NYTimes article on diversity in admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

On the other hand, I have a client, a high schooler in foster care. She missed almost her whole 9th grade year because her mother had a mental health crisis and she had to stay home to take care of younger siblings. She was eventually removed from her home, separated from those siblings and her mother, and spent 10th grade in a variety of foster homes. She has been in the same foster home now for 11th and 12 grade and is very smart -- despite all that disrupted education, she is at the top of her class and tried (with limited success) to manage DCPS's dual enrollment program with no adult help. Her school offers no AP classes.

I don't think she did that great on the SATs, but she would absolutely be an asset to any college (even if she needs some tutoring to make up for holes in her ed background).

Does PP really think income is not a factor? I’m sitting here reading this while waiting to pick up DS from his $$$$$ tutoring session.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo. Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy.

+1
I’m a NYT subscriber, Anyone But Trump, Biden voter, pro choice, kids in public school. And agree that most comments on immigration and education reflect what’s now a moderate position which means not in line with progressive positions.

Another reason why this board should not be completely anonymous. This does not jive with most moderate left. Either this is a fake poster, or you are right wing but not for Trump, and do you really subscribe? Whatever the case, this does not seem indicative of many NYT subscribers.

And political lobby entities are subscribing to influence the conversation in comments. The whole political spamming on various socyal media, comment boards, etc is a real thing. That's what organizations raise money and invest in, not commercials. How else will they influence people? I see tge rhetoric ftom this article again and again here. ‘America Is Under Attack’: Inside the Anti-D.E.I. Crusade https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Sure, it's not as prevalent on NYT, and there are varied points of view on the article (like emphasizing ECE), but most in higher ed would be thinking along those lines. And, the major detractors (like the people asserting intelligence with race) are not the majority view.

[Anonymous]

Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

On the other hand, I have a client, a high schooler in foster care. She missed almost her whole 9th grade year because her mother had a mental health crisis and she had to stay home to take care of younger siblings. She was eventually removed from her home, separated from those siblings and her mother, and spent 10th grade in a variety of foster homes. She has been in the same foster home now for 11th and 12 grade and is very smart -- despite all that disrupted education, she is at the top of her class and tried (with limited success) to manage DCPS's dual enrollment program with no adult help. Her school offers no AP classes.

I don't think she did that great on the SATs, but she would absolutely be an asset to any college (even if she needs some tutoring to make up for holes in her ed background).

Does PP really think income is not a factor? I’m sitting here reading this while waiting to pick up DS from his $$$$$ tutoring session.

Income, stability, adult support, not having to take on adult responsibilities, early intervention/better intervention for ADHD/LDs, not being distracted by trauma or worry about your family, the list goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.

you are missing the point.

If you read the article, it states that most of the URM currently in the top colleges are higher income, and that number is pretty low.

To increase diversity, they have to cast a wider net and look at lower income kids who score higher than their peers, but still not as high as some of the wealthier kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

Those aren't the kids trying to get into top colleges and "competing " with your precious.

But, maybe if you shared some of your enriched experienced with those who don't have access, you might change the course for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.

Which requires going to a school that offers multiple AP classes. Tell me, how many AP classes do most DCPS high schools, other than JR, Walls, and Banneker, offer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges can easily identify high scoring URMs via the College Board Recognition Program, the National African American, Hispanic, and Indigenous Program awards. This requires taking the PSAT or multiple AP exams.

Which requires going to a school that offers multiple AP classes. Tell me, how many AP classes do most DCPS high schools, other than JR, Walls, and Banneker, offer?

NP. The College Board Recognition Program requires two, which is available at every DCPS high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo. Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy.

Yes, that’s correct. It’s also not brigaded the way a PP was implying. The NYT is a lot more careful with monitoring comments than places like Reddit and has a lot of blocks in place against bridgading.

The comments are a good reflection of where a substantial portion of registered and college-educated Democrat and Independent voters sit politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/09/upshot/affirmative-action-alternatives.html

The article proposes, among others, that students whose parents are poor are given an applications boost by setting a lower bar for admission using SAT results.

I'm sitting here, peeking at DCUM, while my middle schooler works on her school work on a Saturday and practices her EC. Outside we can hear lower-income kids play ball. The same kids bully my child on the school bus as a nerd. In school, they are given lunch ISS during which time they throw their food in my child's path. Now, according to the New York Times, these students are to be given a lower bar - perhaps this way, they can continue bullying my hardworking child while in college.

That these ideas are seriously entertained is beyond me - but needless to say, those on the receiving end will remember how they were treated by progressives.

Those aren't the kids trying to get into top colleges and "competing " with your precious.

But, maybe if you shared some of your enriched experienced with those who don't have access, you might change the course for them.

Given that this comment almost certainly comes from someone wealthier than the original PP, it is remarkably obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

The comments on migrant and affirmative action articles in NYT always more negative than positive commenters. Considering the average subscriber is more liberal than the average American, I normally take it as a sort of litmus test politicians, institutions, etc. have gone too far to the left on some topics. WSJ commenters are much more conservative on almost every issue.

Yes, I think the NYT comment page is a good insight into what positions are popular and what positions are political losers.

The NYT comments are extremely pro-reproductive rights and pro-public education, so the idea that they are hidden conservatives is way off. The issue is that a lot of progressive leftist positions have become extremely unpopular across the board. DEI is one of them. Trans rights (particularly where that means girls and women suffer) is another.

Agree w both these comments. The NYT subscribers are generally Biden-voting, college graduate demo. Not young/not old. When you’ve lost them, time to rethink the policy.

+1
I’m a NYT subscriber, Anyone But Trump, Biden voter, pro choice, kids in public school. And agree that most comments on immigration and education reflect what’s now a moderate position which means not in line with progressive positions.

Another reason why this board should not be completely anonymous. This does not jive with most moderate left. Either this is a fake poster, or you are right wing but not for Trump, and do you really subscribe? Whatever the case, this does not seem indicative of many NYT subscribers.

And political lobby entities are subscribing to influence the conversation in comments. The whole political spamming on various socyal media, comment boards, etc is a real thing. That's what organizations raise money and invest in, not commercials. How else will they influence people? I see tge rhetoric ftom this article again and again here. ‘America Is Under Attack’: Inside the Anti-D.E.I. Crusade https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-institute.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Sure, it's not as prevalent on NYT, and there are varied points of view on the article (like emphasizing ECE), but most in higher ed would be thinking along those lines. And, the major detractors (like the people asserting intelligence with race) are not the majority view.

You’ve got to be kidding me. DEI is widely despised by the moderate left these days, if only because now DEI means people who are just trying to get through their workday and pick their kids up from daycare have to spend precious time in painful mandatory corporate trainings. Literally everyone who is forced to sit through DEI trainings hates them.

You must be living in some privileged bubble like a university campus. Nobody who actually has a job feels like what you wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

As has most of the nation -- correct or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weird obsession over race. I get that the white male is the enemy of mankind, but it is getting convulted trying to game college admissions to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Nice try - but let’s not pretend there’s not a huge “race” problem they are trying to correct to help the underprivileged succeed. I applaud the top Universities for being United in these efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.

A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:comments are largely negative. NYT readers have turned the corner on diversity measures, I guess.

NYT subscribers are pretty old now, right? The comments being negative doesn't shock me. Their reader base demos have to be a concern for the NYT.

A lot of white males.

Yes! Conservative, white males are their target demographic.

A lot of jewish and asian males who think they are white

Jewish people are white you dumb#$$