Stanford will be requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

So what? So you got a year or two off...big whoop

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

Agree. I was talking about starting even earlier. Elementary and Middle school levels. It takes resources and commitment, however which no one really wants to provide.

Also, why this fixation on elite schools? Why not have the 'poors' and URMs target other, lower-tier schools? Isn't that the advice DCUM is quick to provide when a parent comes on and whines about their kid not getting into an elite school? If it applies to them (and they are generally full pay), it should apply even more for someone needing a handout or a big push to get across the finish line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

The Federalist Society members presumably wanted to hear the talk, no?

And you're making my point - it's worth monitoring how tender and wrapped in bubble wrap a student body is that it is closed off to hearing ideas they disagree with and the ensuing discussion. That's unappealing, as is admitting successive cohorts who are less capable of doing the typical work (the actual subject of this thread)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

The Federalist Society members presumably wanted to hear the talk, no?

And you're making my point - it's worth monitoring how tender and wrapped in bubble wrap a student body is that it is closed off to hearing ideas they disagree with and the ensuing discussion. That's unappealing, as is admitting successive cohorts who are less capable of doing the typical work (the actual subject of this thread)

I don't see why students have to agree with everyone the school brings. No, if I am having to listen to a person who thinks Obergefell should be overturned, as a queer person, I really don't want to hear them out on a good day, let alone have my institution pay to fly them there and give them a mic to spew hateful law. In a similar vein, I don't want a bunch of communist anti-legal activists coming either. For some people, these ideas are actual material losses that could harm them.

Overall, the schools are still providing the forum. Stanford still is inviting conservative judges every single semester onto campus and students are then labelled radicals for protesting people who do harm to their communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

DP. No, he did not “steal” a spot. The school recognized a brilliant mind behind disadvantaged circumstances.

All of you talking about how a poor kid getting 1450 is no big deal because Khan Academy exists are so full of sh*t. Why would you assume a poor kid has regular access to a do,outer or for that matter electricity?

What if the kid is working a full-time job also supporting younger siblings because their parents are drug addicts or alcoholics?

Can’t believe how f#$&ng smug and clueless you entitled people are.

Disadvantaged kids being 4% of a class at MIT is a threat to you? BTW, these kids often do much better than many middle class kids once at elite institutions..

Maybe because those poor kids at the elite institutions came from elite prep schools...
It really is that simple. These kids have advantages in life more than anything.

That’s not all kids and you know it. Some come from inner city or rural high schools.

Even if they are coming from elite prep schools they are often facing significant disadvantages. I had several friends who went to elite prep schools like Dalton and Spence who were part of the Head Start and Prep for Prep programs. Believe me, they faced major challenges from extreme poverty at home, where they didn’t have enough to eat on a daily basis except for what they got at school to severe emotional dysfunction and drug addiction on the part of their parents.

I am in awe of what they achieved. They also dealt daily with the mindf*ck of living in two vast different universes and not belonging in either one.

I came from a UMC and attended an elite HYP university with them. They did well academically, but had emotional scars that fortunately they were able to afford therapy for after graduation.

FWIW, they did not have lower test score or grades. The prep schools did their job well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

DP. No, he did not “steal” a spot. The school recognized a brilliant mind behind disadvantaged circumstances.

All of you talking about how a poor kid getting 1450 is no big deal because Khan Academy exists are so full of sh*t. Why would you assume a poor kid has regular access to a do,outer or for that matter electricity?

What if the kid is working a full-time job also supporting younger siblings because their parents are drug addicts or alcoholics?

Can’t believe how f#$&ng smug and clueless you entitled people are.

Disadvantaged kids being 4% of a class at MIT is a threat to you? BTW, these kids often do much better than many middle class kids once at elite institutions..

Maybe because those poor kids at the elite institutions came from elite prep schools...
It really is that simple. These kids have advantages in life more than anything.

That’s not all kids and you know it. Some come from inner city or rural high schools.

Even if they are coming from elite prep schools they are often facing significant disadvantages. I had several friends who went to elite prep schools like Dalton and Spence who were part of the Head Start and Prep for Prep programs. Believe me, they faced major challenges from extreme poverty at home, where they didn’t have enough to eat on a daily basis except for what they got at school to severe emotional dysfunction and drug addiction on the part of their parents.

I am in awe of what they achieved. They also dealt daily with the mindf*ck of living in two vast different universes and not belonging in either one.

I came from a UMC and attended an elite HYP university with them. They did well academically, but had emotional scars that fortunately they were able to afford therapy for after graduation.

FWIW, they did not have lower test score or grades. The prep schools did their job well.

Yes, but I know that you also know that that "some" is not a substantial amount. I am not denying that the kids don't have any issues in life, but they practically eschew most of their class related issues during the school year and learn amongst the elites and most wealthy people in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any kid scoring a 1350 out of Anacostia or Ballou is going to be a far more impressive kid than someone scoring 1530 out of Sidwell or GDS. That's just facts. And the good universities recognize that.

And luckily for your argument, almost none of the low income students entering these colleges are from Anacostia. Many more coming from Sidwell, GDS, or Exeter. The privileged poor is a real thing, and it is time to clamp down on giving preferences to students who are tangentially elite.

This is very true. The point is that a kid that does navigate the difficulties at Anacostia or Ballou and emerges with a 1350 is a very special kid. The students attending privileged schools like Sidwell, GDS etc should not be given the same hoopla for the same score. But with race based admissions now illegal, the easy URM hook from the elite high schools should be coming to an end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

[Anonymous]

^ Apologies for the last sentence. Ive hit trolling territory and wasn't necessary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

Nobody accidentally graduates from MIT and there are no "easy" majors at MIT.

If they graduated from MIT then they really did the work and passed the tests.

I do not know what happens at random college, but I do know that MIT has the same academic standards for all students who matriculate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

Nobody accidentally graduates from MIT and there are no "easy" majors at MIT.

If they graduated from MIT then they really did the work and passed the tests.

I do not know what happens at random college, but I do know that MIT has the same academic standards for all students who matriculate.

Because they tell you so or...? If they are accepting students in part, because they are poor, that student does not deserve to be there, because the admission decision wasn't by merit but by charity.