Dark Chain of Events to Your Kid's Ivy League Rejection

[Anonymous]

Ha-ha. As usual this has turned into a free-for-all name calling.
All types of people go to all colleges. That was not the point of this thread though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not insecure. I'm quite proud of the fact that I graduated from a no-name uni with little help and 0 debt and was able to make six figures in a few years.

No one who's proud of themselves projects feelings of superiority on another group.

No one who's proud of themselves has to put down a group of people--who, by the way, are advantaged over them in some way--in order to feel better about their no name uni.

Do ivy grads negatively stereotype the poor, uneducated, etc? You're truly showing how OUT OF TOUCH you are with the ivy experience with that one. That's so laughable I won't even touch it. Maybe someone else will come in and do me the favor.

One thing I CAN tell you about ivy leaguers is that our minds are trained to think critically, deeply and analytically. I cannot imagine one ivy league grad lumping and stereotyping an entire group for any reason. Even if they walked through the ivy gates with a limited worldview and prejudices, they would've been gone by the time they left. Such is the benefit of an ivy education.

It is VERY obvious from your posts that you graduated from a no name, subpar school. I've never seen such stupidity in my life.

And just stop it: We all know there are more ivy grads leaving school debt free and blazing trails throughout the world making much more money than those from 'no name unis'.

I really feel sorry for you.

Seriously.

You seem like a very sad, unhappy, insecure person.

And jealousy has to be debilitating and painful.

NP here.

This is childish. However, I found some contradictions in your claim of not being prejudiced?

Do you know what PREjudice is?

It means to PREjudge.

Did you see an overall judgement based on insecurity or a judgment based on ones stupidity?

You must've gone to a no name uni too.

Dear HS Senior (who has got admission to an Ivy League college),
Congratulations for getting in. Now please grow up. Go put some acne cream on your pimples...prom is around the corner. Ok?
Buh-bye!

Ummm...okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. Private institutions should not be required to define as "attributes" only things like test scores that certain groups believe would inure to their advantage.

This. It's wrong to think that colleges should only value SATs and GPAs, for several reasons.

First, at the most selective universities, almost everyone has high SATs and GPAs. Across all races and ethnic groups, test scores are high. Most top universities could fill their incoming classes 5X or 10X with kids who scored over 2200 on the SAT. So, in a pool of thousands of applicants with SATs of 2200+, you need additional, non-scholatistic achievements outside of school just to stand out from the other applicants.

Second, colleges want future leaders and creators, and these things aren't measured by high ACTS and/or SATs. Basically, colleges want to be able to claim famous grads as their own, which leads to a better applicant pool, and the virtuous circle continues. So colleges will take promising artists and musicians and politically-active kids who show initiative and dedication ("passion"!) to something besides grinding it out at a desk for four years.

Of course, Asians can definitely play this game -- the "passion" game -- too. What's wrong is to think that *only* SATs and GPAs should count, either as a practical matter or for serving the colleges' own interests.

So you're implying that Asians only have a passion for test taking and studying? You should probably take a look at Cali's UC system. They've had no race based affirmative action or legacy for almost two decades now, but they can take into account anything else about a student including extracurriculars, economic background, and any number of soft factors that you seem to think that Asians systematically lack. Many UCs are over a quarter to a third Asian and some are even majority Asian. I highly doubt that the profile of Asian students that apply to the best UC's are all that different from the Asian students that apply to the Ivies and quasi-Ivies. Please stop spewing your racist garbage.

Do everyone a favor and read the post first, before you spew nonsense about what the post never said. It clearly said Asians can play the passion game too.

Also, public universities rely much more heavily on test scores and GPAs than do private universities nad Ivies. This is well known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are mostly private schools and thankfully look to have diverse student bodies, even if Jews and Asians think they rightfully should dominate every selective institution of higher learning.

You forgot the part about how the Jews are the richest and most powerful and control absolutely everything. It's a conspiracy, you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. Private institutions should not be required to define as "attributes" only things like test scores that certain groups believe would inure to their advantage.

This. It's wrong to think that colleges should only value SATs and GPAs, for several reasons.

First, at the most selective universities, almost everyone has high SATs and GPAs. Across all races and ethnic groups, test scores are high. Most top universities could fill their incoming classes 5X or 10X with kids who scored over 2200 on the SAT. So, in a pool of thousands of applicants with SATs of 2200+, you need additional, non-scholatistic achievements outside of school just to stand out from the other applicants.

Second, colleges want future leaders and creators, and these things aren't measured by high ACTS and/or SATs. Basically, colleges want to be able to claim famous grads as their own, which leads to a better applicant pool, and the virtuous circle continues. So colleges will take promising artists and musicians and politically-active kids who show initiative and dedication ("passion"!) to something besides grinding it out at a desk for four years.

Of course, Asians can definitely play this game -- the "passion" game -- too. What's wrong is to think that *only* SATs and GPAs should count, either as a practical matter or for serving the colleges' own interests.

So you're implying that Asians only have a passion for test taking and studying? You should probably take a look at Cali's UC system. They've had no race based affirmative action or legacy for almost two decades now, but they can take into account anything else about a student including extracurriculars, economic background, and any number of soft factors that you seem to think that Asians systematically lack. Many UCs are over a quarter to a third Asian and some are even majority Asian. I highly doubt that the profile of Asian students that apply to the best UC's are all that different from the Asian students that apply to the Ivies and quasi-Ivies. Please stop spewing your racist garbage.

Do everyone a favor and read the post first, before you spew nonsense about what the post never said. It clearly said Asians can play the passion game too.

Also, public universities rely much more heavily on test scores and GPAs than do private universities nad Ivies. This is well known.

Except there was absolutely no reason to bring up this issue unless it was being used as a justification as to why more Asians are not accepted into Ivies. Just because you are too dim to read between the lines and vague wording like "certain groups" doesn't mean everyone else is.

[Anonymous]

Would it be better for society if college admissions were race blind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would it be better for society if college admissions were race blind?

PP maybe, maybe not.

I fall on the side of yes, but I can see why others would say no.

however, what is not OK is black-boxing admin decisions.

If you want to give a boost to certain populations, stand by your decision and publish median range stats for various types of accepted applicants so students can plan.

If you are fine with AA, why are you against more transparency in regards to reported statistics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would it be better for society if college admissions were race blind?

Would it be better for society if all people were race blind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. Private institutions should not be required to define as "attributes" only things like test scores that certain groups believe would inure to their advantage.

This. It's wrong to think that colleges should only value SATs and GPAs, for several reasons.

First, at the most selective universities, almost everyone has high SATs and GPAs. Across all races and ethnic groups, test scores are high. Most top universities could fill their incoming classes 5X or 10X with kids who scored over 2200 on the SAT. So, in a pool of thousands of applicants with SATs of 2200+, you need additional, non-scholatistic achievements outside of school just to stand out from the other applicants.

Second, colleges want future leaders and creators, and these things aren't measured by high ACTS and/or SATs. Basically, colleges want to be able to claim famous grads as their own, which leads to a better applicant pool, and the virtuous circle continues. So colleges will take promising artists and musicians and politically-active kids who show initiative and dedication ("passion"!) to something besides grinding it out at a desk for four years.

Of course, Asians can definitely play this game -- the "passion" game -- too. What's wrong is to think that *only* SATs and GPAs should count, either as a practical matter or for serving the colleges' own interests.

So you're implying that Asians only have a passion for test taking and studying? You should probably take a look at Cali's UC system. They've had no race based affirmative action or legacy for almost two decades now, but they can take into account anything else about a student including extracurriculars, economic background, and any number of soft factors that you seem to think that Asians systematically lack. Many UCs are over a quarter to a third Asian and some are even majority Asian. I highly doubt that the profile of Asian students that apply to the best UC's are all that different from the Asian students that apply to the Ivies and quasi-Ivies. Please stop spewing your racist garbage.

Do everyone a favor and read the post first, before you spew nonsense about what the post never said. It clearly said Asians can play the passion game too.

Also, public universities rely much more heavily on test scores and GPAs than do private universities nad Ivies. This is well known.

Except there was absolutely no reason to bring up this issue unless it was being used as a justification as to why more Asians are not accepted into Ivies. Just because you are too dim to read between the lines and vague wording like "certain groups" doesn't mean everyone else is.

You've lost the plot completely. Of course we all understood who "certain groups" was referring to. Do everyone a favor and get some reading glasses.

[Anonymous]

So how long do you think my family has to live in the US to claim "native American" status?

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day, the selective private universities are nothing more than business enterprises. They market themselves aggressively to their potential customers, with the Ivies doing it slightly better than most (and a great deal of differentiation within the group itself). Part of their pitch to prospective students, that if you come to our school you will be surrounded by a highly-motivated, interesting and diverse (socio-economic, racial, national origin, religious) group of students, seems to work. This pitch would be diminished if changed to, come to our school and be surrounded by the 1,600 other students with the highest SAT scores. I certainly wouldn't want to go to that school. Year after year, this pitch works for prospective students/parents. Moreover, it works for the people footing the bill - enthusiastic alumni who have given billions to the universities, allowing them to fund their best-in-class financial aid programs.

Don't expect them to change anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, the selective private universities are nothing more than business enterprises. They market themselves aggressively to their potential customers, with the Ivies doing it slightly better than most (and a great deal of differentiation within the group itself). Part of their pitch to prospective students, that if you come to our school you will be surrounded by a highly-motivated, interesting and diverse (socio-economic, racial, national origin, religious) group of students, seems to work. This pitch would be diminished if changed to, come to our school and be surrounded by the 1,600 other students with the highest SAT scores. I certainly wouldn't want to go to that school. Year after year, this pitch works for prospective students/parents. Moreover, it works for the people footing the bill - enthusiastic alumni who have given billions to the universities, allowing them to fund their best-in-class financial aid programs.

Don't expect them to change anytime soon.

I agree. A college class composed of NMSSFs (like me) would be pretty boring, unless many of us had other interests besides the library.

[Anonymous]

Anti-Semitism at the Ivy League schools is an important story to tell. Not sure how it links to some of the assertions made on this board??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People from ivy leagues are not like able?

And you fear that ivies will make your kids unlike able? An ivy would undo all the years of training and work your family did?

You sound foolish.

You really think a school makes people unlike able?

Perhaps you should check your insecurities and small minded generalizations.

When a school tells you time and time again that you are the best of the best, that you are cream of the crop, you start to get a big head. Just like when a parent tells their kid the same thing, the kid gets a big head and is not likable. I have seen that, yes.

What insecurities are you referring to?

Everything we say here is a generalization. People make generalizations all the time. It's how we have a frame of reference and make judgement calls. I'm sure you've done it once or twice in your life.

It is true that I/my classes were repeatedly told that we are the cream of the crop. But ITS TRU

Mandatory military service for all - like we used to have - would change that. Think of the "Greatest Generation." The men and women who fought the Second World War and defeated fascism and then brought the U.S. to the heights of greatness all served. The Ivy Leager stood in the same ranks as the kid from the working class. He learned he was no better or no worse. He was equally capable of taking a bullet for his country as was the working class kid. It should be the same today.

Do you maggots understand that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People from ivy leagues are not like able?

And you fear that ivies will make your kids unlike able? An ivy would undo all the years of training and work your family did?

You sound foolish.

You really think a school makes people unlike able?

Perhaps you should check your insecurities and small minded generalizations.

When a school tells you time and time again that you are the best of the best, that you are cream of the crop, you start to get a big head. Just like when a parent tells their kid the same thing, the kid gets a big head and is not likable. I have seen that, yes.

What insecurities are you referring to?

Everything we say here is a generalization. People make generalizations all the time. It's how we have a frame of reference and make judgement calls. I'm sure you've done it once or twice in your life.

It is true that I/my classes were repeatedly told that we are the cream of the crop. But ITS TRU

Mandatory military service for all - like we used to have - would change that. Think of the "Greatest Generation." The men and women who fought the Second World War and defeated fascism and then brought the U.S. to the heights of greatness all served. The Ivy Leager stood in the same ranks as the kid from the working class. He learned he was no better or no worse. He was equally capable of taking a bullet for his country as was the working class kid. It should be the same today.

Do you maggots understand that?

We had a draft and that just about split the country apart. I agree the greatest generation was the um.. greatest generation, but that was certainly due to other factors besides having served in the military.