Why such an emphasis on holistically building a class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no one, esp a 17/18 yo senior (or if you are DCUM 19/20 yo senior), that gets into a test score only school is picking it over a school that curates a class a la IVY+

Why are DC kids so much older in HS?? 19/20 is wayyyyy too old for HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so everyone isn't the same robot STEM kid.
seriously......

balance. a great American college experience is based on diversity of life experiences, thought, interests, background, majors, etc.

also, it allows them to pick students they KNOW will succeed (get jobs, not drop out, etc)

lastly, holistic admissions allows them to make sure they have students in ALL departments.

But why does this matter? I ask this as a engineering graduate from a large university. They didn't care about a holistic class.

so maybe you weren't at a selective school (yes, i get a selective major)....but a large flagship doesn't care about "holistic" admissions bc their mission is to educate the state's people.

private colleges have different missions.

MIT doesn't care about holistic - they look at academics and athletes. And live to tell the tale

Actually, MIT is very holistic. Not particularly athletic, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. Maybe confused with Stanford. But the MIT Admissions blog is very informative. Obviously, every applicant is a stellar student. But that's just the beginning. It's a very impressive school. All the numbers and stats get you is a serious read. And then it becomes very holistic. It's an impressive school with some really remarkable students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

I don't see how this is a prestige thing. Exposure to peers with a diversity of backgrounds, thoughts, geographies, etc is crucial to an enriching educational experience.

What you are describing is a white people thing. Most minorities have already co-existed in environments diverse in the examples you give. You make it seem so precious and rare. Maybe if you stopped segregating k-12 and making your kids live in your life bubble, they could worry as adults about more important things such as getting the best education they can. Now if you're talking about international students from around the world who have the same academic ability, then sure.

You have no idea what race I am or my kids are or where my kids live or have gone to school but nice try.

Very minority of you to say something like that. Or not. If your kid was already in a diverse environment in k-12, then they wouldn't need to learn how to navigate in one as an adult. And if that's true then that is the parent's fault.
BTW, was that you who ran the PTA at school and was so over the top woke only in those settings and their kids only played with kids that looked like them? Or did you coach or bro around with the coach in my kids' sports teams and gave them little playing time even though they were better than your kid and most of the other kids? Or did you bulldoze your way into the gifted clusters so learning screeched to a halt? Any one example is not specific to you because I don't know you but they represent people like you. You get so offended and take it personally when a statement about minority kids not needing to learn how to experience diversity as adults is blatantly true. Minorities have had to deal with a sense of not belonging and loss all the time and prove that they belonged in white society.

[Anonymous]

Because you are going to have to work with these people in your future.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the whole thread. A few thoughts:

(1) Universities have faculty who are subject matter experts. They’ve done deep research and are truly passionate in their area of study. They are a school asset - and on the payroll in part to teach students. So admissions needs to deliver different types of kids who want to study different things. It’s literally how the university system was designed.

(2) A lot of learning in college happens outside the classroom. Everything from clubs and activities (which can be super time-consuming and sophisticated - the equivalent of a job) to casual conversations in the form or over dinner. So a student is likely to be exposed to so much more if they’re on campus with a diverse group of peers. All the different backgrounds, interests, areas of study, personalities go into the mix, and everyone benefits from new perspectives and ideas.

I was a social science major who loved hearing my pre-med and English major friends talk about what they were studying (stressing about 😂) in between talking about other things. I learned a ton! And I had friends who were first-gen from rural areas, hall mates who went to exclusive boarding schools, and was in a sorority that happened to have a ton of engineers. Again, I learned so much about the world and life, informally, just by hanging out with all of them.

(3) None of this is criticism of a tech-focused school. If that’s what your DC wants, that’s great. But for those of us who wanted to be exposed to people who are studying and interested in all sorts of different things that we ourselves are not, that “balanced class” model is genuinely terrific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so everyone isn't the same robot STEM kid.
seriously......

balance. a great American college experience is based on diversity of life experiences, thought, interests, background, majors, etc.

also, it allows them to pick students they KNOW will succeed (get jobs, not drop out, etc)

lastly, holistic admissions allows them to make sure they have students in ALL departments.

But why does this matter? I ask this as a engineering graduate from a large university. They didn't care about a holistic class.

so maybe you weren't at a selective school (yes, i get a selective major)....but a large flagship doesn't care about "holistic" admissions bc their mission is to educate the state's people.

private colleges have different missions.

MIT doesn't care about holistic - they look at academics and athletes. And live to tell the tale

Actually, MIT is very holistic. Not particularly athletic, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. Maybe confused with Stanford. But the MIT Admissions blog is very informative. Obviously, every applicant is a stellar student. But that's just the beginning. It's a very impressive school. All the numbers and stats get you is a serious read. And then it becomes very holistic. It's an impressive school with some really remarkable students.

+1

All different types of kids. What they have in common is that they’re truly brilliant and astoundingly accomplished, plus they’ve invested heavily in the admissions game (no one gets into MIT without making a significant effort on that piece, too - no matter how brilliant they are.)

But beyond that baseline, the diversity of interests and backgrounds is extraordinary. (For example, I heard the fraternity scene was incredibly fun back in the day. Not huge - just one subset of many at the school. But a genuine scene. Not sure if it is still.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

I don't see how this is a prestige thing. Exposure to peers with a diversity of backgrounds, thoughts, geographies, etc is crucial to an enriching educational experience.

What you are describing is a white people thing. Most minorities have already co-existed in environments diverse in the examples you give. You make it seem so precious and rare. Maybe if you stopped segregating k-12 and making your kids live in your life bubble, they could worry as adults about more important things such as getting the best education they can. Now if you're talking about international students from around the world who have the same academic ability, then sure.

You have no idea what race I am or my kids are or where my kids live or have gone to school but nice try.

Very minority of you to say something like that. Or not. If your kid was already in a diverse environment in k-12, then they wouldn't need to learn how to navigate in one as an adult. And if that's true then that is the parent's fault.
BTW, was that you who ran the PTA at school and was so over the top woke only in those settings and their kids only played with kids that looked like them? Or did you coach or bro around with the coach in my kids' sports teams and gave them little playing time even though they were better than your kid and most of the other kids? Or did you bulldoze your way into the gifted clusters so learning screeched to a halt? Any one example is not specific to you because I don't know you but they represent people like you. You get so offended and take it personally when a statement about minority kids not needing to learn how to experience diversity as adults is blatantly true. Minorities have had to deal with a sense of not belonging and loss all the time and prove that they belonged in white society.

I don't doubt that for many of them. I wasn't offended nor did I take what you said personally. My kids and I are white and they go to a minority-majority high school with over 50% free lunch but go off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

I don't see how this is a prestige thing. Exposure to peers with a diversity of backgrounds, thoughts, geographies, etc is crucial to an enriching educational experience.

What you are describing is a white people thing. Most minorities have already co-existed in environments diverse in the examples you give. You make it seem so precious and rare. Maybe if you stopped segregating k-12 and making your kids live in your life bubble, they could worry as adults about more important things such as getting the best education they can. Now if you're talking about international students from around the world who have the same academic ability, then sure.

You have no idea what race I am or my kids are or where my kids live or have gone to school but nice try.

Very minority of you to say something like that. Or not. If your kid was already in a diverse environment in k-12, then they wouldn't need to learn how to navigate in one as an adult. And if that's true then that is the parent's fault.
BTW, was that you who ran the PTA at school and was so over the top woke only in those settings and their kids only played with kids that looked like them? Or did you coach or bro around with the coach in my kids' sports teams and gave them little playing time even though they were better than your kid and most of the other kids? Or did you bulldoze your way into the gifted clusters so learning screeched to a halt? Any one example is not specific to you because I don't know you but they represent people like you. You get so offended and take it personally when a statement about minority kids not needing to learn how to experience diversity as adults is blatantly true. Minorities have had to deal with a sense of not belonging and loss all the time and prove that they belonged in white society.

DP. My, you have a chip on your shoulder and buy into a lot if conspiracy theory and conjecture. This is fantastical. And a little scary that you are so set to whip up all of these scenarios just because PP make a statement about the value of diversity. She is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so everyone isn't the same robot STEM kid.
seriously......

balance. a great American college experience is based on diversity of life experiences, thought, interests, background, majors, etc.

also, it allows them to pick students they KNOW will succeed (get jobs, not drop out, etc)

lastly, holistic admissions allows them to make sure they have students in ALL departments.

But why does this matter? I ask this as a engineering graduate from a large university. They didn't care about a holistic class.

so maybe you weren't at a selective school (yes, i get a selective major)....but a large flagship doesn't care about "holistic" admissions bc their mission is to educate the state's people.

private colleges have different missions.

MIT doesn't care about holistic - they look at academics and athletes. And live to tell the tale

Actually, MIT is very holistic. Not particularly athletic, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. Maybe confused with Stanford. But the MIT Admissions blog is very informative. Obviously, every applicant is a stellar student. But that's just the beginning. It's a very impressive school. All the numbers and stats get you is a serious read. And then it becomes very holistic. It's an impressive school with some really remarkable students.

Yup. MIT uses holistic admissions practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no one, esp a 17/18 yo senior (or if you are DCUM 19/20 yo senior), that gets into a test score only school is picking it over a school that curates a class a la IVY+

Why are DC kids so much older in HS?? 19/20 is wayyyyy too old for HS.

Im PP, no idea. Hopefully our fellow posters can enlighten us. Assume it is so their mediocre kids do better in school/sports. I think its gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you only have 1500-1700 kids per class like most small elite universities, you want to have an interesting mix. You don't want everyone to be a CS nerd, pre-med, or future consultant.

That's what they say, but the reality is that it means "we want more blacks, we don't want too many Asians". That is the working definition of "interesting".

I mean... black american culture is the most consumed culture in the world by far. :)

In any case, people are sleeping on fact that one result of getting rid of AA will be a huge increase in blk student SAT scores in a few years. And those students will still be just as "interesting" as they are now.

Unclear why this person is still complaining about asian racism, what more do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

I don't see how this is a prestige thing. Exposure to peers with a diversity of backgrounds, thoughts, geographies, etc is crucial to an enriching educational experience.

What you are describing is a white people thing. Most minorities have already co-existed in environments diverse in the examples you give. You make it seem so precious and rare. Maybe if you stopped segregating k-12 and making your kids live in your life bubble, they could worry as adults about more important things such as getting the best education they can. Now if you're talking about international students from around the world who have the same academic ability, then sure.

You have no idea what race I am or my kids are or where my kids live or have gone to school but nice try.

Very minority of you to say something like that. Or not. If your kid was already in a diverse environment in k-12, then they wouldn't need to learn how to navigate in one as an adult. And if that's true then that is the parent's fault.
BTW, was that you who ran the PTA at school and was so over the top woke only in those settings and their kids only played with kids that looked like them? Or did you coach or bro around with the coach in my kids' sports teams and gave them little playing time even though they were better than your kid and most of the other kids? Or did you bulldoze your way into the gifted clusters so learning screeched to a halt? Any one example is not specific to you because I don't know you but they represent people like you. You get so offended and take it personally when a statement about minority kids not needing to learn how to experience diversity as adults is blatantly true. Minorities have had to deal with a sense of not belonging and loss all the time and prove that they belonged in white society.

DP. My, you have a chip on your shoulder and buy into a lot if conspiracy theory and conjecture. This is fantastical. And a little scary that you are so set to whip up all of these scenarios just because PP make a statement about the value of diversity. She is correct.

Not to mention holistic is much more than racial consideration. And it benefits boys too in this day and age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the TO talk makes me wonder - what's the point of creating a specific class to your standards, whatever those standards are? Just a prestige thing?

Holistic = Opaque
Opaque = I can do whatever I want without scrutiny

If everyone that eats hot dogs is educated on what goes in them and actually listens and internalizes the info, they will be outraged and want change. Sales will drop more than 50%. Same sh*t, different context.

[Anonymous]

Studies have consistently shown that diversity leads to success. The more diverse a business, the greater the profitability. This is because diversity brings many different viewpoints and experiences. If you don't believe me, read the article below...

https://online.uncp.edu/degrees/business/mba/general/diversity-and-inclusion-good-for-business/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread. A few thoughts:

(1) Universities have faculty who are subject matter experts. They’ve done deep research and are truly passionate in their area of study. They are a school asset - and on the payroll in part to teach students. So admissions needs to deliver different types of kids who want to study different things. It’s literally how the university system was designed.

(2) A lot of learning in college happens outside the classroom. Everything from clubs and activities (which can be super time-consuming and sophisticated - the equivalent of a job) to casual conversations in the form or over dinner. So a student is likely to be exposed to so much more if they’re on campus with a diverse group of peers. All the different backgrounds, interests, areas of study, personalities go into the mix, and everyone benefits from new perspectives and ideas.

I was a social science major who loved hearing my pre-med and English major friends talk about what they were studying (stressing about 😂) in between talking about other things. I learned a ton! And I had friends who were first-gen from rural areas, hall mates who went to exclusive boarding schools, and was in a sorority that happened to have a ton of engineers. Again, I learned so much about the world and life, informally, just by hanging out with all of them.

(3) None of this is criticism of a tech-focused school. If that’s what your DC wants, that’s great. But for those of us who wanted to be exposed to people who are studying and interested in all sorts of different things that we ourselves are not, that “balanced class” model is genuinely terrific.

this!! if your kid has unique interests, their Why School supp will be SOOOO much better than the robotics or STEM kid - bc they'll actually want to particpate in some of the amazing activities available at the schools....
esp important at T20.

You should NEVER be able to cut and paste a Why School supp - if you do, it means your kid doesn't have much to offer (besides stats) and will FAIL in holistic admissions.