NYTs: if affirmative action goes, say buy-bye to legacy, EA/ED, and most athletic preferences

[Anonymous]

Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

Athletic scholarship at Duke - ran track. Had grades and scores in the top 25 percent of admitted students, a fact that the dean of the school never ceased to remind me. Yes, I received a big admissions bonus (third in the nation in high school in my event), but I hardly was the recipient of material admissions bias and likely need not need it. My teammates (mostly walk-ons) were by and large fantastic students, with 5 of them becoming physicians and several going to top law ans business schools. The top 10-15 schools have their pick of athletes with very good academic credentials. It is not an area where there is a large amount of bias when it comes to the most competitive schools. At Duke, typically talking about 2-3 people in basketball, if that because some players are very adept academically. Not a big impact on the admissions profile. My current teams GPA this past year - men and women - 3.6.

And athletics is still an admission on merit - although at athletic factories it is a bit ridiculous. Admitting on the basis of race is not workable in the long run. Most universities don't need to do it, only the most competitive ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

Athletic scholarship at Duke - ran track. Had grades and scores in the top 25 percent of admitted students, a fact that the dean of the school never ceased to remind me. Yes, I received a big admissions bonus (third in the nation in high school in my event), but I hardly was the recipient of material admissions bias and likely need not need it. My teammates (mostly walk-ons) were by and large fantastic students, with 5 of them becoming physicians and several going to top law ans business schools. The top 10-15 schools have their pick of athletes with very good academic credentials. It is not an area where there is a large amount of bias when it comes to the most competitive schools. At Duke, typically talking about 2-3 people in basketball, if that because some players are very adept academically. Not a big impact on the admissions profile. My current teams GPA this past year - men and women - 3.6.

And athletics is still an admission on merit - although at athletic factories it is a bit ridiculous. Admitting on the basis of race is not workable in the long run. Most universities don't need to do it, only the most competitive ones.

What you’re not understanding is how expensive the training and how intense the parent involvement is that is needed to be recruitable. It takes so many kids out of the running who may be talented but cannot afford club: swimming, soccer, lacrosse, field hockey and many other sports. Poorer high schools don’t even offer most of these sports!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I used to cringe when I’d see Langley Crew bringing their sculls in to practice at Algonkian Park, right in Potomac Falls HS “backyard” there.
Haves and have nots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the colleges are gonna depend on historical red lining to find diverse neighborhoods

dp.. they can look at the current demographics of a particular zipcode. I don't think it's a bad idea.

But I don't think legacies will go by the wayside anytime. That's laughable. The powers that be will never go for it because legacy protects their offsprings. It's the ultimate opportunity hoarding.

Exactly.

But are there any private universities that give any meaningful legacy preference without large donations from the parents? (for non celebrity or public figure kids)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stanford is in the top 20 of producing NFL Draft picks over the past 5 years:

https://collegefootballnews.com/lists/nfl-draft-by-college-over-last-5-years-2022-program-rankings-1-130/amp

They’re ahead of places like Texas (the wealthiest athletic department in the country), Florida State, Oregon (beneficiary of the biggest athletic booster in the country of Nike founder Phil Knight) and Tennessee.

[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.

Your fix for supposed racism is racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think the colleges are gonna depend on historical red lining to find diverse neighborhoods

dp.. they can look at the current demographics of a particular zipcode. I don't think it's a bad idea.

But I don't think legacies will go by the wayside anytime. That's laughable. The powers that be will never go for it because legacy protects their offsprings. It's the ultimate opportunity hoarding.

Exactly.

But are there any private universities that give any meaningful legacy preference without large donations from the parents? (for non celebrity or public figure kids)

Legacy is its own thing separate from donations. You don’t have 33% acceptance rate for legacy at Harvard if it was conditioned on donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

Athletic scholarship at Duke - ran track. Had grades and scores in the top 25 percent of admitted students, a fact that the dean of the school never ceased to remind me. Yes, I received a big admissions bonus (third in the nation in high school in my event), but I hardly was the recipient of material admissions bias and likely need not need it. My teammates (mostly walk-ons) were by and large fantastic students, with 5 of them becoming physicians and several going to top law ans business schools. The top 10-15 schools have their pick of athletes with very good academic credentials. It is not an area where there is a large amount of bias when it comes to the most competitive schools. At Duke, typically talking about 2-3 people in basketball, if that because some players are very adept academically. Not a big impact on the admissions profile. My current teams GPA this past year - men and women - 3.6.

And athletics is still an admission on merit - although at athletic factories it is a bit ridiculous. Admitting on the basis of race is not workable in the long run. Most universities don't need to do it, only the most competitive ones.

Nice story but the Harvard data suggests exactly the opposite. Without sports these recruits don’t get in on academics. Your definition of merit is completely self serving.

[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.

Your fix for supposed racism is racism.

+1 If anything like the sweeping generalizations in the last paragraph had been written by someone else about Asians, this person would have been calling it anti-Asian racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

Athletic scholarship at Duke - ran track. Had grades and scores in the top 25 percent of admitted students, a fact that the dean of the school never ceased to remind me. Yes, I received a big admissions bonus (third in the nation in high school in my event), but I hardly was the recipient of material admissions bias and likely need not need it. My teammates (mostly walk-ons) were by and large fantastic students, with 5 of them becoming physicians and several going to top law ans business schools. The top 10-15 schools have their pick of athletes with very good academic credentials. It is not an area where there is a large amount of bias when it comes to the most competitive schools. At Duke, typically talking about 2-3 people in basketball, if that because some players are very adept academically. Not a big impact on the admissions profile. My current teams GPA this past year - men and women - 3.6.

And athletics is still an admission on merit - although at athletic factories it is a bit ridiculous. Admitting on the basis of race is not workable in the long run. Most universities don't need to do it, only the most competitive ones.

Nice story but the Harvard data suggests exactly the opposite. Without sports these recruits don’t get in on academics. Your definition of merit is completely self serving.

NP--No, their definition of merit is Harvard-serving. And it seems to work pretty well for them.

[Anonymous]

What counts as a big donation these days? $1M? 2? Or does it need to be name a building to get any preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What counts as a big donation these days? $1M? 2? Or does it need to be name a building to get any preference?

$25-50M. Otherwise it's just small potatoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone apparently thinks that people like me who want to stop asian admissions discrimination actually care if it also gets rid of legacy, EA/ED, and athletic admission bias. I don't want any bias in admissions but I don't think the whattaboutism is relevant. OP low IQ confirmed

Athletic scholarship at Duke - ran track. Had grades and scores in the top 25 percent of admitted students, a fact that the dean of the school never ceased to remind me. Yes, I received a big admissions bonus (third in the nation in high school in my event), but I hardly was the recipient of material admissions bias and likely need not need it. My teammates (mostly walk-ons) were by and large fantastic students, with 5 of them becoming physicians and several going to top law ans business schools. The top 10-15 schools have their pick of athletes with very good academic credentials. It is not an area where there is a large amount of bias when it comes to the most competitive schools. At Duke, typically talking about 2-3 people in basketball, if that because some players are very adept academically. Not a big impact on the admissions profile. My current teams GPA this past year - men and women - 3.6.

And athletics is still an admission on merit - although at athletic factories it is a bit ridiculous. Admitting on the basis of race is not workable in the long run. Most universities don't need to do it, only the most competitive ones.

Nice story but the Harvard data suggests exactly the opposite. Without sports these recruits don’t get in on academics. Your definition of merit is completely self serving.

NP--No, their definition of merit is Harvard-serving. And it seems to work pretty well for them.

This. Harvard wants graduates who will be successful and make Harvard look good. They'd take the lax bro (or woman) who smart enough to get admitted over the perfect student any day. The former is more likely to be hired in competitive industries and more likely to rise once hired.