whites are doing quite well in college admissions.

The" UMC whites college applicants have it bad" schtick is laughable.

This conversation is regarding only “selective” schools. Yes. Do keep up is right. The most selective he schools are for the richest people in the world and URMs.

LOL!

#clueless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dual enrollment is a scam. Not all schools accept the classes depending on the major.

Those who don’t test well on STUPID STANDARIZED tests still do amazingly well in life.

AP is also a scam. Many schools no longer take AP credit or they take it only for electives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP is a scam.

Kids at my DC's school are abandoning AP for dual enrollment. Credits in hand are a good thing to have vs a test score that a college may or may not accept. The trade off is that the GPA bump isn't as high.

Don't most colleges accept 4s and 5s except for Ivy League schools?

No. My DD goes to a SLAC that accepts them only for placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people need to go to trade schools. They should develop a 4 year trade school program at universities where you also come out with a joint trade / bachelors degree. A lot of people think a degree is important but then don’t want to put the time in later to get into the trades.

I live in San Francisco, and 83% of elevators have expired permits. I'm typing this right now from a building where the permits expired in 2019. They don't have enough elevator inspectors. Average salary in SF for this is $77k.

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/san-francisco-elevator-expired-permit-17405899.php

Can’t make it in SF on that salary

As I said. I LIVE in SF, so know exactly how much you need to "make it" and it can be done if circumstances are right. Maybe they live in a family home that's been owned since the 70's, out in the Avenues. Maybe they live in Walnut Creek or wherever and commute into the city. Maybe their partner has a higher paying job and combined, their salary lets them afford to rent a 1 bedroom apartment. I was just talking with the copy guy this morning - he owns a house in the 'burbs with A/C. I earn more than him, live in the city, can't afford to buy, and don't have A/C.

You could if you moved to “the ‘burbs.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is really and truly doesn’t matter where you go to college.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this online but agree 100%:

If the highest paid staff at your school is a basketball or football coach, then it’s not a university, it’s a sports franchise with a side hustle in education.

Oh yea, like Duke, UCLA and Michigan. Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this online but agree 100%:

If the highest paid staff at your school is a basketball or football coach, then it’s not a university, it’s a sports franchise with a side hustle in education.

Oh, you mean like this one?

https://padailypost.com/2021/11/02/coach-david-shaws-pay-jumps-to-8-9-million-other-highly-paid-stanford-officials-listed/

Just because your school of choice sucks in basketball and football, doesn’t mean all top schools are, “sports franchises.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AP is a scam.

Kids at my DC's school are abandoning AP for dual enrollment. Credits in hand are a good thing to have vs a test score that a college may or may not accept. The trade off is that the GPA bump isn't as high.

Don't most colleges accept 4s and 5s except for Ivy League schools?

No. My DD goes to a SLAC that accepts them only for placement.

Which school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.