NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the interesting unintended consequence will be the explosion of women in selective colleges. Right now, women make up 60% of colleges students. It’s not exactly a shock that women also need better credential to get into non-engineering programs at selective colleges.

https://feed.georgetown.edu/access-affordability/women-increasingly-outnumber-men-at-u-s-colleges-but-why/

It will be interesting to watch UVA Arts & Sciences, WM, IVpvys etc become gender blind in admissions and hit 70% women. Because race, national origin, gender and religion are the big protected classes. It’s hard to imagine prohibiting consideration of race but allowing gender consideration.

It’s interesting to watch as women become more educated than men and less dependent on them. There is a society wide shift underway that is creating the Incels and MAGAs, who are pushing to legally restrict women. This decision will make womens power and mens resentment explode.

It will be interesting to watch all these college educated women start crying they can’t find a husband. Don’t expect men to GAF though.

If women don’t need men for economic support and can have children without a romantic partner, why are they crying? I’m stressed they can find a friend with benefits. In many ways, woman’s lives are easier if they have a partner who isn’t helping with childcare and running the house. He’s just dead weight you have to add to your task list. Or you are divorced and having to navigate joint custody with a ex.

This demographic shift is already well underway. Platonic parenting is becoming increasingly popular.

https://www.parents.com/parenting/dynamics/how-platonic-parenting-works/

Or, women can get a fulfilling job, buy a small house and make it their own, have a supportive social circle and hire a maintenance guy. Or learn to DIY.

My SILis mid 40s and single with a high powered job. She waited for Prince Charming. Then looked into single parenthood. Then settled into being my kids third parent. She is their favorite person in the world. As they have gotten older they have at times spent a month or more with her, volunteering or doing online summer school while SIL worked. She and I travel, she travels with friends, and she took each of my kids on a big graduation trip. As long as DH or I or our kids are alive, she will always have family— for holidays, for emergencies, for “I just want to see you”.

The demographic shift is here and women aren’t crying. They are just building lives without men.

This is wistful thinking. It's great that you incorporate your SIL into your family, but there's a difference between coming home from work to your husband and kids, or even just husband, vs. coming home to an empty home.

Living alone sucks for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Exactly. All this outrage among certain groups is perplexing. The point of the ivies isn't grinder grades-win-all, but the mixing with the actual, not just aspiring, elite. And all the advantages that leads to for the kids who attend.

There is intense academic pressure and competition at these schools. Sorry but there is not much sitting around hob nobbing with nepo kids. Prepare to work.

I went to two and we worked but mostly hob nobbed. Met my husband, my best friend and a kid who introduced me to his dad who got me my first job. Networking is why you go to Ivys and no offense but Asian Americans will be left out. They do better at schools like MIT.

----
Asians now have a big enough cohort at top colleges that they can network among themselves as well. Silicon Valley and Wall Street now have enough Asians that our kids don't have to depend on racists like you.

Asians in Silicon Valley and Wall Street en masse? LOL! Delusional.

Not delusional - tech companies like Google, Microsoft have Indian CEOs. Both my husband and I went to Ivy leagues and have a broad network of successful classmates both white and non-white who are doing very well in tech and finance. We work on Wall Street. My kids are at an Ivy after attending private NYC schools and are doing great. They seem to be having no problems making friends with people from all races. Fortunately they are smart enough to get great internships without needing help from a classmates' dad.

+1 and who gets a job from a classmate’s dad. Couldn’t cut it with campus recruiting. What a loser.

Why would someone bother if they don't have to. I would have loved to have a connection than have to slog to career fairs and interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

+1. This. And no one here has a realistic reason why “women in STEM” might go away under a scotus opinion dealing with race issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

I'm guessing that whoever writes the decision will be less concerned with precise wording and more concerned with sweeping statements. I'm willing to bet that there will be broad language about discrimination in admissions being unconstitutional. It will probably take a few more years for it to be fleshed out, but anyone who doesn't think that someone will try the same suit on the basis of gender isn't paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most fair way is to have comprehensive tests on each subjects, and give every kid a chance to show his/her knowledge (achievement in HS) and learning aptitude (potential). All the soft and subjective criteria result in unfairness.

But soft skills are really important in the workplace. I’d rather hire a slightly less academically inclined person who has a strong EQ. Ability to work with others, integrity, and grit matter a lot in life. I think that is why you see many high performers and CEOs that were not top of their class. Intelligence and academic achievement are not the whole picture.

Academic success is a strong indicator of integrity, grit and the ability to work with others. To claim otherwise is laughable. The top students make study groups, tutor, become teaching assistants, etc. Just because they aren't also playing lacrosse, dancing ballroom, and holding positions in meaningless clubs doesn't mean that they don't have soft skills.

As for CEOs, look at the academic credentials of the top tech company CEOs. The time where being in the same fraternity and having a firm handshake is long gone, something that women should be very happy about ironically.

Bezos - public magnet high school valedictorian, national merit scholar, took STEM programs at University of Florida as a high schooler, summa cum laude with 4.2 GPA at Princeton in electrical engineering and computer science

Zuckerberg - Phillips Exeter with honors, Harvard

Gates - Lakeside Prep, wrote first programs as a 13 year old in the late 1960's, Harvard

The fact is that social skills is very common and easy to develop if you grow up in a healthy environment, because humans are naturally social. Academic skills are not.

What about CEOs outside of tech? Do a Google search. I think you would be surprised. It’s easy to cherry pick the tech CEOs, but there are many other industries.

Here's the CEO list with colleges attended showing that yes, they're cherry-picking.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/business/

And here's one from the same site for Tech:

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/lists/tech/

There are ten other fields with lists, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Freshman year the dean of admissions told our class that he could have filled every seat with valedictorians had he wanted to -- and he didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

+1. This. And no one here has a realistic reason why “women in STEM” might go away under a scotus opinion dealing with race issues

+2. It's just fear mongering to protect institutionalized racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Freshman year the dean of admissions told our class that he could have filled every seat with valedictorians had he wanted to -- and he didn't.

Sure they fill half of it with ALDC first

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can’t get rid of athletic preferences or they won’t be able to field a team. It makes no sense.

I still don’t see how colleges won’t be able to still keep doing it with.holistic admissions . The whole process is such a random crapshoot anyway,

All URM need to do is write essays about their URM experience and without naming it, admissions will know what to do to create diverse student bodies.

You mean deny them? So people will start writing essays in which they allude to being a minority but don't say it? Or do say it explicitly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Freshman year the dean of admissions told our class that he could have filled every seat with valedictorians had he wanted to -- and he didn't.

so, those kids got in due to winning the genetic lottery.

Do those rich kids need the opportunity to get an elite education? Can they not get in just on their own merits ?

Opportunity hoarding at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Freshman year the dean of admissions told our class that he could have filled every seat with valedictorians had he wanted to -- and he didn't.

so, those kids got in due to winning the genetic lottery.

Do those rich kids need the opportunity to get an elite education? Can they not get in just on their own merits ?

Opportunity hoarding at its finest.

Not sure of your point, but there is something to be said for those getting in on academic merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I want universities to be blind to everything except academic, and academic-adjacent, achievement. No legacy, athletics, development, family or ethnic background considerations.

If that happens schools like Harvard will cease to be Harvard. What gives the elite schools, especially Ivy League, cultural and social capital in the US is all that you seek to eliminate. I don’t personally care but I recognize the world we live in.

That’s bs. The lure of places like Harvard was the claim that it attracted the best and brightest around the world, and that the US was the top country to migrate to. Now with “holistic” admissions people can see that is not the case, coupled with the US in general decaying. Replacing an emphasis on academic achievement would actually reenergize Harvard.

What you describe is more recent history. The Ivy League brand was not built on the best and the brightest.

Forgot to add: consider Caltech and MIT. Full of smart kids but don’t have the cultural capital of Harvard.

+1000 Who wants to go to an Ivy League with a bunch of kids selected solely for their test scores and grades? The allure and social capital is attending with the people whose families rule the world — Kennedys, Hollywood kids, CEO kids, Supreme Court Justice’s kids, Presidents kids or grandkids, famous musicians kids, etc.

Freshman year the dean of admissions told our class that he could have filled every seat with valedictorians had he wanted to -- and he didn't.

so, those kids got in due to winning the genetic lottery.

Do those rich kids need the opportunity to get an elite education? Can they not get in just on their own merits ?

Opportunity hoarding at its finest.

This.

And next thing you know the same people engaged in opportunity hoarding will claim to care about diversity and fairness and equity.