Stanford will be requiring test scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

This has been repeated ad-nauseam on every thread. Simple concept - if you want society's handouts, don't expect
Gucci. Start that Dumbass U.

I appear to have struck a nerve. It is the colleges/universities that decide admissions. You seem upset that some seem to hold values different from your own. In all seriousness, families for whom providing opportunities to less resourced students is a sticking point can choose a different set of schools. If mad at HPYS, stick it to them by applying elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the less qualified students profiting from the low income game!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

You cannot equalize opportunity through a lifetime of affluence.

Affluence doesn't just help grades and test scores

Poor kids have to work, they can't develop their pole vaulting and oboe skills like affluent kids can. It also impinges on time that they might be using to work through AoPS questions.

Poor kids don't have exciting summer experiences they can write about.

If it was just test score based, I would say, fine, the poor kid has to focus on ONE thing they have a fighting chance but they have to present these holistic works of art to admissions committees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elite colleges are ecstatic to go back to the old times of majority white, wealthy institutions. Not sure why they got so bent on their own helium about how they are social mobility engines when they educate a minuscule portion of the population.

Aside from the SLACs, these school are not becoming more white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

Schools do not hold it against candidates if their school do not have AP or IB courses. It's just if you do you should report scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

It’s not about correcting education. It’s about giving bright but disadvantaged kids a shot at a first class education that will offer them social mobility.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Universities want bright minds above all, and they know that kids who come from underprivileged backgrounds are a source of untapped human capital.

A tutored rich kid with a 1600 is way more impressive than a poor kid with a 1450.

Stuyvesant high school is filled with poor kids getting 1550 or higher on the SAT. But they're mostly poor asian kids. Test scores isn't what is keeping smart poor kids out, it's all the other parts of the holistic application where they look boring because they had to work at the pizza hut every summer. This isn't about poor kids, it's about the black and hispanic kids that can't seem to do well on these tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

The kids cannot help what families they are born into, and a bright poor kid who gets 1450 on the SAT with minimal prep deserves a space at a Stanford as much as the privileged, tutored, and enriched kid who gets a 1600.

Nothing bright about having a 1450. Many poor kids with 1600s and elite educations. Those with the credentials to get in should be the ones getting in, not charity projects that need a ton of resources just to be on level with everyone else. There is no reason to give poor students a boost.

That's crazy talk. 1450 is like 97 percentile. The kid is more than qualified at the highest tier of colleges. Above 1400 is an excellent score.

23% of asian kids get a 1400 on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

They are objectively the same score. If you are missing gaps in your education, khan academy is a free resource and many SAT prep books are sitting in school libraries, dusting away. People with enough tenacity and intelligence to score in the 1550+ range should be rewarded over poor kids with subpar scores.

Serious question. Why? A student who scores in the top 3 of every 100 students is somehow objectively has "gaps" in their education? But if they do some additional test prep to learn how to better game the test, they have closed this educational gap? What, because education (broad category, that) can be distilled down to two subject categories assessed in a single exam designed to help better predict gpa in Freshman year? 97% vs 99% - the arrogance of some people. Goodness.

You have a misconception of what test prep is. The teachable test prep part is about 6 hours. The rest is taking practice tests or actual learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

Noone forced them to go to the federalist society meeting to heckle their speaker. They went out of their way to shout down a federal judge because they disagreed with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

The Federalist Society members presumably wanted to hear the talk, no?

And you're making my point - it's worth monitoring how tender and wrapped in bubble wrap a student body is that it is closed off to hearing ideas they disagree with and the ensuing discussion. That's unappealing, as is admitting successive cohorts who are less capable of doing the typical work (the actual subject of this thread)

I don't see why students have to agree with everyone the school brings. No, if I am having to listen to a person who thinks Obergefell should be overturned, as a queer person, I really don't want to hear them out on a good day, let alone have my institution pay to fly them there and give them a mic to spew hateful law. In a similar vein, I don't want a bunch of communist anti-legal activists coming either. For some people, these ideas are actual material losses that could harm them.

Overall, the schools are still providing the forum. Stanford still is inviting conservative judges every single semester onto campus and students are then labelled radicals for protesting people who do harm to their communities.

Does stanford ever invite any progressive judges? Or is it only conservative judges.

[Anonymous]

Stanford is trying to admit the next SCOTUS nominee, WNBA star, Apple CEO. Another Beltway bandit is a dime a zone. 1300s and 1600s gets the job done.

[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:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

This has been repeated ad-nauseam on every thread. Simple concept - if you want society's handouts, don't expect
Gucci. Start that Dumbass U.

I appear to have struck a nerve. It is the colleges/universities that decide admissions. You seem upset that some seem to hold values different from your own. In all seriousness, families for whom providing opportunities to less resourced students is a sticking point can choose a different set of schools. If mad at HPYS, stick it to them by applying elsewhere.

+1. It reminds me of Red Pills who are angry with women for not desiring them. Go where you're wanted.

[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:And there goes the low income students!

My guess is they will also be giving poor students a preference in admissions.
That is what MIT did and their pell grant students went from 20% to 24% of the entering class.

I don't really see why this is any more a fair system. I get that poor people aren't a protected class, but it is ridiculous that we attempt to correct education at the finish line.

This! All resources must be applied at the primary/secondary education levels. Admission to college should be on the same standard for everyone with minor exceptions for culturally ingrained BS like sports and legacy. Subsidize those that can't pay tuition but that shouldn't be a factor in admissions.

I'm a big proponent of required AP/IB and SAT scores. Every time I bring this up, someone responds with "But not all underfunded schools provide AP coursework" 1) Okay and? How many poor students are going to elite colleges in the first place and 2) this is not a good defense as to why we should allow underprepared students into elite schools. They will be surrounded and trampled by students who all do well in standardized exams.

LOL. Tell it to my spouse.

Grew up dirt poor, got good (but not elite) scores on standardized tests, accepted to HYPS.

First in family to attend college. While the spoiled rich kids (like me) were partying, they worked 3 jobs to pay for school and have $$$ to eat/live.

Def did NOT get "trampled by" students who did well on standardized exams.

In fact, they graduated at top of class, went on to top 5 grad school, became a nationally known expert in their field, and was eventually appointed to prominent national leadership position by BO.

I know multiple others from similar backgrounds with similar stories.

Bottom line: a lot of the poor kids are a whole lot smarter and hungrier than the wealthy kids who get it all handed to them on a silver platter.

So he stole a spot from a student who could've gone further with their education. This doesn't impress me like you think it should. Getting into a top 5 grad school from an elite college is a given.

You clearly miss the point. His/her spouse was qualified, did well, was successful, contributed to society and did the school proud. I think some of the folks here need to band together and either start Pompous U. or bombard a less selective university with apps and agree to all attend. Make it their own for their beyond genius off-spring where slots aren't 'stolen' and education isn't sullied by the intellectually inferior.

Their spouse would have done well and been successful regardless of where they went to school.

Also, why don't you run with that great idea of yours? Start a U (don't care what you call it), convince all smart have-nots to attend and turn that into an elite school over time?

As for spouse success and any school argument, you could presumably say that about the tippy-top students, so then why the aversion to broaden the student body? As for starting another school, Im not bothered by allowing for the "smart have-nots" have a piece of the pie.

"smart have-nots"....yeah, Pompous U. fits

This has been repeated ad-nauseam on every thread. Simple concept - if you want society's handouts, don't expect
Gucci. Start that Dumbass U.

I appear to have struck a nerve. It is the colleges/universities that decide admissions. You seem upset that some seem to hold values different from your own. In all seriousness, families for whom providing opportunities to less resourced students is a sticking point can choose a different set of schools. If mad at HPYS, stick it to them by applying elsewhere.

+1. It reminds me of Red Pills who are angry with women for not desiring them. Go where you're wanted.

This is an odd take on racial discrimination by publicly funded institutions that are important rungs on the ladder of opportunity in america.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

Noone forced them to go to the federalist society meeting to heckle their speaker. They went out of their way to shout down a federal judge because they disagreed with him.

"Out of the way"...it's their campus. It's no way at all. You know what's out of the way-going to an entirely different state to a university as a Judge to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not every 1450 is close to the same based on life circumstances.

My guess is no one who has posted on this thread thus far will have a kid admitted to Stanford in the next 5 years. So many people here worry about the policies at these schools for no reason.

Well, DS '2026 at a T15 currently will likely apply to Stanford Law (reeeeeeach, he knows) in a few years, so I'm moderately interested in what the university is doing, generally. Who they're admitting, political winds, campus environment. to wit, he's keeping his eye on this sort of bullshit involving an undergrad dean and the law school. TLDR: dean doubles down on suppression of 110% protected political speech of invited speaker, sides with hecklers.

Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach had been asked by the Federalist Society to attend the event as an observer and de-escalator. About 30 minutes into his lecture, and after much shouting by the students, Duncan asked for an administrator to address the heckling. Instead, Steinbach took the floor and told Duncan that she was uncomfortable with his presence and the event, which was “tearing the fabric of the community that I care about apart,” she said in a now-viral video.

Sounds about right. The Federalist society threatens these elite law schools that they will ask their members to ban these colleges' students from clerking with them if the school does not let them come and speak at events. Then, the school invites speakers that students do not want to see and pay $100,000 per year to attend a college that doesn't listen to them...and then chaos.

The Federalist Society members presumably wanted to hear the talk, no?

And you're making my point - it's worth monitoring how tender and wrapped in bubble wrap a student body is that it is closed off to hearing ideas they disagree with and the ensuing discussion. That's unappealing, as is admitting successive cohorts who are less capable of doing the typical work (the actual subject of this thread)

I don't see why students have to agree with everyone the school brings. No, if I am having to listen to a person who thinks Obergefell should be overturned, as a queer person, I really don't want to hear them out on a good day, let alone have my institution pay to fly them there and give them a mic to spew hateful law. In a similar vein, I don't want a bunch of communist anti-legal activists coming either. For some people, these ideas are actual material losses that could harm them.

Overall, the schools are still providing the forum. Stanford still is inviting conservative judges every single semester onto campus and students are then labelled radicals for protesting people who do harm to their communities.

Does stanford ever invite any progressive judges? Or is it only conservative judges.

Law school is obsessed with conservative or non political judges.
Undergrad brings in a ton of progressive speakers and thinkers, but more legal theorists than practitioners. You're more likely to see Clarence Thomas than Elena Kagan basically.