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: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.

Taking the top test scorers is not necessarily what colleges should be doing. They can look at all sorts of other factors. They just shouldn't discriminate based on race while doing so.

[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.

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.

Can two Asians have diversity of experience and thought?

Can two test-takers have diversity of experience and thought? Why does the act of test-taking remove all the diversity of experience and thought from the test-takers?

Does taking tests turn students into robots? Do test takers spend 24/7 taking tests and never walk outside, don't have hopes and dreams, don't have opinions, don't have culture, family, values?

Still not getting it. The point is that holistic admissions leave room for other accomplishments, geographic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. Test score alone don’t ensure diversity of thought, interests, etc

[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.

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.

and profit from the sports

Dude -- there is no profit from sports. If football has a profit it pays for other sports. If you tax football then they get a credit for the other sports and they still would not pay.

NEWS | @SEC announces $777.8 million of total revenue, divided among its 14 universities for 2020-21 fiscal year (ending Aug 31, 2021). The distribution, excluding bowl revenue retained by schools for bowl expenses, averaged slightly over $54.6 million per school.

And that is with the sweetheart deal that CBS got a decade ago, not even paying more when they added schools. That money will go way up under the next deal, which they did not entertain an offer from CBS.

[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.

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.

No they can't. Tickets don't sell quite as quickly or as high priced for the Integration Bee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP. And, Apanother government lawyer (who was laughing, but then started thinking). Not tye FTC, but the DOJ is investigating allegations of anto trssust violations in college admissions.

1. Tne biggie is litigation alleging hugely selective schools coordinated need based aid. (Ie financial aid price fixing). This litigation is currently ongoing.

I read about this against Ivy League 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:r encouraging kids to transfer (even if the kid has not expressed interest). My own kid had both safeties (Wooster and St. Olaf) has an AO Call to see if anything would change my kid’s mind after 5/1. They said his acceptance would remain active until the beginning of Junior year and he could transfer at any point in the first two years for any reason. They followed up with and email or student or AP phone call every few months. That may be an antitrust violation.

That is the opposite of collusion. Tends to be the undoing of lots of price fixing schemes, including OPEC.

[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

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?

No school makes money on sports. So why do it? Who cares.

Many do, to the point where they don't really need students.

[Anonymous]

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.

No, Harvard chooses the former. MIT takes the latter. A former IMO contestant has started a program to help the top math kids get better acceptances to elite colleges other than Cal Tech and MIT, based on the idea that the other top schools are looking at personality and communication skills.

[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.

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

For example

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

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Um, they all played football in college. And what makes you so sure Eisenhower got none of his military leadership skills from his experience playing football?

What about all the other high school and college football players, did they also become Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and POTUS?

Not sure but I hear Gandhi was a hell of a cornerback back in the day.

That is more true than you know. He set up several soccer clubs in South Africa, and used them as vehicles to resist British rule.
Appropriate to this subject- He pointed out how under the present education curriculum traditional sports were overlooked...

OK, I'm cheating. He was complaining about abandonment of Indian sports in favor of cricket and soccer.

[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.

There are thousands every year from Appalachia applying to those schools.

[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.

[/b]


I don’t understand your point. Harvard owns two hotels in Cambridge because that’s how Universities expand and acquire land. The University sets up a foundation snd the foundation buys up land and buildings. Hotels are eventually converted to dorms or razed and new University buildings put up. GMU had its own hotel 9 years ago which it operated for visiting faculty, visiting parents, foreign dignitaries, etc. but it was turned into a much-needed dorm

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.

Harvard doesn't pay taxes, and is [b]taking advantage of its status by running hotels.

[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.

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.

No they can't. Tickets don't sell quite as quickly or as high priced for the Integration Bee.

Sorry, but no one buys any tickets to D3 sports. No one knows or cares about any of the competitions, except for the few people involved. That goes for most D1 and D2 competitions as well

[Anonymous]

So much random chatter on this thread.

Net net -- can't wait for SCOTUS to finally do its job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The end of affirmative action will be a great day in America. I heard a great speech about content of character and not the color of ones skin once. I was really good.

That was a great speech. And affirmative action was introduced to help people remember it.

[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.

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/

Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were both linemen. Eisenhower played both linebacker and running back.

That's an interesting point, because Ford and Reagan were absolutely abysmal leaders and presidents.

But I'm sure Eisenhower was such a great leader and president because he played linebacker/running back in high school, and not because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII.

Um, they all played football in college. And what makes you so sure Eisenhower got none of his military leadership skills from his experience playing football?

What about all the other high school and college football players, did they also become Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and POTUS?[/quote

You can do that research if you have the time. I guarantee the majority are better leaders in whatever they do because of the football (or whatever other sport) they played.