NYT: "Peak College Admissions Insanity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baruch, CUNY Honors, and Hunter are all on the elite employers' radar as they are filled with kids who graduated at the top of NYC's SHS (= selective HS) with parents - often immigrant middle class small business owners - who cannot afford to send them to HYPSM.

What are you talking about? Middle class families can qualify for substantial FA at HYPSM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a great kid and deserving--but all I could come away with was----yeah-you were legacy. Period. Plenty of kids with higher stats/ECs got rejected because they didn't have that bump.

So the same kid w.out the legacy would be telling a different story in that article.

Not really, because she was also admitted to Johns Hopkins in addition to Dartmouth.

Yes. But Ivy legacy is different. My kid got into Hopkins, Duke. Pomona and several T20s, but WL at D & 2 other Ivies with perfect record, rigor, national level ECs and great essays. It’s fine because this deserves to be there, but if one kid is a legacy and a comparable kid is not - the legacy at an Ivy always gets the spot.

[Anonymous]

That's completely beside the point given PP's claim. How is the narrative of the article any different if she doesn't get into Dartmouth, but would still be attending a T10 school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a great kid and deserving--but all I could come away with was----yeah-you were legacy. Period. Plenty of kids with higher stats/ECs got rejected because they didn't have that bump.

So the same kid w.out the legacy would be telling a different story in that article.

Not really, because she was also admitted to Johns Hopkins in addition to Dartmouth.

Yes. But Ivy legacy is different. My kid got into Hopkins, Duke. Pomona and several T20s, but WL at D & 2 other Ivies with perfect record, rigor, national level ECs and great essays. It’s fine because this deserves to be there, but if one kid is a legacy and a comparable kid is not - the legacy at an Ivy always gets the spot.

4 kids in our small private got into D this year (none are legacy)….2 are going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a great kid and deserving--but all I could come away with was----yeah-you were legacy. Period. Plenty of kids with higher stats/ECs got rejected because they didn't have that bump.

So the same kid w.out the legacy would be telling a different story in that article.

Not really, because she was also admitted to Johns Hopkins in addition to Dartmouth.

Yes. But Ivy legacy is different. My kid got into Hopkins, Duke. Pomona and several T20s, but WL at D & 2 other Ivies with perfect record, rigor, national level ECs and great essays. It’s fine because this deserves to be there, but if one kid is a legacy and a comparable kid is not - the legacy at an Ivy always gets the spot.

Ivies talk about equity and diversity but their preference for legacy exposes their hypocrisy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a great kid and deserving--but all I could come away with was----yeah-you were legacy. Period. Plenty of kids with higher stats/ECs got rejected because they didn't have that bump.

So the same kid w.out the legacy would be telling a different story in that article.

Not really, because she was also admitted to Johns Hopkins in addition to Dartmouth.

Yes. But Ivy legacy is different. My kid got into Hopkins, Duke. Pomona and several T20s, but WL at D & 2 other Ivies with perfect record, rigor, national level ECs and great essays. It’s fine because this deserves to be there, but if one kid is a legacy and a comparable kid is not - the legacy at an Ivy always gets the spot.

Ivies talk about equity and diversity but their preference for legacy exposes their hypocrisy

Sort of, kind of...the difference now is all the URM grads don't want legacy to go away now that their own kids can benefit. The fact is anyone that has legacy wants their kids to benefit from it no matter what their race or income level.

Also, as far as I know, there is nothing stopping an Ivy from looking at the race of a legacy alum that an applicant puts down on their application. Seems like a little workaround on the Supreme Court decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems like a great kid and deserving--but all I could come away with was----yeah-you were legacy. Period. Plenty of kids with higher stats/ECs got rejected because they didn't have that bump.

So the same kid w.out the legacy would be telling a different story in that article.

Not really, because she was also admitted to Johns Hopkins in addition to Dartmouth.

Yes. But Ivy legacy is different. My kid got into Hopkins, Duke. Pomona and several T20s, but WL at D & 2 other Ivies with perfect record, rigor, national level ECs and great essays. It’s fine because this deserves to be there, but if one kid is a legacy and a comparable kid is not - the legacy at an Ivy always gets the spot.

Ivies talk about equity and diversity but their preference for legacy exposes their hypocrisy

Sort of, kind of...the difference now is all the URM grads don't want legacy to go away now that their own kids can benefit. The fact is anyone that has legacy wants their kids to benefit from it no matter what their race or income level.

Also, as far as I know, there is nothing stopping an Ivy from looking at the race of a legacy alum that an applicant puts down on their application. Seems like a little workaround on the Supreme Court decision.

Legacy should be abolished for all colleges even though I know it is unlikely. They like the money too much. Hats off to those few colleges that have abolished legacy!

[Anonymous]

Why shouldn't they like money? Despite being not-for-profit, colleges still need to pay the bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people taking this seriously? It's an opinion piece by a former Trump official in the Ed dept. It's not an actual article.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Go look up what the Under Secretary of the US Dept of Education does. The author is also a lawyer. I dont know him but generalized anti-trump ignorant statements like this drive me crazy. Educate yourself before posting and stop with the generalized comments.

Seriously? You do know who the Secretary of Ed was under Trump, right? And, since when is being a lawyer proof of any kind of educational expertise? You don't even need to know who appointed him to see his heavy bias and lack of interest in facts. It's clear in the op ed.

But, nice try with the spin.

That made me think of Tracey Morgan doing Star Jones on "The View" SNL parody "cuz, I'm a LAWYER!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't they like money? Despite being not-for-profit, colleges still need to pay the bills.

I think the Ivies have more than enough money for education and operations. But the real point though is that if they like money, no problem, but don't be hypocritical and announce their priority on admitting low income and first gens while heavily favoring rich legacy admits.

[Anonymous]

It's not hypocritical to prioritize both. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not hypocritical to prioritize both. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

It is when you say you're looking to prioritize low income and first gen admits but refuse to get rid of rich legacy admits and don't give a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That made me think of Tracey Morgan doing Star Jones on "The View" SNL parody "cuz, I'm a LAWYER!"

ALLEGED-LY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not hypocritical to prioritize both. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

It is when you say you're looking to prioritize low income and first gen admits but refuse to get rid of rich legacy admits and don't give a reason.

+1 this. A ridiculous number of HYPS students are 1 pcters and/or legacy kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not hypocritical to prioritize both. You're drawing a false dichotomy.

It is when you say you're looking to prioritize low income and first gen admits but refuse to get rid of rich legacy admits and don't give a reason.

+1 this. A ridiculous number of HYPS students are 1 pcters and/or legacy kids.

Someone had to pay full freight….