The Death of Private School As We Know It

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

They are blatantly disfavoring certain races at the expense of other races, so the answer is no.

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.

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?

Being racist is just low level trolling! I'm so funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say dropping $50K plus on a private school and dont think it is supposed to matter for college admissions - please...

Translation: my kid isn't doing that well and I need to sleep at night.

My friend's husband makes $7 million a year. $100k/year for private is nothing. They're not losing any sleep at night about it I can tell you that. It's similar for many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who say dropping $50K plus on a private school and dont think it is supposed to matter for college admissions - please...

Translation: my kid isn't doing that well and I need to sleep at night.

My friend's husband makes $7 million a year. $100k/year for private is nothing. They're not losing any sleep at night about it I can tell you that. It's similar for many others.

It's always been that way for the truly rich. It doesn't make sense when the person who talks about sacrificing so that her kid can go to private realizes that they haven't done well enough at private and their college options aren't what they thought they would be. It's compounded even more for the families who can sacrifice for the 30k a year school, but have done so at the expense of college savings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

The mountain of evidence is entirely from one political party with its own agenda, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

The mountain of evidence is entirely from one political party with its own agenda, silly.

and that statement just reinforces that perception . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

But they are not "exactly the same." Every group getting separate treatment, and to some extent every individual applicant, has their own story and their own reasons why they do or do not belong at a given school. And as your post proves once again, it is impossible to discuss the topic of URMs without being called a racist. Let's try an experiment - can you say anything about the topic of URM admissions without calling those who disagree with you racist? Go ahead, give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

The mountain of evidence is entirely from one political party with its own agenda, silly.

Well, specifically with respect to law enforcement, the research that shows racial bias and unequal policing is almost all paid for and published by police departments.

For education, it’s mostly carried out by school systems and universities.

I know it can be scary to leave the echo chamber, come out into the real world and honestly confront the problems that are facing our country, but that’s what grownups do. You should try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

But they are not "exactly the same." Every group getting separate treatment, and to some extent every individual applicant, has their own story and their own reasons why they do or do not belong at a given school. And as your post proves once again, it is impossible to discuss the topic of URMs without being called a racist. Let's try an experiment - can you say anything about the topic of URM admissions without calling those who disagree with you racist? Go ahead, give it a try.

You seem confused. The people being called racists on this thread are people who think joking about how bad it is to admit “Asian tennis players” to elite schools and the posters who take it for granted that admitting non-white students to elite schools makes them worse. Put simple, the only people being called racists are the racists.

[Anonymous]

*put simply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

But they are not "exactly the same." Every group getting separate treatment, and to some extent every individual applicant, has their own story and their own reasons why they do or do not belong at a given school. And as your post proves once again, it is impossible to discuss the topic of URMs without being called a racist. Let's try an experiment - can you say anything about the topic of URM admissions without calling those who disagree with you racist? Go ahead, give it a try.

You seem confused. The people being called racists on this thread are people who think joking about how bad it is to admit “Asian tennis players” to elite schools and the posters who take it for granted that admitting non-white students to elite schools makes them worse. Put simple, the only people being called racists are the racists.

Of course, those who disagree with your position are confused and terrible people. But let's try this one more time. Are you capable of writing a post about URMs that does not call somebody racist? Go ahead you can do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

The mountain of evidence is entirely from one political party with its own agenda, silly.

Well, specifically with respect to law enforcement, the research that shows racial bias and unequal policing is almost all paid for and published by police departments.

For education, it’s mostly carried out by school systems and universities.

I know it can be scary to leave the echo chamber, come out into the real world and honestly confront the problems that are facing our country, but that’s what grownups do. You should try it.

The echo chamber is your own. With wailing and violins and grabbing at whatever handout given and then complaining it is not enough. Grown-ups want to compete and achieve on a level playing field. You should try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

The mountain of evidence is entirely from one political party with its own agenda, silly.

Well, specifically with respect to law enforcement, the research that shows racial bias and unequal policing is almost all paid for and published by police departments.

For education, it’s mostly carried out by school systems and universities.

I know it can be scary to leave the echo chamber, come out into the real world and honestly confront the problems that are facing our country, but that’s what grownups do. You should try it.

The echo chamber is your own. With wailing and violins and grabbing at whatever handout given and then complaining it is not enough. Grown-ups want to compete and achieve on a level playing field. You should try it.

Level playing field. That’s a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

But they are not "exactly the same." Every group getting separate treatment, and to some extent every individual applicant, has their own story and their own reasons why they do or do not belong at a given school. And as your post proves once again, it is impossible to discuss the topic of URMs without being called a racist. Let's try an experiment - can you say anything about the topic of URM admissions without calling those who disagree with you racist? Go ahead, give it a try.

You seem confused. The people being called racists on this thread are people who think joking about how bad it is to admit “Asian tennis players” to elite schools and the posters who take it for granted that admitting non-white students to elite schools makes them worse. Put simple, the only people being called racists are the racists.

Of course, those who disagree with your position are confused and terrible people. But let's try this one more time. Are you capable of writing a post about URMs that does not call somebody racist? Go ahead you can do it!

No. You’re a racist.

[Anonymous]

NP here - if you think that lower admissions standards are necessary for URMs, doesn't that make you a racist?

[Anonymous]

1000+ applicants for 100 spots at our private. I don’t think it’s dying anytime soon.

As long as there is demand there will be supply.

And there will only be demand if they deliver a superior experience

For some that may be college admission for others that may be something else.

The admit list from our private is pretty impressive so not too worried. And with covid response by the publics vs privates across past 24 months, the roi is beyond there college admissions aside