http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no objective criteria for admission to these schools which is why I suspect plaintiffs will lose. If they could actually prove quotas, say that there is a cap on Asians, that would be one thing. But I highly doubt thats what is going on. And its not as if Asians are underrepresented compared to their percentage in the general population. If anything, they are overrepresented. So the claim comes down to "we are more qualified than people who got in" which isn't going to go anywhere because there is no way to measure who is qualified. I suspect these schools would prefer original thinkers over kids who have been packaged all their lives and get the grades/scores. There are several such kids at my daughter's school, and they do very well academically and participate in all the extra-curricular activities their parents have told them will help them get into an Ivy. There are a bazillion kids like that out there and probably most don't get into the top Ivies.

I guess I resent this sense of entitlement -- my child deserve to be admitted because of her scores and grades and that other child doesn't. That other child may just be a lot more interesting.

Actually the point of the case going to the Supreme Court is not to sue for any individual to be accepted in any institution, but to appeal the decision for the federal government to impose affirmative action quotas on institutions. Currently the Ivies use a race based quota system that is dictated by the federal government affirmative action program in order to ensure that the class constituency is more balanced race-wise. Systems that are not dependent upon federal funds, such as the California state university system, do not use the affirmative action quotas and have a more merit-based admission system. The implication is that affirmative action is allowing the universities to discriminate based on race and that some race groups have higher standards imposed on them in order to qualify. The case is focused on overturning affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Which is exactly my concern. Its like the white students who sue because they "should have" gotten in over African-American students. I don't want to send my children to a college that accepts students based on some kind of grid of numbers that doesn't take into account who they are and their background just as I don't want to send my daughter to a college that similarly accepts students based on some kind of grid and is therefore 75% female.

[Anonymous]

Should the colleges even take into consideration who your kid is or what the background is?
Are you talking about legacy status and wealthy, influential connected parents with country club memberships?

[Anonymous]

No one is saying colleges should take into consideration country club membership. They don't, by the way.

[Anonymous]

I think 8:32's point was that "background" can mean "worked her way through school as a homeless kid" but it can also mean (a) legacy, parents went to this college, or (b) development case/big donor, or even (c) connections, as in parents know the dean from the country club.

[Anonymous]

this is racist, don't add race to applications, problem solved

[Anonymous]

As long as you also start fining/jailing admissions people for giving weight to legacy/donor/connected kids. Not sure how I feel about keeping preferences for athletes, I could go either way on that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no objective criteria for admission to these schools which is why I suspect plaintiffs will lose. If they could actually prove quotas, say that there is a cap on Asians, that would be one thing. But I highly doubt thats what is going on. And its not as if Asians are underrepresented compared to their percentage in the general population. If anything, they are overrepresented. So the claim comes down to "we are more qualified than people who got in" which isn't going to go anywhere because there is no way to measure who is qualified. I suspect these schools would prefer original thinkers over kids who have been packaged all their lives and get the grades/scores. There are several such kids at my daughter's school, and they do very well academically and participate in all the extra-curricular activities their parents have told them will help them get into an Ivy. There are a bazillion kids like that out there and probably most don't get into the top Ivies.

I guess I resent this sense of entitlement -- my child deserve to be admitted because of her scores and grades and that other child doesn't. That other child may just be a lot more interesting.

How do you define interesting? Other than being homeless, the most "interesting" entries on a kid's resume costs the parents big money, such as volunteering overseas.... Middle class families can not compete with upper class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are no objective criteria for admission to these schools which is why I suspect plaintiffs will lose. If they could actually prove quotas, say that there is a cap on Asians, that would be one thing. But I highly doubt thats what is going on. And its not as if Asians are underrepresented compared to their percentage in the general population. If anything, they are overrepresented. So the claim comes down to "we are more qualified than people who got in" which isn't going to go anywhere because there is no way to measure who is qualified. I suspect these schools would prefer original thinkers over kids who have been packaged all their lives and get the grades/scores. There are several such kids at my daughter's school, and they do very well academically and participate in all the extra-curricular activities their parents have told them will help them get into an Ivy. There are a bazillion kids like that out there and probably most don't get into the top Ivies.

I guess I resent this sense of entitlement -- my child deserve to be admitted because of her scores and grades and that other child doesn't. That other child may just be a lot more interesting.

How do you define interesting? Other than being homeless, the most "interesting" entries on a kid's resume costs the parents big money, such as volunteering overseas.... Middle class families can not compete with upper class families.

Obviously "interesting" is subjective but it certainly doesn't include kids whose parents can send them on these oversees "community service" junkets. I don't think colleges are impressed by that at all. I have no idea why you think being interesting always costs money. A student who is a great poet, who develops some kind of novel scientific theory, who is politically active, who pursues some kind of unique interest like puppetry or playing mandolin, a child who is an original thinker and isn't just packaged. None of these things are dependent on wealthy or connected parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as you also start fining/jailing admissions people for giving weight to legacy/donor/connected kids. Not sure how I feel about keeping preferences for athletes, I could go either way on that one.

Jailing admissions people? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you also start fining/jailing admissions people for giving weight to legacy/donor/connected kids. Not sure how I feel about keeping preferences for athletes, I could go either way on that one.

Jailing admissions people? Seriously?

I meant it as a joke. Maybe I should have used an emoticon thingy. But there is a larger point here about how, if we're going to make race or anything else illegal as admissions criteria, there would need to be some sort of action against universities that continue to do so. For the ones that get federal monies, it might mean witholding the federal monies.

[Anonymous]

Puppetry or playing the mandolin?
Are those skills not dependent on parents income level?
Political activity? At 17 the kids just regurgitate their parents beliefs, no indepent thinking there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Puppetry or playing the mandolin?
Are those skills not dependent on parents income level?
Political activity? At 17 the kids just regurgitate their parents beliefs, no indepent thinking there

Well, my DC definitely does not regurgitate my political beliefs. And puppetry and mandolin were examples I pulled out of the air, but really, there are plenty of parents in this area who can't afford private school/expensive "service" trips/SAT tutors/travel soccer, but they can afford a friggin' mandolin. Or pen and paper for writing. Or . . . whatever. You don't have to be wealthy to have an unusual interest.

[Anonymous]

DC just was accepted to the CIEE South Korea Scholarship program, and is going on a two-week free cultural exchange trip to South Korea this summer. There are lots of other FREE programs for kids in the summer (highly competitive, but free, such as TASP, Clark Scholars, Bank of America Student Leaders). These programs are much more highly regarded by college admissions folks than the $$$$ international "service" trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puppetry or playing the mandolin?
Are those skills not dependent on parents income level?
Political activity? At 17 the kids just regurgitate their parents beliefs, no indepent thinking there

Well, my DC definitely does not regurgitate my political beliefs. And puppetry and mandolin were examples I pulled out of the air, but really, there are plenty of parents in this area who can't afford private school/expensive "service" trips/SAT tutors/travel soccer, but they can afford a friggin' mandolin. Or pen and paper for writing. Or . . . whatever. You don't have to be wealthy to have an unusual interest.

While I admire the thought here, I'm not sure playing mandolin in your bedroom is going to do it. My DC plays ukelele and I definitely intend to write the colleges that she plays it like Paganini ( ), but I imagine their reaction will be, "awww, her mother loves her!" To get into a competitive college you need to excel at something that's juried or peer-reviewed - you get selected by your youth orchestra to solo in front of a large audience, you win a national writing competition, your classmates elect you president of student government or some club, you are nationally ranked in some sport. Some of this is free (getting yourself elected, entering writing competitions), but other things (music lessons, coaches) can cost major bucks.