The Death of Private School As We Know It
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The discussion is about race based admissions, so yes, the PP by definition made a "race based argument." But the obligatory response of calling people racist when you disagree is getting old. Grow up. |
Anonymous
No it wasn’t. It was an argument about elite colleges not being elite and the poster noted that they were not elite because now they admitted URMs and Asian tennis players. As if these groups polluted the school. I’m sure you don’t like being called out for it. |
Anonymous
| You should save accusations of racism for the very rare instances where it is actually true. If admissions favor URMs and lessen reliance on grades and test scores, can the effects of that on the school not be discussed objectively without calling somebody racist? |
Anonymous
Again the argument was that the schools were better back then because they were rich. None of those people were getting in an exams and test scores. But you didn’t have a problem with that. You also don’t have a problem with white FGLI students who get in or white athletes with lower grades and test scores. And you point out Asian(!) tennis players? They don’t have grades and scores? The only running thread is race. Nothing more. Make all the excuses you want but the problem you have isn’t that they allegedly have lower grades and test scores it’s that they allegedly have lower grades and test scores and aren’t white. |
Anonymous
Preach! Signed Asian. White supremacy is at work in TJ too |
Anonymous
| I send my DC for both - quality of education (smaller classes, more programs, etc.) as well as college admissions. Not Ivy necessarily but yes, top tier institutions based on DC's performance/grades/class load, participation in sports, arts, leadership etc. |
Anonymous
WTF are you blabbering about? I know tons of private school kids and they're all thriving quite well as adults. You sound unhinged. |
Anonymous
They are blatantly disfavoring certain races at the expense of other races, so the answer is no. |
Anonymous
Your posts on top of your other posts are getting tiring. No one cares what you think. I didn't send my kids to private school because I wanted to piss you off. I don't want the money back. |
Anonymous
HA! Keep dreaming. Harvard has been around since 1636, and you somehow think that in 10-15 years it'll suddenly become undesirable? Ok... |
Anonymous
Go read the entire thread. It is racist when a supposed lesser reliance on grades and test scores is only a problem when URMs are involved. Do you think these schools care what rich, white people's grades and test scores were in the past? Or now? They certainly don't care about grades and test scores when white athletes are involved. So a lack of reliance on grades and test scores isn't your problem because then you'd be complaining about athletic recruiting, legacy and donor admits. And you certainly wouldn't be saying that these colleges were elite in the early 1900s when grades and test scores meant even less (and the applicant pool was severely curtailed). So the only consistent theme that can reconcile these contradictory thoughts is that you only have a problem when URMs are supposedly the beneficiaries. It's not about merit and never has been. You don't want those people going to your precious 'elite colleges". That is a racist argument. This is reinforced by the use of "Asian tennis players", which was also specifically cited as being a reason why elite colleges were less elite. Please explain to me how that isn't a racist argument. Are you going to argue that this is a symptom of the supposed lack of merit? If not, then what's wrong with having a few more Asian tennis players? At the end of the day, the post basically was saying having URMs and Asians (I'll assume the poster had no problem with tennis players generally but that's being generous) degraded the value of an elite college. You can't make excuses that (i) this is about grades and test scores because you fail on the Asian front and (ii) this is about having rich, connected people on campus because you fail by not including white FGLI students in your rant. So all you're left with is simply saying "Colleges are more elite and valued when they're mostly white and wealthy". This is what was actually written and called racist. Go ahead and defend it. |
Anonymous
Assuming without evidence — and apparently taking for granted that everyone else will agree — that admitting URMs and Asians lowers the quality of a school is clearly racist. That’s exactly what the posted did. The fact that you seem to take this assumption for granted suggests that you are also somewhat racist in your outlook. The fact that you assert that racism is “very rare” despite mountains of evidence of systemic racism in law enforcement, education, government policy making, etc. makes you seem like a racist with an agenda. |
Anonymous
PP here. I wrote the post to suggest that elite colleges have become less elite as they admitted fewer and fewer of the wealthy and connected. My comment of about the Asian tennis players was just low level trolling and not part of the argument. Around 25% of Harvard's students are URMs. My discussion concerns admissions for the other 75% of the students. I suspect the wealthy and connected have coalesced at schools that favor students from that background and that those schools will gain prestige at the expense of the ivies. Where do the graduates of the elite New England boarding schools go now that the ivies do not favor them? (I know that changed long ago.) Where do wealthy students from top DC private schools go that will favorably admit the children of the wealthy and connected? Which are the schools that wealthy (and accomplished) students seek out for networking and prestige? |
Anonymous
| News flash, people have been debating for years the pros and cons of lowering standards for all these groups, not just URMs. You don't think people at Harvard complain about the dumb jock or the rich kid who can't cut it academically and wonder if they are harming the institution in the long run? But the difference is that you can't even have the discussion about URMs without people being called racist. Thank you for proving this point with your last few posts. |
Anonymous
When you treat URMs as some unique category and ignore everything else that is exactly the same except that the beneficiaries are white, guess what, you're being racist about it. |