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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This!!! A thousand times

[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:

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.

you must be terrible both on numbers and logics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This!!! A thousand times

Yes, ALDC is next.

[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.

You are correct, the last thing AOs want is to be admonished by faculty or to take any guidance from faculty at all. That is why we have to use our committees as a bully pulpit to practically literally drag them before us and take them over the coals. When we ask about why certain students were admitted to a certain program, we have gotten responses that sometimes are as poor as "well they had a background similar to mine and I want more people like me in this program." You would think that comment would be a fireable offense but it turns out it is not, as faculty cannot fire anyone and it's ultimately in the hands of the president or provost

[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

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.

The picture may be muddled right now due to pandemic learning losses and mental health issues, which seem endemic right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This!!! A thousand times

Yes, ALDC is next.

According to others in this thread ALDC can't be touched because it is completely legal.

Of course the SC has before made legal things into illegal things and vise-versa. That isn't hidden knowledge.

So what they are really saying is, "You people who work for a living can't touch us. You can't afford to wage a 20 year campaign in the first place. Even if you could, we have a 200 year head start."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This!!! A thousand times

Yes, ALDC is next.

According to others in this thread ALDC can't be touched because it is completely legal.

Of course the SC has before made legal things into illegal things and vise-versa. That isn't hidden knowledge.

So what they are really saying is, "You people who work for a living can't touch us. You can't afford to wage a 20 year campaign in the first place. Even if you could, we have a 200 year head start."

If the voters and the society wants, government has weapons.
Government can withdraw any sort of aid, and also start charging taxes.
I think it'll eventually happen someday.
Progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We would need to know how many stem slots are taken up by other categories (DEI, legacy, recruited athletes). My guess is it's not a huge number, but would be interesting to see the data.

[Anonymous]

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.

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

[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 also have kids who don't submit HW get a 3.2 compared to kids who do and get a 3.7. How is that a level playing field? Because the former could have been the latter had they chosen to complete and submit their HW.

Any motivated kid can choose to submit HW and prepare for tests, or they can choose to not submit HW and not prepare for tests. If they choose the latter, they shouldn't be compensated for it.

You also have the kid who does complete all their HW but gets a tough grader as their teacher and is passed over for leadership opportunities due to their race compared to the kids who completes their homework and gets a more generous grader as a teacher, is nominated for leadership positions, and has admissions-savvy parents who know how to play the holistic admissions game. The former student can't choose to be the latter. That's the real uneven playing field.

[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.

That's funny because those events always have faculty panels and faculty socializing with the visitors. I'm SO surprised they don't ask you to join those events in light of your wonderful attitude!

[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

If you think the AOs are driving, you aren't a faculty member who knows how a university works.

[Anonymous]

I don't know...I look at my kids' high school instagram page over the past few years and the majority of kids who are attending Ivy Leagues are Asians. It's not even close.

[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.

My spouse once encountered a student so stupid they called up the administration office to complain about the fact they they weren't getting paid for their campus work and could no longer afford food/rent.

What happened?

Fursr, this student was so stupid she couldn't figure out how to put on her big girl adult pants and setup a bank account for direct deposit.

Ok, NBD, the checks were mailed to her listed address for physical delivery. Strike number 2. The student was so stupid she took zero responsibilities about updating her address after she moved. All you need to do to change your address is simply update your student profile online, which takes 3 minutes. So of course she's not getting her checks when they keep getting returned because no one knows where the hells she lived.

This student was also so stupid, that despite not getting paid for many weeks, she took zero initiative to investigate the problem with the employment office. Not even a single friggin' phone call. It wasn't until she was in crisis mode facing starvation and homelessness that it dawned on her that she might need to contact the student employment office to see what's up with her paychecks. Of course the predictable happened where rocket genius student too stupid to setup direct deposit btiched out staff about her current predicament.


Yes, this was at a top 10 university, btw. They let in a lot of dumb people these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The important thing is clear rule and transparency.

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

Same for GPA, ECs, Essay, etc.
I think test score is at least most objective and fair, so that disadvantaged intelligent and capable students get chance to compete.

Standardized testing has racist origins in the U S (and was used to justify segregation in the military and schools)., is culturally biased ( "pre test" questions that were answered correctly by most blacks were thrown out), and today is more a reflection of household income , test prep, and superscoriing.

Not even close to objective.

Most of the 1,900 colleges that are now test optional will remain after the AA ruling.

Good.

+1

Those arguing against this are just upset their kid has "lost their advantage" of privilege. Also, they apparently do not understand the numbers---there are simply many more kids with 1400/1450+ SAT and "qualified for elite schools" than there are spots. So most will be rejected. Nobody is entitled to a spot at an elite school, nobody. Once you recognize that and plan with great "target schools" you will be happier. Focus on the goal---getting your degree and starting a career, which can be done at a school ranked #30

you kid got 1300 SAT?