Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale, having declined in prestige in recent years due to factors entirely of its own making, has now decided the best way to restore some of that lost prestige is to point fingers at “academia” more broadly. Shocking, no?

Yale has not declined in prestige any more or less than other elite schools. Any decline is temporary and within in groups that frankly they do not give a rates ass about.

False.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

I didn't know about now but they used to be dumber than the average non-athlete non-URM admit.

Please back this up. The studies I have seen have found that legacy admits have stats equal or higher to non legacies.

That's only if you include the affirmative action and athletic recruits.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-22341-023

You linked to a paper which you obviously did not read. Also, the paper is fairly old and out of date based on the abstract. Swing and a miss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is how I understand the legacy data:

- If you have the stats - astronomic GPA, top of class, highest rigor, SATs- you are more likely to get in.

- If you don't have the stats, legacy doesn't give you enough of a boost to be considered.

You are only "more likely" to get in if you are an actual, legitimate, candidate for admission.

And in a world where there are 7 or 8 legitimate candidates for admissions for every spot, the legacy tip means admission rates significantly higher than similarly situated applicants who are not legacy.

Being raised in South Dakota, or the ethnicity/education level of your parents, are also hooks. None of which the student had any control over and did nothing to get. But will give a student an advantage over equally qualified candidates. It's all about the priorities of the university. They get to choose what kind of preference they give equally qualified candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

Interesting comment. Your last line is the only one that matters. Why can't they? There is no logical reason that they cannot have priorities like any other private enterprise.

Jealousy is the only answer. If I can't have it I want to break it.

They can have priorities but when those priorities conflict with the public policy, they cannot have public funding

It seems blatantly political to be honest. They go after Harvard. They don't really go after Yale. That's just the way it is now. There is corruption up down back and forth everyday with this administration. We will all be better off when they're gone regardless of your politics.

It was all political wait before this. This is just attaching consequences to being too political. Get used to the new normal. Being too woke will make you a target.

Wait, anti-woke weirdo is back again!? Or do we now have multiple anti trolls on this ever-lengthening thread?

DP pretty sure being anti-woke is the majority of the country.

Yeah, but to be fair, you only believe that because you are deeply, irredeemably stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale, having declined in prestige in recent years due to factors entirely of its own making, has now decided the best way to restore some of that lost prestige is to point fingers at “academia” more broadly. Shocking, no?

Yale has not declined in prestige any more or less than other elite schools. Any decline is temporary and within in groups that frankly they do not give a rats ass about.

False.

The delusion is strong in this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

Interesting comment. Your last line is the only one that matters. Why can't they? There is no logical reason that they cannot have priorities like any other private enterprise.

Jealousy is the only answer. If I can't have it I want to break it.

They can have priorities but when those priorities conflict with the public policy, they cannot have public funding

It seems blatantly political to be honest. They go after Harvard. They don't really go after Yale. That's just the way it is now. There is corruption up down back and forth everyday with this administration. We will all be better off when they're gone regardless of your politics.

It was all political wait before this. This is just attaching consequences to being too political. Get used to the new normal. Being too woke will make you a target.

Wait, anti-woke weirdo is back again!? Or do we now have multiple anti trolls on this ever-lengthening thread?

DP pretty sure being anti-woke is the majority of the country.

Yeah, but to be fair, you only believe that because you are deeply, irredeemably stupid.

Regardless of their intelligence they are right on this one. DEI polls poorly across the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

Interesting comment. Your last line is the only one that matters. Why can't they? There is no logical reason that they cannot have priorities like any other private enterprise.

Jealousy is the only answer. If I can't have it I want to break it.

They can have priorities but when those priorities conflict with the public policy, they cannot have public funding

It seems blatantly political to be honest. They go after Harvard. They don't really go after Yale. That's just the way it is now. There is corruption up down back and forth everyday with this administration. We will all be better off when they're gone regardless of your politics.

It was all political wait before this. This is just attaching consequences to being too political. Get used to the new normal. Being too woke will make you a target.

Wait, anti-woke weirdo is back again!? Or do we now have multiple anti trolls on this ever-lengthening thread?

DP pretty sure being anti-woke is the majority of the country.

Yeah, but to be fair, you only believe that because you are deeply, irredeemably stupid.

Regardless of their intelligence they are right on this one. DEI polls poorly across the country.

We don't need no stinking DEI. Yale is of the privilege for the privileged and that's the way we like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale, having declined in prestige in recent years due to factors entirely of its own making, has now decided the best way to restore some of that lost prestige is to point fingers at “academia” more broadly. Shocking, no?

Yale has not declined in prestige any more or less than other elite schools. Any decline is temporary and within in groups that frankly they do not give a rats ass about.

False.

The delusion is strong in this one.

You said that already. Saying it again will not make it more so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale, having declined in prestige in recent years due to factors entirely of its own making, has now decided the best way to restore some of that lost prestige is to point fingers at “academia” more broadly. Shocking, no?

Yale has not declined in prestige any more or less than other elite schools. Any decline is temporary and within in groups that frankly they do not give a rats ass about.

False.

The delusion is strong in this one.

You said that already. Saying it again will not make it more so.

Different posters, obviously.