NACAC Journal article: THE 8 THINGS I WISH EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT COLLEGE ADMISSION By Jon Boeckenstedt

[Anonymous]

He is trying to lay out the landscape not provide solutions. I think he did a good job of describing all the contradictions and complexities in the admissions process. There are no easy solutions and like he said a lot depends on what the board of trustees and top administrators at the college want. The admissions folk must follow set rules and goals for the most part

[Anonymous]

To 16:14: did you really have to copy the ENTIRE OP?? So pointless!

[Anonymous]

Highly ironic that some of those who complain about race-based affirmative action in college applications are probably some of the same people whose children are currently trying to get into colleges they otherwise are not “qualified for” if testing was required. Think of test optional as affirmative action for all those awesome kids who “just don’t test well.” Funny how the tune is different when it helps your own kid. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

Then we probably have differing definitions of "concise" and absolutely have differing definitions of "clever".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

Then we probably have differing definitions of "concise" and absolutely have differing definitions of "clever".

PP why do you care so much about how someone worded a comment on an anonymous board about college admissions. You’ve made your point, and it’s not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

Then we probably have differing definitions of "concise" and absolutely have differing definitions of "clever".

PP why do you care so much about how someone worded a comment on an anonymous board about college admissions. You’ve made your point, and it’s not a big deal.

I made my point, and it was commented on, and I commented back... this is how open forums work you know.

If you don't want further comment, might I politely suggest the best way to achieve that is to not employ further comment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 16:14: did you really have to copy the ENTIRE OP?? So pointless!

Yep.. I agree. The pointless of pointlessly copying a pointless article is pointless.

[Anonymous]

I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

Oh! Piss off, you socialist scumbag!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

This is akin to saying the accomplished kids are guilty of an origin sin in that their parents are rich and well educated, and perhaps need to be punished to make it more equal. The author ignores the fact that a lot depends on the kids' own efforts, their interests, and the talents. The parents' wealth has a much less impact than their interests in education, as is in the case of Jewish immigrants in the past and Asian immigrants more recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

This is akin to saying the accomplished kids are guilty of an origin sin in that their parents are rich and well educated, and perhaps need to be punished to make it more equal. The author ignores the fact that a lot depends on the kids' own efforts, their interests, and the talents. The parents' wealth has a much less impact than their interests in education, as is in the case of Jewish immigrants in the past and Asian immigrants more recently.

Remember, affirmative action occurs on the margin. It's not like kids from wealthy and educated parents don't get the majority of the offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all agree - this entire thread is pointless lol

Not pointless. Here's an earlier post:

The responses to this post are disappointing. Instead of trying to understand the author’s overall point and to consider how the college admission process reflects our country’s broader social tensions and ideals, the fixation appears to be on the impact on one’s own kid. Of course, that’s not explicitly said, but the perjorative use of “academic socialism” makes the concern clear.

I think the author is trying to highlight that what many like to call “merit” is significantly, but not completely, a self-reinforcing system of achievement that is underwritten by parental wealth and education. That is, families headed by relatively wealthy and educated parents are more likely to “produce” kids who have completed rigorous academics and attained high grades and test scores than their opposites. In turn, selective colleges ignore student achievement and parental ability to pay at their reputational and financial peril. Thus, the natural order of things is for college admissions to sustain the privileged achievement of primary and secondary school.

Yet, is this good for society? The author clearly thinks not. Where else, if not college, will this chain of inbred opportunity be broken? The workplace? Not if companies offer the best opportunities to graduates of the most selective schools. The author suggests that within a college’s reputational and financial constraints, it can serve a social good by providing opportunity to those who have had less while young.

As for myself, I applaud the aim of colleges to help applicants on the margin (And let’s be honest, it’s on the margin. Despite some affirmative action, selective schools are not admitting high school dropouts). A well functioning and interesting society doesn’t hoard opportunity, it shares it. When we leave this world, hopefully we’ve made it better for everyone, not just our clan.

Oh! Piss off, you socialist scumbag!

Not sure who educated you, but you need to do a bit of self reflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

Then we probably have differing definitions of "concise" and absolutely have differing definitions of "clever".

Yes, that much is crystal clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I thought it was a clever and concise way of summing up the entire article.
DP

Then we probably have differing definitions of "concise" and absolutely have differing definitions of "clever".

PP why do you care so much about how someone worded a comment on an anonymous board about college admissions. You’ve made your point, and it’s not a big deal.

+100
Because that PP won’t rest until everyone acknowledges how “right” she is.