Asian American student with 1590 SAT score blames affirmative action for rejections from 6 colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact remains that the over prepping ruined the tests for the students, and now the colleges are. looking for different attributes.

Teaching to the test is not what our students aspire to.

But scoring low on "likeability" for a particular racial group when the AO has never met the applicant is discrimination.

If they got rid of the AO "likeability" and simply used the interviewer's scoring on likeability that would be fine. But, someone who's never met you giving you a low score on likeability seems discriminatory. I'm sure if a black applicant for a job was scored "not likeable" by the hiring team without ever having met the person, said black person would assume it's due to their race, right?

You think you know, but you just don’t. You want a one size fits all, teach to the test answer that no longer exists, and has not for a very long time. Your community lied to you - no one else did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

SAT is for 12 years of educational foundations.

The best university in the world, MIT, knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

Hard to envision the child of this poster scoring low on likability!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

The distain for people who work in education across this forum is so sad. If these failures are picking the classes, why would you want to be part of them? They suck at life, but somehow are able to put together talented cohorts year after year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

Hard to envision the child of this poster scoring low on likability!

The child of this poster is white and both a legacy Ivy admit and faculty child at another university. I think they will be fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact remains that the over prepping ruined the tests for the students, and now the colleges are. looking for different attributes.

Teaching to the test is not what our students aspire to.

But scoring low on "likeability" for a particular racial group when the AO has never met the applicant is discrimination.

If they got rid of the AO "likeability" and simply used the interviewer's scoring on likeability that would be fine. But, someone who's never met you giving you a low score on likeability seems discriminatory. I'm sure if a black applicant for a job was scored "not likeable" by the hiring team without ever having met the person, said black person would assume it's due to their race, right?

I've met many dumb people who came out of top 10 schools (along with brilliant people), but there is one school where I have never met a dumb alum -- MIT.

[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:Because Harvard should fill its entire class with Asian Stem majors? Srlsy?

Yes, of course.

That would be very beneficial to the country.

To China or the U.S.?

I'm for minimizing international students.

I was assuming Asian Americans, so the U.S.

+1.

Why would the U.S. (or any country) only want one ethnicity in their colleges/universities? So what if you prep exceptionally well? Maybe U.S. colleges and universities want students who are not prepped with tutors, etc. - and that is perfectly fine.

Does NBA only want only one race?
How do you know one is prepped or not??
Also, you are supposed to prepare for all sorts of test, exams, midterms, finals, etc. etc.
If you don't, you are irresponsible and lazy. WTF

Analogizing the NBA to colleges is a common talking point I see. It’s surprising that intelligent, educated people do not appear to comprehend the weakness of this comparison.

Can you elaborate?

Also, there are far fewer blacks applying to college, so more are proportionally accepted. Not so with Asians.

In addition, you have to be able to make a proper analysis to do well in college.

there are far fewer Asians applying to NBA
what's your logic?

Apples and oranges. Go ahead and apply to the NBA.

You are not following your own “logic”, so how are you expected to follow actual logic.

[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:Because Harvard should fill its entire class with Asian Stem majors? Srlsy?

Yes, of course.

That would be very beneficial to the country.

To China or the U.S.?

I'm for minimizing international students.

I was assuming Asian Americans, so the U.S.

+1.

Why would the U.S. (or any country) only want one ethnicity in their colleges/universities? So what if you prep exceptionally well? Maybe U.S. colleges and universities want students who are not prepped with tutors, etc. - and that is perfectly fine.

Does NBA only want only one race?
How do you know one is prepped or not??
Also, you are supposed to prepare for all sorts of test, exams, midterms, finals, etc. etc.
If you don't, you are irresponsible and lazy. WTF

Analogizing the NBA to colleges is a common talking point I see. It’s surprising that intelligent, educated people do not appear to comprehend the weakness of this comparison.

Can you elaborate?

Also, there are far fewer blacks applying to college, so more are proportionally accepted. Not so with Asians.

In addition, you have to be able to make a proper analysis to do well in college.

there are far fewer Asians applying to NBA
what's your logic?

+1

Don’t bother.

[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:Because Harvard should fill its entire class with Asian Stem majors? Srlsy?

Yes, of course.

That would be very beneficial to the country.

To China or the U.S.?

I'm for minimizing international students.

I was assuming Asian Americans, so the U.S.

+1.

Why would the U.S. (or any country) only want one ethnicity in their colleges/universities? So what if you prep exceptionally well? Maybe U.S. colleges and universities want students who are not prepped with tutors, etc. - and that is perfectly fine.

Does NBA only want only one race?
How do you know one is prepped or not??
Also, you are supposed to prepare for all sorts of test, exams, midterms, finals, etc. etc.
If you don't, you are irresponsible and lazy. WTF

Analogizing the NBA to colleges is a common talking point I see. It’s surprising that intelligent, educated people do not appear to comprehend the weakness of this comparison.

Can you elaborate?

Also, there are far fewer blacks applying to college, so more are proportionally accepted. Not so with Asians.

In addition, you have to be able to make a proper analysis to do well in college.

there are far fewer Asians applying to NBA
what's your logic?

Apples and oranges. Go ahead and apply to the NBA.

You are not following your own “logic”, so how are you expected to follow actual logic.

Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Just because you think you should be accepted, does not mean you will be accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores alone are not highly indicative of a successful future college student. It makes no sense to force a college to admit students based on this criteria. I don’t know why we put so much weight upon them. All they really do is generically show relative strengths and weaknesses among high schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/19/study-finds-little-difference-academic-success-students-who-do-and-dont-submit-sat#:~:text=The%20study%20confirms%20that%20high,who%20will%20succeed%20in%20college.%22

I keep seeing this claim made but there are decades of research studies on this topic and many show that SAT scores are a very strong predictor of not only college grades but future career success as well.

+1 which is why MIT went back to requiring SAT scores.

MIT is only ONE T25 school. Georgetown still requires the SAT since it's not in the common app.

How about HYPS and the other 1,800+ who are test optional? How about the SAT/ACT going digital to even stay relevant?

I think you've missed the test optional trend. Get used to it. It is here to stay.

It is here to stay because more and more schools want to increase DEI. Getting rid of SAT scores is one way to do that. Why not just get rid of GPAs since there is so much grade inflation and grading is als
o pretty subjective?

GPA - and rigor- over 4 years is a better indicator of college success (at least freshman year) than one 3-hour test.

The AOs know this.

The AOs are failures in life. If they weren't, they wouldn't be stuck in an admissions office. They have low level degrees in xyz studies type areas and have their own personal social agendas to fulfill. I know this because I have the misfortune of interacting with many of them. Professors are not happy about the trajectory of admissions decisions over the past decade

Hard to envision the child of this poster scoring low on likability!

the Kid has huge courage to stand up for injustice.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Because Harvard should fill its entire class with Asian Stem majors? Srlsy?

Yes, of course.

That would be very beneficial to the country.

To China or the U.S.?

I'm for minimizing international students.

I was assuming Asian Americans, so the U.S.

+1.

Why would the U.S. (or any country) only want one ethnicity in their colleges/universities? So what if you prep exceptionally well? Maybe U.S. colleges and universities want students who are not prepped with tutors, etc. - and that is perfectly fine.

Does NBA only want only one race?
How do you know one is prepped or not??
Also, you are supposed to prepare for all sorts of test, exams, midterms, finals, etc. etc.
If you don't, you are irresponsible and lazy. WTF

Analogizing the NBA to colleges is a common talking point I see. It’s surprising that intelligent, educated people do not appear to comprehend the weakness of this comparison.

Can you elaborate?

Also, there are far fewer blacks applying to college, so more are proportionally accepted. Not so with Asians.

In addition, you have to be able to make a proper analysis to do well in college.

there are far fewer Asians applying to NBA
what's your logic?

Apples and oranges. Go ahead and apply to the NBA.

You are not following your own “logic”, so how are you expected to follow actual logic.

Can you elaborate?

Elaborate on your not making sense?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Harvard should fill its entire class with Asian Stem majors? Srlsy?

Yes, of course.

That would be very beneficial to the country.

To China or the U.S.?

I'm for minimizing international students.

I was assuming Asian Americans, so the U.S.

+1.

Why would the U.S. (or any country) only want one ethnicity in their colleges/universities? So what if you prep exceptionally well? Maybe U.S. colleges and universities want students who are not prepped with tutors, etc. - and that is perfectly fine.

Does NBA only want only one race?
How do you know one is prepped or not??
Also, you are supposed to prepare for all sorts of test, exams, midterms, finals, etc. etc.
If you don't, you are irresponsible and lazy. WTF

Analogizing the NBA to colleges is a common talking point I see. It’s surprising that intelligent, educated people do not appear to comprehend the weakness of this comparison.

Can you elaborate?

Also, there are far fewer blacks applying to college, so more are proportionally accepted. Not so with Asians.

In addition, you have to be able to make a proper analysis to do well in college.

there are far fewer Asians applying to NBA
what's your logic?

Apples and oranges. Go ahead and apply to the NBA.

You are not following your own “logic”, so how are you expected to follow actual logic.

Can you elaborate?

Elaborate on your not making sense?

ok you can't and you don't have any logic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a PhD from the Ivy League who taught the undergrads, I can assure all the people saying this guy is a dime a dozen are mistaken. There are so many morons who slip through the cracks of the Ivy League admissions system that it's shocking. I think about 10% of folks in classes I taught probably shouldn't have been in college at all. Others were ver mid, reminiscent of a typical state school student. The fact this guy got rejected by so many schools is entirely indicative of anti Asian racism imo

There are tons of students that have these stats who get rejected - not just Asian. I know a handful, myself. I would imagine those like me also know a (different) handful. It is not as "uncommon" as you would like to believe. Same as it is not "uncommon" to have advanced degree/s from ivy/MIT/top universities in this geographical area (and a few other geographical areas). Just as so many on DCUM are "professors" (usually adjunct) - also a dime a dozen. It has nothing to do with being Asian, but it is a hot topic right now, so someone is trying to draw attention to it.

American Universities have a specific mission to NOT contain one ethnicity of student. In fact, we fought more than one war over this same type of thing. Just drop it.

Well I am not an adjunct. I am a tenured professor at a top 50 research university. And my point was that the insane push toward ethnic diversity and diversity of other types has to a large extent pushed great students out of our schools. At no point in my post did I say it is NOT common for someone of this kid's stats to get rejected. If you read what I wrote, I said he is not a dime a dozen compared to students who get ADMITTED. The students who are admitted include a very large group idiots. If you don't think rejecting highly intelligent people and admitting idiots is a problem, then I don't think I'm interested in talking with you

NP--No top 50 research university is admitting idiots. They may be admitting some very smart students who aren't super interested in learning or who have addictions or mental health issues that keep them from showing you their potential, but they're not idiots.

Yes, they are.

You'd be surprised how dumb kids are at top universities. I literally had to teach them as a TA while my spouse was an administrator for the same uni.

Kids so stupid they were incapable of setting up a bank account to collect their paychecks for campus work. Kids so stupid they couldn't do something as basic as submit hw in on time. Kids so stupid they literally did not even know what DNA does by junior or senior year in a biomedical related program. Kids so stupid at math they they were complete and abject failures at doing simple calculations for doing things like making solutions, or for figuring out concentrations. So many kids at supposedly a top university struggling to do basic scientific notation and work with scientific units. Yet when it came to test time they were OK because they could memorize answers.

There are a lot of dumb kids at top US universities. If you try to throw the a curveball on an exam for a question that requires actual critical thinking and for them to actually apply the knowledge they've supposedly learned to a problem they've never seen before, they meltdown, bomb, then all whine about the exam being too hard and the exam questions not being taught in class. Zero critical thinking and problem solving skills these days. Whether or not it is because they're admitting based on diversity rather than scholastic aptitude, I don't know, but the quality of students at top US university is often shockingly bad.

These sound like heavily prepped kids who can’t figure things out on their own. They’ve been spoon fed the questions and answers to memorize so as to give the appearance of being smart. When a situation deviates from what they have prepped for, they are at a loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge cultural chasm here. America does not have the same testing traditions you find in just about every other country in the world. Americans believe in never quitting more than they believe in winning. That's why footbalk teams that lose hard fought games get celebrated almost as though they won.

The difference is every other country in the world has clear rule and transparency.

Another difference is that America rewards persistence. Many other countries give you just one chance to measure up in life. Not so in the USA.

Test measures persistence. It's for 12 years of persistent education
Also they do reward persistence with sort of GPA together with Test

I don't care if you do GPA only Test only GPA + Test, GPA + Test + whatever.

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

the only thing you are asking for is how much was spent on making sure those scores were achieved. that's it. and not an amount, a percentage of income. if a 400k family spends 40k and an 80k family spends 8k its the same type of leg up, it is.
I am so tired of test prep being a replacement for intelligence and capability.

Oh geez. Some people just do well without expensive test prep. My brother and I both scored in the top 1 percent and were national merit scholar finalists and neither of us took a class. We did buy practice books and did a bunch of practice problems. Yes we are Asian (South Asian).

THAT IS TEST PREP.

YOU SHOULD PREP FOR YOUR GPA TOO WHEN YOU TAKE TESTS, MIDTERMS, FINALS, ETC.

Study and test prep are different. Study is content. Test prep is some content but primarily HOW to take the test such as shortcuts that are not taught in math classes which allow you not to spend time on problems working through them and provide more time to answer more questions, and practice questions from previous tests, etc.

Test prep makes a difference because of how you take the exam not whether you can learn new information, handle the courseload, use critical thinking, etc. Test prep is the automation of the process which is why you have kids who without any test prep score a 1300 and then are compared to someone who has the advantage of test prep scoring a 1450. Thats not transparency. That is not a level playing field.