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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

Totally disagree. Equal scores, they take the outgoing kid hands down.

No, they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Zuckerberg - Phillips Exeter with honors, Harvard

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

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

Very few students study in groups, tutor or are teaching assistants. It may seem like that from what's portrayed in movies, but it's not so in reality. The ability to work with others, for those who develop it before getting to the workforce, comes from working together in common interests, including sports, band, theater, clubs, etc. Those who hold jobs or internships get those skills there. To say otherwise is to show how little time you've spent in a high school or on a college campus recently.

What? Very few students study in groups?

Study groups is literally the most common form of social bonding in T20 schools. The top 20% of students become TA's/tutors as well.

Studying for the same course is literally "working together in a common interest". There's much more social skills being developed through studying for exams and completing projects together than chasing a ball for 90 minutes or blowing into a trumpet for 2 hours.

I'm actually flabbergasted by your post, to the point that I think you are trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


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

But that would mean that universities actually serve their purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:University of Toronto admits a lot of kids, pretty much solely based on grades, and many kids find the school too difficult once they get there. Just an anecdote.

That school has 40k students. If they admitted based on sports over grades, even more kids would drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Men at the bottom rung won’t find matches either. You can see what’s happening in China. Women at the top and men at the bottom will be unpartnered. I don’t see it as a bad thing. We need less people on Earth.

Yes but nobody cares about bottom-rung men, least of all college educated women, and such men are well aware nobody cares about them. Meanwhile the college girls will be wailing and crying and their sadz will be grist for NYT stories.

As I mentioned. No one is guaranteed a partner, life isn’t fair. In general in history there has always been a surplus of women over men. This issue used to be solved with higher status men having concubines or multiple wives. I am not fazed by this because this is just part of human history and with economic power comes other options than having to partner with a man.

So our educated daughters can look forward to being concubines now? 🙄🙄🙄

No they can build fulfilling lives in other ways being single women with jobs and friends and family and hobbies and in general try to figure out what a good life is, while being clear eyed that that good life may not include a man.

Quite an idea to forego millions of years of evolution so that you can enforce your misandry on the world.

What if they want kids, they should become single mothers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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

But that would mean that universities actually serve their purpose.

And tuition fees would be half, as would drop out rates.

The horror!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

Totally disagree. Equal scores, they take the outgoing kid hands down.

No, they don't.

Equal scores - they take the URM, is the point. But it is not usually equal scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I am saying this as a mother of two girls. And if their life dream is to be with an educated men, the competition for those has always been fierce. Act accordingly according to the rules of the dating market place, whatever it is.

What, exactly, is the rules of the dating market place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

The kid with the 1600 and the personality has intelligence, because no amount of prep is getting someone without intelligence a 1600

And tutors. A lifetime of tutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

Totally disagree. Equal scores, they take the outgoing kid hands down.

No, they don't.

You're both right/wrong. As evidenced in the court case, Harvard wants a diverse class. They take both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

To be contrary. Men have made a mess of things so I don’t mind women having more power.

The dating market place is global, and maybe we need to be having less children to save the earth.

Incels will always be there and proliferate. Better to give women power to squash these maggots.

A lot of boys with special needs are at high risk for becoming incels. It’s one of my deepest fears for my special needs son. I think there’s a big difference between guys who aren’t marriage material though no fault of their own and MAGAs. Do you disagree?

So what are you doing about it? How closely are you monitoring the content he consumes? Who is in his peer group? Yes, there is a difference between incels and the average single guy, but the average guy is also guilty of allowing the incels to flourish, because they aren't doing anything about it. Who are we hearing speaking out against the incel movement? Women and POC. Straight, white men are not leading that movement, because likely, many of them secretly agree. So, I don't disagree with you that there is a difference, but, the ones not actively fighting against it, are all part of the problem.

Lmao what.

Why aren't POC men included in this, BTW? POC men cannot be incels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

No. They are non profits. Sorry that is the way it works. And you would not pay on an endowment in any event -- just on the taxable gains.

But the bigger picture ---- a college with just the best test takers (and most will go back to requiring tests) is not a place most would wantr to be at. Not enough diveristy of experience and thought.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Maybe sports really shouldn't be that important to colleges. Much better things to spend the money on.

It's customer-driven, and you don't get to decide where I should spend my money.

what customer? if they want to be business, they should pay taxes like businesses and don't get any State/Federal supports

This is a great idea. Make colleges pay taxes on their property and their endowments.

No. They are non profits. Sorry that is the way it works. And you would not pay on an endowment in any event -- just on the taxable gains.

But the bigger picture ---- a college with just the best test takers (and most will go back to requiring tests) is not a place most would wantr to be at. Not enough diveristy of experience and thought.

Is "test-takers" some sort of weird racial euphemism for Asians? Can blacks and Hispanics not be test takers?

Nope. It's a genetic condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’ll also see happen is colleges become much more dependent on in-person interviews for holistic admissions. A kid who scores a 1450 on his SAT but has a very outgoing personality with a unique ability to “sell himself” will be more attractive to Harvard than the kid with perfect stats who is social awkward. I bet you see more intangibles become more important.

Lol no, Harvard would not even look at the 1450 SAT kid unless they are URM or a Senator's son. Because the choice for Harvard isn't between a kid with 1450 SAT and outgoing personality vs. a 1600 SAT nerd.

It's between a 1600 SAT with an outgoing personality and a 1600 SAT with academic research done in high school, math olympiad, international programming competitions, etc.

And Harvard would choose the latter every time, because kids with outgoing personalities are a dime a dozen and easily developed. Genuine intelligence is rare and impossible to develop.

Totally disagree. Equal scores, they take the outgoing kid hands down.

No, they don't.

Equal scores - they take the URM, is the point. But it is not usually equal scores.

Well yes, they'd take the URM. But not because they are outgoing, but because they are URM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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

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

Having 33% of the class made up of the children of upper-middle class professionals - which is what most legacy parents are - does not bring any more cultural capital to the Ivy League than non-legacies.

You're preferring to special-interest admissions, or whatever term Harvard uses, where they maintain lists of children of powerful industry magnates, politicians and donors.

The kids of donors don't make any greater contribution to the education than more endowment hoarding.

The children of magnates and politicians that would enhance prestige is too small to matter (<1%).

No one cares if your dad is in the House, they do care if he's Obama or Schumer, though.