Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

As long as all the kids grew up burning coal... They definitely don't want those green kids that grew up on solar farms in the Midwest. "What they want us to turn the AC down in the summer?", that's crazy talk. "You picked strawberries in the summer, how pedestrian."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't DEI discredit those that are legitimately qualified. Like, how can you tell the difference between a DEI admission that actually has the scores and one that doesn't? Are they saying basically that all black students don't have the scores.

Do people think a "Harvard Education" is that great of an education that it will suddenly take someone that doesn't have the scores and make them an elite academic?

I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

[Anonymous]

+1 Colleges and universities need to go back to requiring SAT/ACT and using them in admissions decisions along with grades and course rigor. Everyone needs to submit all attempts.

And if the new class of comp sci students ends up being all Asian and male, so be it. It should be crystal clear about who gets in and why. Tests are not secret. There are plenty of practice tests out there and online tools.

As a female, it should be no secret why I didn't get in. Schools should make applicant data public (no names, of course). If there are too many applicants with similar scores, courses and grades, then use a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

If woke and DEI don’t matter, why don’t Democrats drop those things? Liberals always tell us those things don’t matter, immigration doesn’t matter, etc. But they never change those policies to adopt a more mainstream view. That signals those things do matter. The Democratic party should actually listen to voters and try to meet them where they are instead of lecturing and trying to impose unpopular views on voters.

The existence and equal dignity of women, LGBTQ people, nonwhites, and non-Christians isn’t some fringe ideology; it’s reality.

If you believe that basic inclusion is "unpopular," then that says more about your worldview than it does about the country.

The right’s entire anti-DEI crusade is built on a fabricated grievance: that white Christian men are somehow oppressed. In this thread, the anti-DEI right wing has admitted nothing in their lives has actually improved, which proves the point: DEI wasn’t ever actually holding any of you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. You’re just angry that the world doesn’t solely revolve around white Christian males anymore.

Nobody said anything about not being inclusive. However, if less qualified candidates are being accepted/hired/promoted over others because of DEI, that's wrong. Whites being promoted over more qualified candidates for being white is wrong as well.

An example has been provided on the previous page.

Harvard university, the world-renowned university, chose as its president, a Black female; which was a first. However, it was public knowledge she had a paltry 11 published works. That number of published works is ridiculous on its face. She also had relatively little leadership experience. These publicly-known facts heavily suggest she was selected over other candidates primarily on the basis of her race and sex.

It later turned out she plagiarized most the work she claimed as her own. And the topic of that work? It largely involved DEI and critical race theory. She is still employed by Harvard.

There have been plenty of poorly-qualified whit male university presidents throughout American collegiate history yet somehow that's not an issue, they got a pass for being white and male. Meanwhile, there was zero Democrat legislation and not a single Executive Order or other action by a Democrat President, nor any other Democrat-driven governmental action that compelled them to hire her. Yet you all act like there was and used the power of the government to attack DEI.

Seriously! Do you think George W. Bush was more qualified to be Gov of Texas -- much less POTUS -- than Claudine Gay was qualified to be the president of Harvard?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

No one is arguing that they shouldn’t all be factors, just the weight of each.

should t be

[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:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

No one is arguing that they shouldn’t all be factors, just the weight of each.

should t be

Yes, and I am saying Harvard is not quatitatively very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

What schools don't look at standardized tests?

[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:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

What schools don't look at standardized tests?

1970s–1990s

Standardized testing fully normalized.

SAT Subject Tests were often expected in addition to SAT/ACT.

Some early critiques arose about racial and class bias in tests, but Ivies retained them as central.

2000s–2010s

2000s – All Ivies continued requiring SAT/ACT + Subject Tests.

2018 – Several Ivies (notably Harvard, Yale, Princeton) dropped the requirement for SAT Subject Tests and writing sections, but kept SAT/ACT.

2019 (pre-COVID) – Standardized tests still required at every Ivy.

COVID-19 Era (2020–2023)

Spring 2020 – With test centers closed, Ivies (like most selective schools) suspended requirements. They moved to test-optional policies.

2021–2023 – Nearly all Ivies extended test-optional policies year by year.

Recent Shifts Back (2024–2025 cycle)

February 2023 – MIT (not Ivy, but peer) reinstated testing, citing predictive value.

2024–2025 admissions cycle:

Yale (Feb 2024) – Announced it will require scores again (SAT/ACT or AP/IB equivalents).

Dartmouth (Feb 2024) – Announced it will reinstate SAT/ACT requirement for class entering 2029.

Brown (March 2024) – Announced reinstatement of SAT/ACT.

Harvard (April 2024) – Announced return to mandatory testing for applicants.

Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Columbia – Still test-optional as of mid-2024, but under review.

✅ In summary:

1930s–40s – Ivies adopt SAT.

1940s–2019 – SAT/ACT universally required.

2020–2023 – Test-optional (COVID).

2024 onward – Some Ivies reinstating test requirements, others still optional.

[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:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

What schools don't look at standardized tests?

1970s–1990s

Standardized testing fully normalized.

SAT Subject Tests were often expected in addition to SAT/ACT.

Some early critiques arose about racial and class bias in tests, but Ivies retained them as central.

2000s–2010s

2000s – All Ivies continued requiring SAT/ACT + Subject Tests.

2018 – Several Ivies (notably Harvard, Yale, Princeton) dropped the requirement for SAT Subject Tests and writing sections, but kept SAT/ACT.

2019 (pre-COVID) – Standardized tests still required at every Ivy.

COVID-19 Era (2020–2023)

Spring 2020 – With test centers closed, Ivies (like most selective schools) suspended requirements. They moved to test-optional policies.

2021–2023 – Nearly all Ivies extended test-optional policies year by year.

Recent Shifts Back (2024–2025 cycle)

February 2023 – MIT (not Ivy, but peer) reinstated testing, citing predictive value.

2024–2025 admissions cycle:

Yale (Feb 2024) – Announced it will require scores again (SAT/ACT or AP/IB equivalents).

Dartmouth (Feb 2024) – Announced it will reinstate SAT/ACT requirement for class entering 2029.

Brown (March 2024) – Announced reinstatement of SAT/ACT.

Harvard (April 2024) – Announced return to mandatory testing for applicants.

Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Columbia – Still test-optional as of mid-2024, but under review.

✅ In summary:

1930s–40s – Ivies adopt SAT.

1940s–2019 – SAT/ACT universally required.

2020–2023 – Test-optional (COVID).

2024 onward – Some Ivies reinstating test requirements, others still optional.

So nobody rejects tests? And it seems schools must value the info if they reversed the Covid accommodations, yes?

Also, if you ask students whether "test optional" really means test optional, I think they'll say only for special situations. For typical students on a typical path, they need to submit the test.

[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:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

What schools don't look at standardized tests?

1970s–1990s

Standardized testing fully normalized.

SAT Subject Tests were often expected in addition to SAT/ACT.

Some early critiques arose about racial and class bias in tests, but Ivies retained them as central.

2000s–2010s

2000s – All Ivies continued requiring SAT/ACT + Subject Tests.

2018 – Several Ivies (notably Harvard, Yale, Princeton) dropped the requirement for SAT Subject Tests and writing sections, but kept SAT/ACT.

2019 (pre-COVID) – Standardized tests still required at every Ivy.

COVID-19 Era (2020–2023)

Spring 2020 – With test centers closed, Ivies (like most selective schools) suspended requirements. They moved to test-optional policies.

2021–2023 – Nearly all Ivies extended test-optional policies year by year.

Recent Shifts Back (2024–2025 cycle)

February 2023 – MIT (not Ivy, but peer) reinstated testing, citing predictive value.

2024–2025 admissions cycle:

Yale (Feb 2024) – Announced it will require scores again (SAT/ACT or AP/IB equivalents).

Dartmouth (Feb 2024) – Announced it will reinstate SAT/ACT requirement for class entering 2029.

Brown (March 2024) – Announced reinstatement of SAT/ACT.

Harvard (April 2024) – Announced return to mandatory testing for applicants.

Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Columbia – Still test-optional as of mid-2024, but under review.

✅ In summary:

1930s–40s – Ivies adopt SAT.

1940s–2019 – SAT/ACT universally required.

2020–2023 – Test-optional (COVID).

2024 onward – Some Ivies reinstating test requirements, others still optional.

So nobody rejects tests? And it seems schools must value the info if they reversed the Covid accommodations, yes?

Also, if you ask students whether "test optional" really means test optional, I think they'll say only for special situations. For typical students on a typical path, they need to submit the test.

So Harvard are optionally quantitatively good, but only if in exceptional cases when they aren't completely crooked as in Varisty Blues.

[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:To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?

This is a question to OPs question: How would most people know unless there are audits or decisions are made out in the open?

Who determines a universal definition of "qualified"?

What do you think the qualifications for physics, comp sci or engineering schools for example? One would have to be pretty good at math and science, don't you think? How would you measure that?

Well, as a math major who has always scored 99th percentile on anything math, I can tell you that the question is a lot more complex than you want to pretend. Even within math and science, there are a range of different types of intelligences, and people can have varying views about which abilities are more 'valuable' or relevant than others, and whether the key relevance is to the workplace or academia. And that's before you even assess people on soft skills and traits like persistence or whatever. Different programs want different things.

This. There’s a reason most colleges ask for personal essays and recommendations in addition to transcripts and SAT/ACTs. Often, students stand out in ways that aren’t reflected in their test scores or grades. There might be a glut of valedictorians with perfect 4.0s and ECs, but the kid who grew up in the Alaskan wilderness catches their eye, or the inner city kid with dyslexia who overcame adversity at a young age and started their own business at 14. Schools that recruit athletes will relax their academic standards for a good prospect.

Having a diverse student body from different backgrounds and cultures is a huge part of a well rounded education.

Not really. The reality is that it’s a small percentage of the general population who have the ability to excel intellectually. IQ is a bell curve. You and Ms. Mathematician probably spend zero time around the lower half of the bell curve and hence your position is biased.

Stop pretending that everyone is equal and intelligence is irrelevant to academic, scientific, and intellectual achievements.

That’s exactly why colleges look at intangibles. If colleges only admitted 1-2 SDs above the bell curve, they wouldn’t be able to fill their classes. Your response undermines itself.

And nobody said intelligence was irrelevant. Stop pretending that people are saying things they didn’t say.

Please be serious. The ability to succeed in advanced mathematics or physics is unrelated to whether a student grew up in the inner city or Alaska or NYC. People are tired of colleges prioritizing a lower qualified applicant from Alaska because she is from Alaska.

Colleges don't prioritize lower qualified applicants. They understand that merit comes in all forms. If these same students were flunking out then that would be a problem, but they are going on to do great things. I am black and did not do well on the LSAT. However, I graduated top 5% of my class, passed the bar the first time, and have had an incredibly successful legal career. I am grateful that my law school saw my grades and experience as more important than my scores. One of my greatest competencies is common sense and judgement, something that many really smart young people lack. If you can't have a conversation, what good are you to me?

Seems like as a lawyer you should know how crooked non-standardized measures are. Have you ever seen the Varsity Blues scandal. And that was with standardized testing. Now image removing standardized testing from the equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal Do you actually think that will be beneficial to your average black applicant?

What schools don't look at standardized tests?

1970s–1990s

Standardized testing fully normalized.

SAT Subject Tests were often expected in addition to SAT/ACT.

Some early critiques arose about racial and class bias in tests, but Ivies retained them as central.

2000s–2010s

2000s – All Ivies continued requiring SAT/ACT + Subject Tests.

2018 – Several Ivies (notably Harvard, Yale, Princeton) dropped the requirement for SAT Subject Tests and writing sections, but kept SAT/ACT.

2019 (pre-COVID) – Standardized tests still required at every Ivy.

COVID-19 Era (2020–2023)

Spring 2020 – With test centers closed, Ivies (like most selective schools) suspended requirements. They moved to test-optional policies.

2021–2023 – Nearly all Ivies extended test-optional policies year by year.

Recent Shifts Back (2024–2025 cycle)

February 2023 – MIT (not Ivy, but peer) reinstated testing, citing predictive value.

2024–2025 admissions cycle:

Yale (Feb 2024) – Announced it will require scores again (SAT/ACT or AP/IB equivalents).

Dartmouth (Feb 2024) – Announced it will reinstate SAT/ACT requirement for class entering 2029.

Brown (March 2024) – Announced reinstatement of SAT/ACT.

Harvard (April 2024) – Announced return to mandatory testing for applicants.

Princeton, Penn, Cornell, Columbia – Still test-optional as of mid-2024, but under review.

✅ In summary:

1930s–40s – Ivies adopt SAT.

1940s–2019 – SAT/ACT universally required.

2020–2023 – Test-optional (COVID).

2024 onward – Some Ivies reinstating test requirements, others still optional.

So nobody rejects tests? And it seems schools must value the info if they reversed the Covid accommodations, yes?

Also, if you ask students whether "test optional" really means test optional, I think they'll say only for special situations. For typical students on a typical path, they need to submit the test.

So Harvard are optionally quantitatively good, but only if in exceptional cases when they aren't completely crooked as in Varisty Blues.

Ivy League Admissions Evolution

Pre–1940s: Aristocratic Clubhouse

Admission = almost entirely social class.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) prep-school pipeline (Andover, Exeter, St. Paul’s, Choate).

“Gentleman’s C” stereotype: grades didn’t matter; pedigree did.

Clubs, sports, and family name > academics.

1940s–1960s: The SAT Revolution (Partial Meritocracy)

SAT introduced as a supposed “democratizing” tool during/after WWII.

Jewish, Catholic, and public-school kids could break in if they scored high.

Still plenty of legacies/wealthy admits, but the first cracks in WASP exclusivity.

By the 1960s, Ivies start presenting themselves as academic institutions rather than finishing schools.

1970s–1990s: The Meritocratic Façade

Civil rights era + post–Vietnam legitimacy crisis → “elite but fair” branding.

More recruitment of women, minorities, and international students.

Admissions tied heavily to GPA, SAT/ACT, and extracurriculars.

Still baked-in privileges for legacies, athletes, and “development cases.”

2000s–2010s: Global Prestige Economy

Ivies become luxury global brands, flooded with applications worldwide.

Admissions rates collapse (<10%).

College consulting industry explodes → wealth still buys coaching, “packaged résumés.”

Legacy admits remain high (~30%+ at Harvard before 2023 scrutiny).

2020s: Hybrid Crisis

Pandemic → test-optional policies (officially for “equity,” practically to keep flexibility).

SCOTUS bans affirmative action (2023) → Ivies lean harder on essays, “holistic” measures.

Critics see them reverting back toward disguised aristocracy (favoring wealth/legacy).

Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT start bringing back testing (2024–25) after evidence that dropping it hurt disadvantaged students and lowered standards.