Banneker versus School Without Walls

[Anonymous]

I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

Very few affirmative action beneficiaries are “low income” blacks; most are probably UMC. Low income blacks kids don’t apply to selective schools in any significant number.

[Anonymous]

All the more reason for AA applicants to generate SAT scores on a par those of other racial groups vs. several hundred points lower collectively.

[Anonymous]

For your knowledge....Since standardized scores are your thing. Maybe hearing from some of your own will enlighten and expand your sphere of reality....https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1013884.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.

If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.


If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

I agree with all this. If you want to attend selective institutions, you (should) have to hit the mark test-wise. And the sort of kids that end up at Banneker are precisely the sort that should be capable of doing this with the right investments early on. Frankly, you'd sort of want a middle or elementary school for Bannerker prospects so that the expectations and related training attaches before high school when it's almost always too late to change trajectories in any major way. I have no idea how practical this would be...

[Anonymous]

Practical, and logical, IF the political will existed in the District to support ES and MS test-in GT programs, particularly those geared at low-income minority students. It doesn't exist under Bowser and Ferebee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.

If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

You don't actually understand how endowments work. Elite colleges don't rely on tuition dollars to pay bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.


If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

I agree with all this. If you want to attend selective institutions, you (should) have to hit the mark test-wise. And the sort of kids that end up at Banneker are precisely the sort that should be capable of doing this with the right investments early on. Frankly, you'd sort of want a middle or elementary school for Bannerker prospects so that the expectations and related training attaches before high school when it's almost always too late to change trajectories in any major way. I have no idea how practical this would be...

No it is not too late. Are you the same person who said that preschoolers who were monolingual would "wash out" of bilingual schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Facts:

1. Kids in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SAT's as kids twenty years ago

2. Colleges and Universities in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SATs as they did twenty years ago.

3. Those of you holding onto a test score as a measure of one's intellectual ability or academic prestige are HIGHLY outdated and holding onto antiquated ideas of what scholarship looks like in the new normal.

It's no secret that your points #1 and #2 result from desperate wokesters trying to delegitimize SATs because of the chronic underperformance of black American kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.

If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

You don't actually understand how endowments work. Elite colleges don't rely on tuition dollars to pay bills.

Yes they do, because endowment dividends and tuition dollars are fungible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facts:

1. Kids in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SAT's as kids twenty years ago

2. Colleges and Universities in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SATs as they did twenty years ago.

3. Those of you holding onto a test score as a measure of one's intellectual ability or academic prestige are HIGHLY outdated and holding onto antiquated ideas of what scholarship looks like in the new normal.

It's no secret that your points #1 and #2 result from desperate wokesters trying to delegitimize SATs because of the chronic underperformance of black American kids.

Not the poster you're responding to, but there's more than a kernel of truth in the above statement. It's not quite that simple though. Unfortunately, it's just not the wokesters who are trying to delegitimize SATs, ed leaders who don't want to support the type of "discriminatory and elitist" ability sorting that needs to be done young to ensure that far more AA kids can score high eventually are the main culprits.

Our hyper egalitarian public-school teaching and learning culture is catching up with us as a society. Hint: Ed leaders in Asia aren't remotely squeamish about ability grouping/academic tracking in their government schools, particularly for math. Neither are the adults recruiting and training young athletes the world over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a big issue with ANYBODY taking a spot if they haven't had the prep to handle the work at the college in question. I'd like to see bright, hard-working "poor and brown" students who haven't had the requisite prep get it. The common admissions practice of admitting low-income AA students with standardized test scores that wouldn't pass muster for equally low-income white and Asian students is going nowhere for our society, other than to the courts.

All colleges discriminate against students based on income and therefore race as well. Elite colleges enroll more kids from the top one percent families than from the bottom 60 percent. Certain elite colleges that do the best to try to reverse this trend only enroll up to 20 percent low income students max. Early decision, which excludes low income applicants de facto (you cannot make a binding decision if you do not know what your financial aid package will be and there is almost always a gap even at elite schools) accounts for half the incoming class with acceptance rates three times as high as regular decision. The odds are stacked against minorities in a major way, including of course Asians - many Asians are low income though this is not well known. Athlete recruits favor white men. The low income minority taking the spots is a myth. This is all about money.

Elite colleges have to pay their bills. Legacy loyalty and early decision/early action certainty generates vast income to subsidize low-income students' enrollment. Legacy admissions are way down at most of the Ivies and other elite colleges as compared to a generation ago. Harvard's legacy admissions are in the teens, down from almost half in the 1970s. Student loan burdens are also down at elite colleges, way down. In the 1980s, it was common for low-income minority students like me to graduate from Ivies owing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans. Now the institutions ensure that most poor undergraduates graduate debt-free.


If low-income minority students want to compete with wealthy whites in college admissions, they need to work their tails off to score high on standardized tests, period. This is the message I got from caring teachers at my urban, test-in magnet program. They got through to me, so I studied like mad for SATs and AP tests on my own, mainly using prep books checked out from a public library. Later, I did the same thing for the GRE. I scored high and attended Ivies for undergrad and a PhD. Banneker students could do follow suit, but are seldom encouraged to, so few bother.

I agree with all this. If you want to attend selective institutions, you (should) have to hit the mark test-wise. And the sort of kids that end up at Banneker are precisely the sort that should be capable of doing this with the right investments early on. Frankly, you'd sort of want a middle or elementary school for Bannerker prospects so that the expectations and related training attaches before high school when it's almost always too late to change trajectories in any major way. I have no idea how practical this would be...

No it is not too late. Are you the same person who said that preschoolers who were monolingual would "wash out" of bilingual schools?

No and I didn't even see that comment. I was going by the fact that reading/math scores in 3rd grade are highly predictive of high school achievement. But if you are certain that it's not too late, then fine. Banneker can be easily re-worked to hit the acheivement levels we see coming out of Stuyvestant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facts:

1. Kids in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SAT's as kids twenty years ago

2. Colleges and Universities in 2021 DO NOT CARE as much about the SATs as they did twenty years ago.

3. Those of you holding onto a test score as a measure of one's intellectual ability or academic prestige are HIGHLY outdated and holding onto antiquated ideas of what scholarship looks like in the new normal.

It's no secret that your points #1 and #2 result from desperate wokesters trying to delegitimize SATs because of the chronic underperformance of black American kids.

Not the poster you're responding to, but there's more than a kernel of truth in the above statement. It's not quite that simple though. Unfortunately, it's just not the wokesters who are trying to delegitimize SATs, ed leaders who don't want to support the type of "discriminatory and elitist" ability sorting that needs to be done young to ensure that far more AA kids can score high eventually are the main culprits.

Our hyper egalitarian public-school teaching and learning culture is catching up with us as a society. Hint: Ed leaders in Asia aren't remotely squeamish about ability grouping/academic tracking in their government schools, particularly for math. Neither are the adults recruiting and training young athletes the world over.

And most low-income minority parents couldn't care less. They just want schools to teach the kids how to read, which they aren't. Once we've done that, then we can talk about admissions to elite programs, etc.