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

[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:

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

You don’t argue very well. Maybe stick to numbers.

[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

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?

That was my point. And I "work in education." These people are putting together less and less talented cohorts every year. We have taken them to task on it numerous times but even tenured faculty cannot truly fight the beast of administrative bloat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

People are mistaking test scores for good DNA - they could not be more different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

People are mistaking test scores for good DNA - they could not be more different.

I am not the former poster but I will say it's very rare for me to encounter an Asian student who can't do simple computations or tasks. The vast majority are from the remaining races. You're going to have to assemble a different fantasy world in your head because prepping is not what has destroyed the competence of university students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the kid blame affirmative action rather than legacy admits? It’s pretty offensive.

Both need to be fixed

Only one is blasted all over the news. Everywhere I look I see the headline "blames affirmative action" but no mention of the fact that ~30% of these seats go to legacy admits.

How in the world can you get your face plastered all over the news blaming affirmative action which might (at best if you REALLY stretch) account for 5%-8% of elite school admissions - while ignoring the ~30% set aside for legacy admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States has a specific mission to block any sort of discrimination. Yes, Americans have fought for this.
Just drop it.

Where did you get this idea? That's not correct. If you're talking about the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution they prohibit the government from discriminating - their authority certainly does not extend to "block[ing] any sort of discrimination."

Sorry, the Supreme Court of the United States will block colleges from racial discrimination.

And colleges still won't accept all stem majors, so good luck.

+1

This is a fundamental point, little acknowledged on this thread. High-achieving Asian kids will still be competing against each other for a limited number of stem slots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are making things up as you like.
When kids take tests, midterms, finals for classes, it's exactly the same.
That's how GPA is mainly measured.
Rich people hire tutors to boost GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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?

That was my point. And I "work in education." These people are putting together less and less talented cohorts every year. We have taken them to task on it numerous times but even tenured faculty cannot truly fight the beast of administrative bloat

The admissions department at my university does not talk to anyone involved in teaching or research; T/R faculty are never consulted on admissions decisions or policies. The only time we interact with them is if they override our room reservation requests on "admissions weekends." I somewhat agree with the "failures in life" comment earlier, just based on first impressions. I'm horrified to think my own child's future might be decided by those people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMFAS good luck taking your test, midterms, finals without preparing.
Your GPA is going down the toilet.
WTF is this?

[Anonymous]

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

So, you are probably right on one level, however, you have to agree that the most qualified kids in the country...like the top 10% of the top 1% are also attending these schools. Go look at where the Coca Cola scholars are attending college...Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, etc. Massively concentrated in top 10 schools.

Go look at where the Regeneron finalists are going to college. Harvard, Stanford, MIT. Again, massively concentrated in Top 10 schools. BTW, many Asian kids.

And you know what? They will benefit from going to college with the kids of wealthy students who are massively over-represented at these schools. On one level, you can decry how colleges assemble these classes...but on another level, all of this makes a ton of logic. You combine extreme talent, and extreme wealth...and you usually produce incredible outcomes. In fact, I bet the Asian Regeneron finalists and winners are ecstatic that perhaps they will go to college with the children of Musk, Bezos, etc. This is the way the world works.

My own UMC White kid attending a Top 5 in the fall already is aware of the children or grandchildren of three people on the Forbes 100 list that will be in his class, with one in his major. He is not an idiot...you work your ass off to get into these colleges, but now leverage the college and the network.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice. There are American families living off of money made a hundred+ years ago back when even the most ardent apologists will acknowledge how bad things were. But the fact their children can continue enjoying preferential treatment only elicits a sardonic wink.

This doesn’t describe many. While it’s a common claim among African Americans, it doesn’t hold water. Studies of wealth in America show that most families pass little wealth to the next generation and of those who do it’s typically dissipated in the next generation. Even once-rich families like the Vanderbilts have lost their wealth. Overwhelmingly, today’s billionaires made their wealth through contemporary business pursuits - Gates, Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos were not born billionaires nor have they benefited from the past slave trade.

Sweetheart. Slavery is not the only issue at play. Every single one of the people listed benefited from being white and/or having white ancestors who were able to hold certain jobs, get GI education, buy tract housing and then move up the property ladder, not pay higher interest rates for loans, hired for white-collar jobs, allowed to attend colleges and universities with connections.....I can keep going.

While Bill Gates’ family background wouldn’t be considered “‘ultra-wealthy”, his parents certainly did very well for themselves. Bill Gates Sr. was a successful lawyer in the Seattle area and was a partner at a law firm.
They had enough money to send their son to Lakeside Private School in the Seattle area (and later paid for Bill Gates' first two years at Harvard Law School).

Buffett was born in Omaha, Nebraska. The son of congressman and businessman Howard Buffett, he developed an interest in business and investing during his youth, eventually entering the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1947 before transferring to and graduating from the University of Nebraska at 19.

Musk parents- model and wealthy engineer
Zuckerberg- two physician parents and attend Exeter before Harvard
Bezos- the only one listed who scrapped, statistically unlikely to succeed after being born to two teenagers.

Even with the dissipation of wealth in future generations you still get connections and education. Legacy admits are a real thing.

+1

[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!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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?

That was my point. And I "work in education." These people are putting together less and less talented cohorts every year. We have taken them to task on it numerous times but even tenured faculty cannot truly fight the beast of administrative bloat

It's a zero sum game, so if some colleges are putting together less talented classes, then others necessarily have more talented classes. Since it's the students' ability to get a quality education that matters, not the reputation of the college, this is not a big picture problem.

The only alternative is that kids are getting less talented in general, which might be true, but then it's not the AO's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States has a specific mission to block any sort of discrimination. Yes, Americans have fought for this.
Just drop it.

Where did you get this idea? That's not correct. If you're talking about the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution they prohibit the government from discriminating - their authority certainly does not extend to "block[ing] any sort of discrimination."

Sorry, the Supreme Court of the United States will block colleges from racial discrimination.

And colleges still won't accept all stem majors, so good luck.

+1

This is a fundamental point, little acknowledged on this thread. High-achieving Asian kids will still be competing against each other for a limited number of stem slots.

Yes. Jettisoning affirmative action in college admissions won't magically open up a significant number of STEM slots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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?

That was my point. And I "work in education." These people are putting together less and less talented cohorts every year. We have taken them to task on it numerous times but even tenured faculty cannot truly fight the beast of administrative bloat

The admissions department at my university does not talk to anyone involved in teaching or research; T/R faculty are never consulted on admissions decisions or policies. The only time we interact with them is if they override our room reservation requests on "admissions weekends." I somewhat agree with the "failures in life" comment earlier, just based on first impressions. I'm horrified to think my own child's future might be decided by those people.

As a person that works in higher education, you should know that the AO's have no real power and put together cohorts based on institutional priorities. The problem is at the top, i.e., deans, presidents, boards, etc. They decide the institutional priorities and how the admissions office should shape the class.