Atlantic article on white athletes getting into Ivies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lower quartile of test scores/grades getting into elite colleges are comprised of athletes, full pays, legacies and URMs.

this is totally false.

Do tell.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-09-08/stop-bashing-harvard-s-legacy-students

A 2010 Harvard study of 30 elite colleges found that "legacy" applicants actually had slightly higher than average SAT scores than the overall pool of applicants. In other words, there is no evidence that elite schools are letting in underqualified kids in order to please their parents, er, donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The folks suing Harvard don't seem bothered by the ways so many academically inferior whites get in. They just don't like the Black and Latino kids.

Just look at the demographics at TJ if there's any doubt about this.

Um, whut? Do you think TJ demographics prove that TJ "just doesn't like" Black and Latino kids?

What TJ demographics prove is that ability to pass the TJ entrance exam and interest in attending TJ is Asian > white > black/Hispanic.

And that the folks at TJ have no problem attending a school with zero diversity.

TJ is 25% white non-Hispanic. So they are 75% diverse, not 0% diverse. (Do you even math?) Yeah, they must hate hate hate diversity! Oh wait, I forgot, Asian diversity is the "wrong" kind of diversity according to white liberal racists, and it doesn't count. Too bad!

75% Asian is not diverse. 75% anything is not diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The folks suing Harvard don't seem bothered by the ways so many academically inferior whites get in. They just don't like the Black and Latino kids.

Just look at the demographics at TJ if there's any doubt about this.

Um, whut? Do you think TJ demographics prove that TJ "just doesn't like" Black and Latino kids?

What TJ demographics prove is that ability to pass the TJ entrance exam and interest in attending TJ is Asian > white > black/Hispanic.

And that the folks at TJ have no problem attending a school with zero diversity.

TJ is 25% white non-Hispanic. So they are 75% diverse, not 0% diverse. (Do you even math?) Yeah, they must hate hate hate diversity! Oh wait, I forgot, Asian diversity is the "wrong" kind of diversity according to white liberal racists, and it doesn't count. Too bad!

DP. How are you defining diversity? How is 75% of one category diverse?

Generally, diversity is defined as having a variety or mix of different types of whatever is being considered. So, if you were counting M&Ms, for instance, and found that 75% of the candies in the bag you just bought were blue and 25% were green, when you were expecting a mix of blue, green, yellow, red, purple, and brown, would you consider that bag of candy to have a diverse mix of colors or a mix that is not as diverse as it could have been?

Cut the shit. You know very well that neither colleges nor TJ defines "diversity" like that. "Diversity" is the Democrat code-word for "black or Hispanic", and they would consider a school with 75% (or even 100%) blacks to be "diverse". Democrats despise Asians as boring grade-grubbers and therefore they don't count for "diversity" purposes.

What? No, that's not true. Diversity means a mix of types, not a majority of one type. Colleges care about having a diversity of students in many categories: race, possibly, but also, interests, family and financial background, culture, geography, possible major. Colleges are looking at lots of categories of diversity and want to put together a class of students who will learn much from the many differences in the students around them.

[Anonymous]

Why are blacks capped at 14%?

If diversity is the paramount goal, why is Harvard rejecting so many urms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The author is overplaying the "only rich kids can afford it" idea. We are not "rich". Far from it, we are upper middle class. We are still spending about $5,000 a year on travel lacrosse. That is well within the reach of parents who earn even significantly less than we do.

and your kid was recruited to an Ivy league school?

Too soon to tell. He's in 6th grade. =)

So very likely you will be paying $12k/yr on sports by HS.

Not sure why lax would be more than twice as expensive then. He's already on a travel team and getting private coaching. Do high school teams go to a lot more tournaments?

Yes. Real tournaments will be on LI and in the North with hotels needed, not the Eastern shore and Baltimore... but he is in middle school that is fine for now.

You will play Fall, Winter (Box) and Summer for your club team... you should travel for 3 in the Fall, 2 in the Winter, and 4-6 in the Summer.

Your HS team (if it does not suck), will play in the Spring have 1 tournament in the Fall and 1-3 in the Summer.

Throw in 1-3 showcases a year between F and Junior year.

Private coaching from a qualified coach will be a minimum of $300/month, are you using a coach or a HS student. But I would only do that off season and not during summer unless you are a goalie. So not 12 months a year.

[Anonymous]

legacies have no talent. Don't pick on the athletes who do.

[Anonymous]

Crew and hockey have been making major outreach in the DC area and they are less expensive than the football and travel basketball teams that a lot of AA kids compete in. When will AA parents understand this? Also, less chance of brain damage in crew!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lower quartile of test scores/grades getting into elite colleges are comprised of athletes, full pays, legacies and URMs.

this is totally false.

Do tell.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-09-08/stop-bashing-harvard-s-legacy-students

A 2010 Harvard study of 30 elite colleges found that "legacy" applicants actually had slightly higher than average SAT scores than the overall pool of applicants. In other words, there is no evidence that elite schools are letting in underqualified kids in order to please their parents, er, donors.

Compared to the entire pool. Try looking at the disparity for admitted students, legacy/non-legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lower quartile of test scores/grades getting into elite colleges are comprised of athletes, full pays, legacies and URMs.

this is totally false.

Do tell.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-09-08/stop-bashing-harvard-s-legacy-students

A 2010 Harvard study of 30 elite colleges found that "legacy" applicants actually had slightly higher than average SAT scores than the overall pool of applicants. In other words, there is no evidence that elite schools are letting in underqualified kids in order to please their parents, er, donors.

Compared to the entire pool. Try looking at the disparity for admitted students, legacy/non-legacy.

You do it. The data speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

So, basically the number of white athletes reflects the percent of whites in the population, and that is a problem. Got it.

Additionally, an athlete brings an actually skill to the university and participates in a sport, which is a pretty objective measure, but that should not count in any way towards evaluating a student's application package.

But we circle back to the number; the number of white athletes is actually below representation of the percent of whites in the US. So essentially, other races are still being over represented. But hey, whites are the problem.

But this is not new information, everyone knows if you are an athlete, you get a boost to get accepted, no matter the school. May even get scholarships all the way up to a full ride. And schools in predominately white areas have a high percent of whites? No duh, just like schools in areas with a larger percent of blacks or any race have more of said race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, basically the number of white athletes reflects the percent of whites in the population, and that is a problem. Got it.

Additionally, an athlete brings an actually skill to the university and participates in a sport, which is a pretty objective measure, but that should not count in any way towards evaluating a student's application package.

But we circle back to the number; the number of white athletes is actually below representation of the percent of whites in the US. So essentially, other races are still being over represented. But hey, whites are the problem.

But this is not new information, everyone knows if you are an athlete, you get a boost to get accepted, no matter the school. May even get scholarships all the way up to a full ride. And schools in predominately white areas have a high percent of whites? No duh, just like schools in areas with a larger percent of blacks or any race have more of said race.

Exactly.

Some folks should use a bit more that organ contained within the cranium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, basically the number of white athletes reflects the percent of whites in the population, and that is a problem. Got it.

Additionally, an athlete brings an actually skill to the university and participates in a sport, which is a pretty objective measure, but that should not count in any way towards evaluating a student's application package.

But we circle back to the number; the number of white athletes is actually below representation of the percent of whites in the US. So essentially, other races are still being over represented. But hey, whites are the problem.

But this is not new information, everyone knows if you are an athlete, you get a boost to get accepted, no matter the school. May even get scholarships all the way up to a full ride. And schools in predominately white areas have a high percent of whites? No duh, just like schools in areas with a larger percent of blacks or any race have more of said race.

Exactly.

Some folks should use a bit more that organ contained within the cranium.

+1 how do these people get out of bed in the morning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD is a swimmer and a high school senior who has been going through the recruiting process, with Ivy league and flagship public colleges. As she met with coaches and teams we noticed that the Ivies teams have a significant number of Asian student on their rosters.

As a swim mom I would attest to my personal observation that over the 8-10 years DD has been swimming competitively in the Mid-Atlantic region that there are an increasing number of Asian parents in the stands and swimmers competing. For the record I think diversity is always welcome. My point is that I think Asian students who aspire to the Ivy league are pursuing all the paths to enrollment, including sports.

As ppl have mentioned that Ivy teams need to have a minimum academic average across the team. DD ended up going with the flagship program over the Ivy bc she is deeply committed to her swimming and the flagship is a top 15 program nationally. The Ivy she did not choose announced an Asian swimmer with comparable times in the same events as DD. My point is the Asian students are not there with mediocre times and good GPAs. These kids excel in the pool.

swimming, tennis, fencing... yes we know... Asians.

Lots of Asians on top lacrosse teams too. My DD is at [i]Holton (ranked high school top 20 team[/i][b]) and many of our starting players are Asian with commitments to Ivies and similar. We also had a Stanford commit last year who was AA. All of these girls, and their white teammates, are excellent students and qualified for Ivy/NESCAC schools both academically and athletically which is why they are sought after. And Holton is not alone of course (it's just more diverse on the lacrosse front). Other top schools in this area have the same thing going on with girls' lacrosse, I think that's why college coaches tend to come back to the same high school programs when looking for athletes. Either way, having seen the process students go through when seeking offers to play at a high level, I don't think it's the easy path that this article suggests.

Pfffftt. Holton has been ranked nationally in the top 20 for one year, last year. Holton parents are so ridiculous. Cant stop themselves from bragging. Let’s see what happens this Spring when you have no goalie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The folks suing Harvard don't seem bothered by the ways so many academically inferior whites get in. They just don't like the Black and Latino kids.

Just look at the demographics at TJ if there's any doubt about this.

Um, whut? Do you think TJ demographics prove that TJ "just doesn't like" Black and Latino kids?

What TJ demographics prove is that ability to pass the TJ entrance exam and interest in attending TJ is Asian > white > black/Hispanic.

And that the folks at TJ have no problem attending a school with zero diversity.

TJ is 25% white non-Hispanic. So they are 75% diverse, not 0% diverse. (Do you even math?) Yeah, they must hate hate hate diversity! Oh wait, I forgot, Asian diversity is the "wrong" kind of diversity according to white liberal racists, and it doesn't count. Too bad!

DP. How are you defining diversity? How is 75% of one category diverse?

Generally, diversity is defined as having a variety or mix of different types of whatever is being considered. So, if you were counting M&Ms, for instance, and found that 75% of the candies in the bag you just bought were blue and 25% were green, when you were expecting a mix of blue, green, yellow, red, purple, and brown, would you consider that bag of candy to have a diverse mix of colors or a mix that is not as diverse as it could have been?

Cut the shit. You know very well that neither colleges nor TJ defines "diversity" like that. "Diversity" is the Democrat code-word for "black or Hispanic", and they would consider a school with 75% (or even 100%) blacks to be "diverse". Democrats despise Asians as boring grade-grubbers and therefore they don't count for "diversity" purposes.

What? No, that's not true. Diversity means a mix of types, not a majority of one type. Colleges care about having a diversity of students in many categories: race, possibly, but also, interests, family and financial background, culture, geography, possible major. Colleges are looking at lots of categories of diversity and want to put together a class of students who will learn much from the many differences in the students around them.

The truth is always very simple. An institution could be a perfect mix of diverse backgrounds but if there isn't a single black student, it's not properly diverse. That is simply the way the world is today. I'm not casting it in a morally right or morally wrong light, but diversity really is a code word for having enough African Americans. Even Hispanics don't quite fall into the same category.

I have never found the Ivy schools particularly diverse no matter the different skin colors you may find on campus. They are remarkably homogeneous places dominated by a particular groupthink. They're not truly diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The folks suing Harvard don't seem bothered by the ways so many academically inferior whites get in. They just don't like the Black and Latino kids.

Just look at the demographics at TJ if there's any doubt about this.

Um, whut? Do you think TJ demographics prove that TJ "just doesn't like" Black and Latino kids?

What TJ demographics prove is that ability to pass the TJ entrance exam and interest in attending TJ is Asian > white > black/Hispanic.

And that the folks at TJ have no problem attending a school with zero diversity.

TJ is 25% white non-Hispanic. So they are 75% diverse, not 0% diverse. (Do you even math?) Yeah, they must hate hate hate diversity! Oh wait, I forgot, Asian diversity is the "wrong" kind of diversity according to white liberal racists, and it doesn't count. Too bad!

75% Asian is not diverse. 75% anything is not diverse.

Do you know how many skin colors countries cultures and languages Asia represents? 75% asia means nothing by itself - list out people by their skin color mother tongue tribal gene pool socioeconomic story and professional / family context and you will see that 75% asian is a lot of diversity especially at TJ