Rest In Peace Meritocracy

[Anonymous]

...SNIP...

The entire admissions process is about discrimination. I don't mean that as a criticism - in making admissions decisions, schools discriminate against one set of criteria in favor of another. You favor *only* permitting discrimination in favor of academic credentials - SATs, GPA, etc. - and no other factors. That's fine I guess, but schools go for a well-rounded student body. And they also are businesses, even though they are nonprofits, so admitting students based on name recognition and financial resources isn't exactly unreasonable either.

All you are doing is favoring one type of discrimination over al others - really, to the exclusion of all others. While you think it's a logical type of discrimination, you seem blind to the possibility that others make different determinations, which are just as reasonable, though for different reasons.

FWIW, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, my kids won't, and I don't have a personal stake in this discussion.

Colleges discriminating based on academic scores and academic extracurriculars such as science fairs or research, etc. is consistent with the fact that the sole purpose of college is academic education.


Colleges discriminating because the applicant's parents haven't donated enough to the school or didn't attend themselves is corrupt.
Colleges discriminating because the applicant is an Asian is racist.
Colleges discriminating because the applicant didn't play a sport in which they won't play professionally, or some esoteric sport that no one but the very wealthy play is idiotic.

Discriminating against someone because they are Asian or their parents are not wealthy enough to donate is not reasonable at all. , in any circumstance. All viewpoints are not created equal - some viewpoints are flat out wrong.

Ah, here's the problem. You believe this: "the sole purpose of college is academic education."

You may want that to be true, but it is manifestly not the case. And as an aside, you'd be better served if you embraced the nuance of situations, rather than describing any system that doesn't work the way you think it should as idiotic or corrupt.

Moreover, you haven't addressed the point raised by the poster below:

In 2020, there were 22,000 students who scored above a 1550 on the SAT. That is the top 1%. There were 21,000 students who scored a 35 or 36 on the ACT.

This student is certainly exceptional at test taking (and maybe he has an exceptional transcript to match) but he is competing against the other 22k kids who got the exact same scores.

Harvard offered admission to exactly 2,056 students this year.

Princeton admitted 1,890.

Yale admitted 2,272.

See how this works? 22,000 students with that near perfect SAT score. We can't add the perfect SAT kids with the perfect ACT kids, because there is certainly overlap with some students taking both and getting a top score on both, so let's just go with the SAT number only, since Charlie from TikTok listed SAT scores.

If we are going purely on scores, there are 20k students who will not be admitted because of the number of slots. I think the problem is that many of these students (and their parents) are unable to understand quite how many students are just as competitive as their child.

So even if all schools' admissions were based, as you suggest they should be, on pure merit, there are still far, far more kids that "qualify" for admission that there are available spots. And don't forget, each school's admissions process is siloed - they don't divvy up the pool of top students among themselves. There are a lot of high stat kids that got multiple admissions offers. Similarly, there are those like TikTok Charlie who got none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...SNIP...

The entire admissions process is about discrimination. I don't mean that as a criticism - in making admissions decisions, schools discriminate against one set of criteria in favor of another. You favor *only* permitting discrimination in favor of academic credentials - SATs, GPA, etc. - and no other factors. That's fine I guess, but schools go for a well-rounded student body. And they also are businesses, even though they are nonprofits, so admitting students based on name recognition and financial resources isn't exactly unreasonable either.

All you are doing is favoring one type of discrimination over al others - really, to the exclusion of all others. While you think it's a logical type of discrimination, you seem blind to the possibility that others make different determinations, which are just as reasonable, though for different reasons.

FWIW, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, my kids won't, and I don't have a personal stake in this discussion.

Colleges discriminating based on academic scores and academic extracurriculars such as science fairs or research, etc. is consistent with the fact that the sole purpose of college is academic education.


Colleges discriminating because the applicant's parents haven't donated enough to the school or didn't attend themselves is corrupt.
Colleges discriminating because the applicant is an Asian is racist.
Colleges discriminating because the applicant didn't play a sport in which they won't play professionally, or some esoteric sport that no one but the very wealthy play is idiotic.

Discriminating against someone because they are Asian or their parents are not wealthy enough to donate is not reasonable at all. , in any circumstance. All viewpoints are not created equal - some viewpoints are flat out wrong.

Ah, here's the problem. You believe this: "the sole purpose of college is academic education."

You may want that to be true, but it is manifestly not the case. And as an aside, you'd be better served if you embraced the nuance of situations, rather than describing any system that doesn't work the way you think it should as idiotic or corrupt.

Moreover, you haven't addressed the point raised by the poster below:

In 2020, there were 22,000 students who scored above a 1550 on the SAT. That is the top 1%. There were 21,000 students who scored a 35 or 36 on the ACT.

This student is certainly exceptional at test taking (and maybe he has an exceptional transcript to match) but he is competing against the other 22k kids who got the exact same scores.

Harvard offered admission to exactly 2,056 students this year.

Princeton admitted 1,890.

Yale admitted 2,272.

See how this works? 22,000 students with that near perfect SAT score. We can't add the perfect SAT kids with the perfect ACT kids, because there is certainly overlap with some students taking both and getting a top score on both, so let's just go with the SAT number only, since Charlie from TikTok listed SAT scores.

If we are going purely on scores, there are 20k students who will not be admitted because of the number of slots. I think the problem is that many of these students (and their parents) are unable to understand quite how many students are just as competitive as their child.

So even if all schools' admissions were based, as you suggest they should be, on pure merit, there are still far, far more kids that "qualify" for admission that there are available spots. And don't forget, each school's admissions process is siloed - they don't divvy up the pool of top students among themselves. There are a lot of high stat kids that got multiple admissions offers. Similarly, there are those like TikTok Charlie who got none.

It is all kind of funny to me. Several years ago I said all the lawsuits would lead to schools getting rid of test so they could admit who they wanted. People said that was impossible. I said the schools would find a way. Well they have. I doubt the test are going to come back and overtime this hyper focus on testing will wane. What will unhappy parents focus on next?

[Anonymous]

Agree with this. I see the days of standardized tests coming to an end.

[Anonymous]

And honestly, it has become an abusive big business. There are more and more tests for more and more money. In a few decades it went from everyone taking a test or two or everyone taking multiple SATs and ACTs and subjects tests, APs, IBs, etc. What a waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeaB1Nm9/

Truly sad what this country has become.

He might smart but unless he has the social skills or an athlete, he will be just another "nerd" among the thousands of Asians. Nothing special about him.

He is also on TikTok with a tremendous following. His alternate income stream at 17 is already doing better than your retirement account. LOL

Take a look at your own kid right now if you are a parent and realize how this kid has outperformed your rugrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeaB1Nm9/

Truly sad what this country has become.

He might smart but unless he has the social skills or an athlete, he will be just another "nerd" among the thousands of Asians. Nothing special about him.

He is also on TikTok with a tremendous following. His alternate income stream at 17 is already doing better than your retirement account. LOL

Take a look at your own kid right now if you are a parent and realize how this kid has outperformed your rugrats.

How much does he make from tiktok? That is crazy. What content does he provide that is of value?

[Anonymous]

I think admission officers look at Asian-Americans and think that are already blessed. Majority of them are good in studies (hello! all the achievement gap is being driven by asian americans) and majority will have zero college debt, will come from intact families, will be married and have at least middle class jobs. So the admission officers might think that AA are already blessed with a lot of things going right for them and they do not need an Ivy degree on top of every thing else. A top 50 school will work just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeaB1Nm9/

Truly sad what this country has become.

He might smart but unless he has the social skills or an athlete, he will be just another "nerd" among the thousands of Asians. Nothing special about him.

He is also on TikTok with a tremendous following. His alternate income stream at 17 is already doing better than your retirement account. LOL

Take a look at your own kid right now if you are a parent and realize how this kid has outperformed your rugrats.

How much does he make from tiktok? That is crazy. What content does he provide that is of value?

I have only seen the one with a few slides and then a shrug. Is this similar to the rest that he offers?

[Anonymous]

Clearly, if there are 21000+ in the top 1% of the existing standardized tests, there needs to be a more discriminating standardize test, one that opens up the field for the most academically elite.

But in reality, what will happen, is that those with the chops to do so will work without degrees, as the signal offered by degrees offered by universities that have diluted their brand will increasingly only be honored by institutions who have enough moat to pay for employees who are valued for their identity rather than their performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly, if there are 21000+ in the top 1% of the existing standardized tests, there needs to be a more discriminating standardize test, one that opens up the field for the most academically elite.

But in reality, what will happen, is that those with the chops to do so will work without degrees, as the signal offered by degrees offered by universities that have diluted their brand will increasingly only be honored by institutions who have enough moat to pay for employees who are valued for their identity rather than their performance.

Your kid is the number one best most elite kid in the universe. How can he even stand to share the planet with such low level scum as the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly, if there are 21000+ in the top 1% of the existing standardized tests, there needs to be a more discriminating standardize test, one that opens up the field for the most academically elite.

But in reality, what will happen, is that those with the chops to do so will work without degrees, as the signal offered by degrees offered by universities that have diluted their brand will increasingly only be honored by institutions who have enough moat to pay for employees who are valued for their identity rather than their performance.

I don't know how many times we have to repeat that the US university system is not really focused on finding "the most academically elite" kids. A handful of schools are, many schools in other parts of the world are, but it's just not how the US system is oriented.

Continuing to argue that it should be is fine, but also not really going to result in change because your goal is not shared by the admissions committees of our country's elite educational institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think admission officers look at Asian-Americans and think that are already blessed. Majority of them are good in studies (hello! all the achievement gap is being driven by asian americans) and majority will have zero college debt, will come from intact families, will be married and have at least middle class jobs. So the admission officers might think that AA are already blessed with a lot of things going right for them and they do not need an Ivy degree on top of every thing else. A top 50 school will work just fine.

So they are prejudging students based on their race. It's amazing how people can easily become worse than the bad people they are fighting against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And honestly, it has become an abusive big business. There are more and more tests for more and more money. In a few decades it went from everyone taking a test or two or everyone taking multiple SATs and ACTs and subjects tests, APs, IBs, etc. What a waste of time and money.

All of those academic "contests" are becoming the same thing though. Sportes too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a really small number of students who have

1) Perfect Scores AND
2) In the top 1% of their class AND
3) National AP Scholar


These kids really should be and would be in their top choice college, if these universities cared about academics.

18% of the 1.8 million AP students are NAPS.

You are dealing in huge numbers of kids for a few thousand spots. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a really small number of students who have

1) Perfect Scores AND
2) In the top 1% of their class AND
3) National AP Scholar


These kids really should be and would be in their top choice college, if these universities cared about academics.

18% of the 1.8 million AP students are NAPS.

You are dealing in huge numbers of kids for a few thousand spots. Deal with it.

Agreed. It is like these people do not know at top schools it is shameful to get below a 4 and most kids get 5s on APs. Its common at top day/boarding schools. So are high scores. who takes subject tests that they cant get 800 in when applying ivy??? you take a bunch and only submit the 800s. You also see whether you score higher on the ACT or SAT and submit the highest scores. Plus for top schools unknown high schools do not get kids in without a story (first gen, sport, special talent). As from unknow public or private schools are not considered. its not a freak accident that most kids at top college come from the same groups of high schools year in and year out. All as are not equal.