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:

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.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you’re completely wrong.

This. Kids playing NESAC were most likely the best athletes on their high school teams and possibly their club teams.

Who cares? So they’re the 1000th best football player in their year. What an achievement.

[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: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.

And Disney would drop the SEC before you could blink if Alabama and Georgia were playing with walkons

They broadcast Ivy League football. Those players are worse than the walk ons at Alabama. Nice try. The jersey is what people care about not the quality of play

[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: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.

And Disney would drop the SEC before you could blink if Alabama and Georgia were playing with walkons

They broadcast Ivy League football. Those players are worse than the walk ons at Alabama. Nice try. The jersey is what people care about not the quality of play

Ivy League games are never on ABC and never on ESPN during Saturday slots and the schools aren’t getting paid nearly the same as P5 conferences

[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.

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

Go ahead and refute it then, moron.

[Anonymous]

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,

They just hold tryouts and field a team. It is not clear why athletic preferences would go away though.

[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?

You missed part of the sentence. The poster said “diversity of experience and thought.” They were not referring to race, but go ahead with your race baiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Sure. Unless you are an Asian American woman. What this article fails to mention is that the whole college admissions process has been blatantly racist against Asians. Also since we are talking about women girls in general are disadvantaged under admissions to make way for more males that are less qualified. Again college admission here needs an overhaul. Many other countries rely on other meritocratic measures for competitive college admissions and I am all for that.

LOL how is the current college environment “racist” against Asians when they are already represented 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of population? Your criticism makes zero sense. Asians are doing f#cking awesome under the current system.

Ivy's had no problem introducing geographic diversity admissions to hold down the number of Jews. Would you say they were not discriminated against because they were 2-3x in elite colleges relative to their share of the population?

[Anonymous]

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.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

On the flip side, overall admission is harder for women because they tend to do much better in high school than boys. Women in tech may go away, but so will the higher bars to get into colleges in general

Conservatives are going to hate it if a side effect is that schools are even more heavily female than they are now.

But aren’t schools going to strive for coed institutions being as close to 50/50 as possible? It is in the best interest of the students enrolled…

They are, but if racial discrimination is banned, gender discrimination will be too. Something that benefits current students doesn't necessarily benefit applicants the same way.

What’s your thought process? Race is subject to strict scrutiny. Sex is not.

That's irrelevant. Tech companies today have initiatives specifically to hire women or URM. If the initiatives for URM are discriminatory, the same holds true for women.

Clearly you are not a lawyer or at least not one that did well in Con Law

[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.

Do you think the outgoing kid has no ECs? Outgoing kids love ECs. They may not be robotics and olympiads, but they will likely have strong ECs. It’s what outgoing folks do.

I have brainy introverts and I’m a bit jealous of the outgoing folks. There is one school that I’m 99% sure my kid did not get into because she is not outgoing. Just as well, when she visited, she found all of the extroverts exhausting.

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

Not today, getting a 1600 is more common today as the SAT has been made easier.

The point isn't that the outgoing kid isn't intelligent, it's that they aren't as intelligent as a kid with the same scores + host of academic extracurriculars because the latter shows demonstrated academic interest.

[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)

That's a good point, and I agree that just being led by good leaders can help students learn about what makes a better leader.

It does not mean, however, that those students that weren't captains are themselves leaders, because they haven't demonstrated that leadership.

IMO the only reasons colleges look favorably on athletic extracurriculars is that it's a proxy for wealth (sports from a young age is expensive and requires heavy parental involvement) and physical attractiveness (due to being physical fit, except for football players).

Sports might also show a level of grit, drive and competitive spirit but frankly, so do academics or even video games. I don't think it shows leadership at all but it might show decision-making (again except football, where there is very little decision-making by players).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And any of that would be bad why?

Because college is about learning from all sorts of different students, not just from the professors and the textbooks.

You don't need to attend college to learn about different peoples. Just move to NYC and work in a customer facing role and go out at night, you will meet people from all walks of life. A much more diverse group of people than 18-22 UMC where a few of the UMC have dark skin. Also, in most colleges everyone simply clusters with their own race/background anyways, and that includes the POC.

This entire propaganda about college being about learning from/about people more so than professors/textbooks is how colleges hike tuition and sell the "college experience".

Of course you can't learn the same coursework online. Of course you have to live on campus instead of commuting. Think about all the people you will meet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do poor black kids even apply to selective colleges? How many kids from the ghettos pining to go to HYPS?

[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: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.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you’re completely wrong.

Go ahead and refute it then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Do a lot of "poor white people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from Appalachia are pining to go to HYPS.



Probably not. Community colleges maybe.

Do a lot of "poor Black people" even apply to selective colleges?

It's not like a whole bunch of kids from the inner city are pining to go to HYPS.

Probably not. Community colleges maybe

**see what I did there? Comments like yours exemplify the prejudice that many coastal liberals have against poor white people.

Whites have had advantages in America since birth. Generations had a leg up based on free labor from slavery. No excuses. Many of the poor in small towns remain ignorant, insular, grievance-filled and racist - especially in much of the southern states ( not talking immigrants from Europe here).

Not prejudice. Just the truth.

There are now a lot of liberals who agree with everything you just said but still see AA as a counterproductive policy. The existence of anti-Black racism and its profound impact on the achievement gap is not really in question. What is in question is whether AA can possibly be implemented in a fair way and whether it really achieves its aims. No, and no.

So what is the answer? Ignore it?