Is any undergrad college/university worth $55,000+?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Would you say a full pay white student who is denied admission for a full scholarship white student who is 1st generation college attendee is a problem? Would the full pay white student be discriminated against? What about preferences based on sex? Preferences based on geographical?

Where do you draw the line, PP? Or is it just about race and every other type of discrimination is okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Respectfully, maybe it's you who doesn't fully understand the definition of affirmative action as it relates to judicial rulings.

The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. Please be factually accurate in your definition, PP.

It isn't all about race though most tend to zone in on that aspect until they need it to defend inequities on their behalf. Then affirmative action takes on another definition and becomes something else. Just ask women who are the biggest beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
12:37 I honestly cannot take your graph as real. Berkely was banned many years ago from considering racial status in admittance. If you have Berkely wrong, what else do you have wrong.


Not this PP, but there are definitely preferences given to underrepresented minorities. See this all the time. We just went through the college app/admin process last year and I was amazed at the kids with non-white backgrounds getting into Penn, W&M, UVa, that had they been white, no chance.

You know the scores of the "non-white" kids? They don't even make up a large % of the population of the school, but some how they keep your little Johnny or Jane out of these schools.


Uva Undergraduate Students by Ethnic Category, 2012-13
6.5 percent African American
0.2 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native
12.1 percent Asian
5.5 percent Hispanic
0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
4.0 percent Multi-Race
28.3 percent Minority Sub-Total

So the non minority take up 71% of the admissions. Your kid is not getting in b/c they are letting unqualified minorities in, but b/c he/she did not make the cut. As long as we are stereotyping, what do you think the scores of the Asian students were?

When you add 30% Legacy, it explains why it is so hard to get in. Legacy minorities move on to the Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
12:37 I honestly cannot take your graph as real. Berkely was banned many years ago from considering racial status in admittance. If you have Berkely wrong, what else do you have wrong.


Not this PP, but there are definitely preferences given to underrepresented minorities. See this all the time. We just went through the college app/admin process last year and I was amazed at the kids with non-white backgrounds getting into Penn, W&M, UVa, that had they been white, no chance.

You know the scores of the "non-white" kids? They don't even make up a large % of the population of the school, but some how they keep your little Johnny or Jane out of these schools.


Uva Undergraduate Students by Ethnic Category, 2012-13
6.5 percent African American
0.2 percent American Indian or Alaskan Native
12.1 percent Asian
5.5 percent Hispanic
0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
4.0 percent Multi-Race
28.3 percent Minority Sub-Total

So the non minority take up 71% of the admissions. Your kid is not getting in b/c they are letting unqualified minorities in, but b/c he/she did not make the cut. As long as we are stereotyping, what do you think the scores of the Asian students were?

Ha! Love it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

I will say what I say to my 10-year-old. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Respectfully, maybe it's you who doesn't fully understand the definition of affirmative action as it relates to judicial rulings.

The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. Please be factually accurate in your definition, PP.

It isn't all about race though most tend to zone in on that aspect until they need it to defend inequities on their behalf. Then affirmative action takes on another definition and becomes something else. Just ask women who are the biggest beneficiaries.

Thank you for explaining this not just respectfully but eloquently.

I am fully supportive of any university's efforts to have a student body of various races, sexes, ethnicities, religions, levels of ability, and ages. If that means my white male child of WASP descent isn't accepted somewhere, I am okay with that. I am 100% certain that if he wants to attend college, there is a college out there that will admit him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Respectfully, maybe it's you who doesn't fully understand the definition of affirmative action as it relates to judicial rulings.

The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. Please be factually accurate in your definition, PP.

It isn't all about race though most tend to zone in on that aspect until they need it to defend inequities on their behalf. Then affirmative action takes on another definition and becomes something else. Just ask women who are the biggest beneficiaries.

Actually it is 99.9999% about race. Name the schools that grant preferences based on age? ethnic origin (separate from race)? There is a lot of effort going into obscuring and justifying plain old discrimination based on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Respectfully, maybe it's you who doesn't fully understand the definition of affirmative action as it relates to judicial rulings.

The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. Please be factually accurate in your definition, PP.

It isn't all about race though most tend to zone in on that aspect until they need it to defend inequities on their behalf. Then affirmative action takes on another definition and becomes something else. Just ask women who are the biggest beneficiaries.

Actually it is 99.9999% about race. Name the schools that grant preferences based on age? ethnic origin (separate from race)? There is a lot of effort going into obscuring and justifying plain old discrimination based on race.

You are incorrect.

Many colleges and universities give "preference" to applicants of Hispanic heritage. (That would be an ethnicity, as opposed to a race.)

Many colleges and universities have a policy of giving "preference" to nontraditional applicants, like an older person who is attending college for the first time.

Many liberal arts colleges, including public ones like William & Mary, give "preference" to male applicants. (Check out the acceptance rates for males versus females at W&M. You think that's because the male applicants are better qualified? Um, no.) By the same token (no pun intended), many engineering/technology colleges/universities give "preference" to female applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OP, are you starting with the assumption that $20K a year for in-state tuition at a public is worth it? In that case, you're really talking about whether the extra $30K is worth it -- the important thing is the extra, not the total.

And if my kids want to go someplace where the teaching staff is tenure track professors rather than exploited adjuncts, plus the sort of student:faculty ratio that leads to individual attention -- not to coddle, but to push -- then yes, it is worth it to me.

I think it really depends what your financial situation is. If you have an extra $30k per year lying around, then by all means it's worth it. But if you have to take out $30K in loans per year, or forego retirement saving, etc etc etc then yes, you can question whether it is worth it.

That's a rather dismissive way of describing it. We plan and budget so we will be able to pay for something that's important to us: a high-quality education delivered in a sustainable way. Saving for college is a lower priority than saving for retirement, but for a lot of people, it is possible to do both, and we do.

[Anonymous]

Like 15:42, I too have read that white males are now benefitting from affirmative action at many colleges. Apparently there are too few who stack up against the female applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

I'm sorry but I thought you wrote the research was from three universities. Your researchers are all from the same university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of white child without any athletic or legacy hooks here. I am fully supportive of efforts by public and private colleges and universities to diversify their student bodies. The idea that white students face discrimination in admission to higher education is laughable.

You don't understand "affirmative action" - preferences based on race = racial discrimination. Support it if you like, defend it if you will, but you can't deny what it is.

Respectfully, maybe it's you who doesn't fully understand the definition of affirmative action as it relates to judicial rulings.

The main criteria for inclusion in affirmative action programs are race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, disability, and age. Please be factually accurate in your definition, PP.

It isn't all about race though most tend to zone in on that aspect until they need it to defend inequities on their behalf. Then affirmative action takes on another definition and becomes something else. Just ask women who are the biggest beneficiaries.

Actually it is 99.9999% about race. Name the schools that grant preferences based on age? ethnic origin (separate from race)? There is a lot of effort going into obscuring and justifying plain old discrimination based on race.

Did you know that if you were to attend an historically black university you would be a minority and qualify for financial aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

I'm sorry but I thought you wrote the research was from three universities. Your researchers are all from the same university.

She clearly said a study "of" three selective private universities. Not "from".