s/o this brutal admissions year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who else had to google to figure out what the hell Pamplin was and then laughed?

+1
I guess I should have read ahead!

I thought it was an autocorrect for something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t actually believe that having gone to two top ten colleges. Plenty of kids who struggled academically once admitted.

Your anecdote is actually misinformation. Graduation rates:

Yale University (97.5%)
Princeton University (97.3%)
Harvard University (96.4%)
Dartmouth College (95.9%)
Harvey Mudd College (95.9%)
University of Pennsylvania (95.7%)
Duke University (95.4%)
Bowdoin College (95.2%)
University of Notre (95.2%)
Amherst College (95.2%)

A breakdown of just the ivies:

https://www.univstats.com/comparison/ivy-league/graduation-rate/#

Nearly all graduate. So the adcoms must be doing something right.

Anonymous wrote:I also believe in a meritocracy, you don’t.

Now this is funny. And untrue.

The difference is what defines "merit". I don't define what "merit" is for Harvard or Yale. I think they get to do that. You think you do. That is the ONLY difference between our philosophies.

I see the value in giving a wider range of kids access to the top schools, but that makes it less of a meritocracy, as legacies as sports admits make it less of a meritocracy. See how that works?

NP here. I don't value sports admits or legacy admits. Many people don't and I'd just assume they both go away or they add slots to compensate for those admits.

Giving a wider range of kids . . . I don't know. I WAS the kid that was from a poor upbringing in the midwest, grandparents were immigrants, first gen to go to college. I didn't get any special privileges for that. I did the "checklist" of things to prepare and make my case for admission (and it was a low tiered, nothing big state U that most would look down on here).

So, I ended up going to law school and now do well (but far from the "well off" crowd in DC as I chose not to go BigLaw despite having the resume to do it). My offspring, now, have way more advantages than I did. And are doing well against any metric you choose: grades, athletes, club, community service, is a good test-taker. So that should be valued less? Because I worked to get into a better place than I was born into? I'm sorry, but I don't support that.

Are you that poster who grew up DIRT POOR and doesn’t support first gen admits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who else had to google to figure out what the hell Pamplin was and then laughed?

+1
I guess I should have read ahead!

I thought it was an autocorrect for something else.

+2
Also original poster clearly hasn't heard of a little something called yield protection.