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

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

You're too far in the future about about 3 years. Try -50 years from conception to third trimester. THese kids are born stupid.

No way. My sister was adopted at birth from a low income parent. A lot of relatives in prison, died early from drugs, and no one went to college. My sister was salutatorian and has her PhD.

It's definitely how kids are being raised (or at least 90%).

Genetic basis for variation in IQ, based on the latest research, is about 50%.

The rest is environmental but heavily weighted towards the gestational period and first 3-4 years of life when the brain is most plastic.

Kindergarten really is too late, and it's obvious if you've ever been in a kindergarten classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The nepotism is nauseating.

[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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am the customer. I am full-pay for multiple kids. I get to choose who gets my money. Others have the same choice. If a school wants that money, they better provide the product I want. Otherwise that money goes to their competitor.

Ok, how much are you paying per year. How much is a football team making from season ticket holders, their conference's TV deal, even donors who only care about football or basketball?

For the elite D3 schools with sports, it's the full-paying customers like me that ensure sports always be there. Those schools will need to ensure that their teams are filled, and athletes will have a preference in admissions.

Money is money. The schools can collect it from the nerds as easily as the jocks.

Feel free to start a nerd school and let us know how it goes. If anyone agreed with you, the market would drive these schools to be "nerd schools". Seems like one Olin is enough to satisfy the need.

What? Who do you think attends the top 20 schools, jocks? Most high school jocks don't even attend college.

T20s tend to be small private schools which tend to have very high percentages of students who are jocks. If you care about elite SLACs, at Williams a third of students are athletes.

Students at Williams definitely are not jocks. They are nerds that happen to play some sports.

Look at the Williams Football team. They would get beaten by the average public high school team.

[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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?

What? No one is talking about being good at sports, we're talking about whether sports improves leadership skills. I'm saying they don't.

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

^ Written by an idiot who never played a team sport and doesn't understand them.

[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.

^ "I do not know the actual purpose of universities."

[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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

^ too dumb to Google the countless arguments that refute your inane "point"?

For example

https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/01/11/sports-leadership/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile ACB’s daughter goes to Notre Dame as a legacy after graduating from a “People of Praise” secondary school.

And Ketanji Brown Jackson’s daughter goes to Harvard as a legacy. Realistically, don’t you think their kids would be getting into any college they want because their parents are on the Supreme Court?

Site but her daughter also went to an outstanding secondary school where that’s not unusual. People of Praise, however…

Are you saying that smart kids can’t come from lesser ranked schools? Do you have the same prejudices against students from underperforming schools in the inner city?

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

This.

Test everyone based on same criteria. No double standands based on bs this or bs that.

BS like in-state versus OOS?

No. State colleges (esp. land grant colleges) exist primarily to serve the students of the state. And are supported by the taxpayers of the state, who also subsidize in state tuition. There are legit policy reasons that have nothing to do with a protected class to give an in state preference. This argument is over protected classes, like race, gender, region and national origin. State of residency is not a protected class.

Exactly. Of course. So, right off the bat you’ve conceded that schools shouldn’t be obliged to “test everyone based on the same criteria,” as the PP said.

Here’s another institutional priority I feel sure passes constitutional muster: solvency.

I’m feeling confident football also passes the test, at least at schools with a long football tradition. (Not so sure about Chicago.)

There’s a long list of institutional priorities that may have a disparate impact on Asian (or Black) enrollment, that will nevertheless pass constitutional muster. We are not headed to a “test everyone the same” world, not now and not any time soon.

In fact, with the rise in popularity of TO, we are headed in the opposite direction at many schools.

I also want to add that no one is looking at root cause. The answer is really in K-12 education and pushing equal opportunities from the beginning. But that is too hard and too expensive so we are all going to navel gaze about college admissions.

Nope. I taught first grade. Kids arrive at elementary school with profound differences. The answer is birth to age five, and more probably birth to age three.

You're too far in the future about about 3 years. Try -50 years from conception to third trimester. THese kids are born stupid.

No way. My sister was adopted at birth from a low income parent. A lot of relatives in prison, died early from drugs, and no one went to college. My sister was salutatorian and has her PhD.

It's definitely how kids are being raised (or at least 90%).

Genetic basis for variation in IQ, based on the latest research, is about 50%.

The rest is environmental but heavily weighted towards the gestational period and first 3-4 years of life when the brain is most plastic.

Kindergarten really is too late, and it's obvious if you've ever been in a kindergarten classroom.

I believe you but cites would be welcome.

[Anonymous]

College admissions workers are miserable racists. They hate poor white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?

What? No one is talking about being good at sports, we're talking about whether sports improves leadership skills. I'm saying they don't.

New to this discussion but I disagree with you. If you have ever been part of a team that is run by a good leader (includes captains and coaches) and you buy into it, you learn A LOT about what it takes to be a good leader. And if you are a good teammate, you know that it is important to emulate those leaders in their absence, whether it be on the team or in other situations in life. I've never been on a huge team like football, but for smaller teams it's really important (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, basketball, ice hockey, baseball) I've been on adult league teams that are run very well and others that aren't. It's a HUGE difference and affects everyone on the team. It had taught me a lot, even as an adult, and has made me a better person and a better leader (at work, home, play)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?

What? No one is talking about being good at sports, we're talking about whether sports improves leadership skills. I'm saying they don't.

New to this discussion but I disagree with you. If you have ever been part of a team that is run by a good leader (includes captains and coaches) and you buy into it, you learn A LOT about what it takes to be a good leader. And if you are a good teammate, you know that it is important to emulate those leaders in their absence, whether it be on the team or in other situations in life. I've never been on a huge team like football, but for smaller teams it's really important (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, basketball, ice hockey, baseball) I've been on adult league teams that are run very well and others that aren't. It's a HUGE difference and affects everyone on the team. It had taught me a lot, even as an adult, and has made me a better person and a better leader (at work, home, play)

Which means athletic recruiting is unnecessary. Don’t pick the best athletes just pick random athletes because they’ve all learned these lessons even if they are bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe people should learn that colleges (especially elite colleges) are seeking students who have leadership potential, and that sports are an outstanding way to develop and demonstrate leadership.

How, exactly, do sports develop and demonstrate leadership potential?

Take football, for example. The calls are made by the coach/coordinators. The QB is the captain and has some decision making for the team. The linemen meanwhile are nothing more than meatbags. Wide receivers and running backs follow the path laid out by the play decided on by the coach. Where's the leadership? The athletes are low-level pawns, not leaders.

And what about individual sports like swimming, track, etc.? Who exactly are the athletes leading, themselves?

The only purpose of sports is physical activity, which is good for both mental and physical health. But that shouldn't require the 12+ years of highly expensive training that the applicants to these top schools go through. It's nothing more than a filter for wealth.

Tell me that you never played team sports without saying you haven't played team sports.

I've played multiple team and individual sports. But go ahead and refute my point, show me how being a meatbag on the line improves leadership skills.

If you think playing team sports is important then you should give the hook to anyone who played team sports in high school. Why do they need to be good?

What? No one is talking about being good at sports, we're talking about whether sports improves leadership skills. I'm saying they don't.

New to this discussion but I disagree with you. If you have ever been part of a team that is run by a good leader (includes captains and coaches) and you buy into it, you learn A LOT about what it takes to be a good leader. And if you are a good teammate, you know that it is important to emulate those leaders in their absence, whether it be on the team or in other situations in life. I've never been on a huge team like football, but for smaller teams it's really important (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, basketball, ice hockey, baseball) I've been on adult league teams that are run very well and others that aren't. It's a HUGE difference and affects everyone on the team. It had taught me a lot, even as an adult, and has made me a better person and a better leader (at work, home, play)

Which means athletic recruiting is unnecessary. Don’t pick the best athletes just pick random athletes because they’ve all learned these lessons even if they are bad.

I can guarantee you most colleges & universities would have no trouble filling their teams in the absence of athletic recruiting. Plenty of high school swimmers would love to swim in college but cannot afford club swimming, and therefore do not get recruited currently.