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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

Well people win the lottery as well. That doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

Football is the largest sport on any campus in terms of scholarships (85 compared to 9.9 for soccer) and roster size and it does not skew wealthy at all. Next in line is Basketball which is not a sport for the wealthy at the college level. Track and field which also does not favor the wealthy. Even soccer is becoming largely foreign students. Football alone is the bulk of scholarships on the mens side, so athletics without money are the norm

This conversation is about the 25-50 colleges with low admit rates. Those schools do not look like the whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Hilarious to hear the whining about sports being exclusionary when we’re talking about elite schools that admit 5% of their applicants. Every metric they use for admission will be exclusionary - academics, test scores, extracurriculars, athletics, etc. They are going to exclude many highly qualified applicants. If you want non exclusionary admissions, T30 or even T50 is not for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals hear feel-good stories about black kids that grew up playing football and basketball in the ghetto and made it to the NFL through a scholarship at Stanford, and act as if that's the common standard for all football and basketball players, let alone athletes in other sports like swimming, soccer, lacrosse, golf, field hockey, etc. etc.

Nobody who knows anything about football thinks the black NFL players are coming from elite schools. They mostly come from big state schools. Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. NBA somewhat similar but different schools - Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Hilarious to hear the whining about sports being exclusionary when we’re talking about elite schools that admit 5% of their applicants. Every metric they use for admission will be exclusionary - academics, test scores, extracurriculars, athletics, etc. They are going to exclude many highly qualified applicants. If you want non exclusionary admissions, T30 or even T50 is not for you.

Then why is using test scores so terrible?

At least test scores match up with college performance while sports is irrelevant, and tests can be prepped for alone with used prep books while sports requires investment from early childhood that most working class, poor and even middle class parents cannot afford.

Test scores are only a problem because it's how Asian students, including very poor Asian children of recent working class immigrants (think Bronx Science), get into college. Along with grades, it's the one thing they can use that doesn't require large sums of money for irrelevant activities like music, sports or winning popularity contests in high school (which the wealthy will always win) and is something that they can study for on their own.

UMC whites hate seeing poor Asian kids of NYC cabbies get into Stuy and Ivies out of the skin of their teeth while their own kids are high on drugs every weekend despite having every advantage. With Asians they can't even blame affirmative action for their own children's failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals hear feel-good stories about black kids that grew up playing football and basketball in the ghetto and made it to the NFL through a scholarship at Stanford, and act as if that's the common standard for all football and basketball players, let alone athletes in other sports like swimming, soccer, lacrosse, golf, field hockey, etc. etc.

Nobody who knows anything about football thinks the black NFL players are coming from elite schools. They mostly come from big state schools. Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. NBA somewhat similar but different schools - Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc.

Who's talking about elite schools here? And regardless, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Michigan, Stanford, USC, Georgetown, etc. are top schools and feed into the NBA and NFL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Hilarious to hear the whining about sports being exclusionary when we’re talking about elite schools that admit 5% of their applicants. Every metric they use for admission will be exclusionary - academics, test scores, extracurriculars, athletics, etc. They are going to exclude many highly qualified applicants. If you want non exclusionary admissions, T30 or even T50 is not for you.

Then why is using test scores so terrible?

At least test scores match up with college performance while sports is irrelevant, and tests can be prepped for alone with used prep books while sports requires investment from early childhood that most working class, poor and even middle class parents cannot afford.

Test scores are only a problem because it's how Asian students, including very poor Asian children of recent working class immigrants (think Bronx Science), get into college. Along with grades, it's the one thing they can use that doesn't require large sums of money for irrelevant activities like music, sports or winning popularity contests in high school (which the wealthy will always win) and is something that they can study for on their own.

UMC whites hate seeing poor Asian kids of NYC cabbies get into Stuy and Ivies out of the skin of their teeth while their own kids are high on drugs every weekend despite having every advantage. With Asians they can't even blame affirmative action for their own children's failures.

Test scores are still part of the equation just lower stakes. As they should be. There's more to a 17 year old kid than a standardized test score.

Colleges love sports. That's part of the American college fabric - right, wrong or indifferent.

And... contrary to your assertion, UMC whites don't even think about poor Asian kids. Not in the same social circle academic or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Hilarious to hear the whining about sports being exclusionary when we’re talking about elite schools that admit 5% of their applicants. Every metric they use for admission will be exclusionary - academics, test scores, extracurriculars, athletics, etc. They are going to exclude many highly qualified applicants. If you want non exclusionary admissions, T30 or even T50 is not for you.

Then why is using test scores so terrible?

At least test scores match up with college performance while sports is irrelevant, and tests can be prepped for alone with used prep books while sports requires investment from early childhood that most working class, poor and even middle class parents cannot afford.

Test scores are only a problem because it's how Asian students, including very poor Asian children of recent working class immigrants (think Bronx Science), get into college. Along with grades, it's the one thing they can use that doesn't require large sums of money for irrelevant activities like music, sports or winning popularity contests in high school (which the wealthy will always win) and is something that they can study for on their own.

UMC whites hate seeing poor Asian kids of NYC cabbies get into Stuy and Ivies out of the skin of their teeth while their own kids are high on drugs every weekend despite having every advantage. With Asians they can't even blame affirmative action for their own children's failures.

Test scores are still part of the equation just lower stakes. As they should be. There's more to a 17 year old kid than a standardized test score.

Colleges love sports. That's part of the American college fabric - right, wrong or indifferent.

And... contrary to your assertion, UMC whites don't even think about poor Asian kids. Not in the same social circle academic or otherwise.

They do think about them. They call them robots and strivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to hear someone defend athletic recruiting to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary the travel, parental involvement and training required for a child to be recruitable are.

I really want to hear someone defend private secondary schools pipeline to elite schools, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend standardized testing and paid test prep, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....
I really want to hear someone defend the common app essay and the paid prep and adult assistance, considering how expensive and therefore exclusionary....

If only we could all have equal outcomes.

There are public magnets to rival private prep schools.

Standardized tests can be prepped for alone using free prep books from the library.

Acquiring help in Common App essays is cheating, and no one defends that.

Meanwhile sports cannot be paid by oneself, requires high fees + high parental involvement. It's also entirely irrelevant to academics. There's no way to defend it.

Are you saying that only rich kids play sports in college? Please, defend that.

Nobody is saying “only rich kids play sports in college,” but yeah, the vast majority college athletes across the spectrum of schools are rich white kids.

But clearly there are viable ways to be an athlete in college without money....just like there are viable ways to perform on a standardized test without money....so athletics is not exclusionary.

What sport is not exclusionary? The only ones left are where recruiting still happens directly out of high school including public highschool. Football, track and field, cross country, wrestling, maybe field hockey. Not sure about baseball or softball.

Hilarious to hear the whining about sports being exclusionary when we’re talking about elite schools that admit 5% of their applicants. Every metric they use for admission will be exclusionary - academics, test scores, extracurriculars, athletics, etc. They are going to exclude many highly qualified applicants. If you want non exclusionary admissions, T30 or even T50 is not for you.

Then why is using test scores so terrible?

At least test scores match up with college performance while sports is irrelevant, and tests can be prepped for alone with used prep books while sports requires investment from early childhood that most working class, poor and even middle class parents cannot afford.

Test scores are only a problem because it's how Asian students, including very poor Asian children of recent working class immigrants (think Bronx Science), get into college. Along with grades, it's the one thing they can use that doesn't require large sums of money for irrelevant activities like music, sports or winning popularity contests in high school (which the wealthy will always win) and is something that they can study for on their own.

UMC whites hate seeing poor Asian kids of NYC cabbies get into Stuy and Ivies out of the skin of their teeth while their own kids are high on drugs every weekend despite having every advantage. With Asians they can't even blame affirmative action for their own children's failures.

Test scores are still part of the equation just lower stakes. As they should be. There's more to a 17 year old kid than a standardized test score.

Colleges love sports. That's part of the American college fabric - right, wrong or indifferent.

And... contrary to your assertion, UMC whites don't even think about poor Asian kids. Not in the same social circle academic or otherwise.

They do think about them. They call them robots and strivers.

Only in your aggrieved mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And any of that would be bad why?

+1. Only then we will have a true meritocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fine with that. College admissions needs a massive overhaul.

Depending on what the Supreme Court says, one of the biggest changes will be elimination of any sort of “Women in STEM” outreach programs, preferences, or scholarships.

Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for.

Then the same would go for the preference boys currently get for anything other than engineering and cs.

Neither has to happen as gender/sex aren’t subject to strict scrutiny like race is. That’s intermediate scrutiny, if memory serves.

Ask VMI how this is going to go.

Well, first you are going to have to define how you define gender. How do you factor in the non binary applicants, or the trans applicant?

I’m Indian and often mistaken as Middle Eastern. I think I now identify as a Muslim, often assumed to be a terrorist.


Race is even a more anti-scientific concept; I wonder why Asian Americans with dark skin don't simply mark Black in their applications.

It worked for Mindy Kaling's brother.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html

I mean.. why not? If a man can identify as a woman and vice versa, then people with very dark skin, no matter their race, could identify as African American. Let's be honest.. people treat you based on your skin color, and a very dark skinned Asian is going to be treated negatively as opposed to a very light skinned Asian.

[Anonymous]

I mean.. why not? If a man can identify as a woman and vice versa, then people with very dark skin, no matter their race, could identify as African American. Let's be honest.. people treat you based on your skin color, and a very dark skinned Asian is going to be treated negatively as opposed to a very light skinned Asian.

Whuuuuut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I don’t care about legacy or athletics. That needs to go too, and I am speaking as an Ivy alum. So that needs to change too. It’s not the harbinger of doom you think it is.

I actually agree with this. Both my husband and I went to Ivies undergrad and I was an athlete, so as much as it pains me...The process is totally broken. I think a more meritocratic process like the process used in the UK would make a lot more sense. Who knows? It might also stop the insanity that currently surrounds college admissions.

[Anonymous]

Why goodbye to ED? That's the only way colleges can try to assure yields with zero limits on application numbers. How is AA relevant there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals hear feel-good stories about black kids that grew up playing football and basketball in the ghetto and made it to the NFL through a scholarship at Stanford, and act as if that's the common standard for all football and basketball players, let alone athletes in other sports like swimming, soccer, lacrosse, golf, field hockey, etc. etc.

Nobody who knows anything about football thinks the black NFL players are coming from elite schools. They mostly come from big state schools. Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. NBA somewhat similar but different schools - Kentucky, UCLA, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc.

Who's talking about elite schools here? And regardless, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Michigan, Stanford, USC, Georgetown, etc. are top schools and feed into the NBA and NFL.

The person I replied to said Stanford, you nimrod. And those elite schools send nowhere near as many players to the NFL as big state schools, stop talking nonsense.

[Anonymous]

At least test scores match up with college performance while sports is irrelevant

D1 athletes have the same graduation rates as other students at their schools, D2 and D3 athletes have much higher graduation rates. Thus, sports does indeed predict college performance. Also, sports are “relevant” because colleges say they are.